Development and Evaluation of a Clinical Psychopharmacology Educational Curriculum

Authors

  • Dr. Claudio A. Naranjo MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Departments of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Psychopharmacology Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    2. Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Psychopharmacology Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Dr. Richard W. Shulman MDCM, FRCP(C),

    1. Medicine, University of Toronto, Psychopharmacology Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Dr. Vural Özdemir MD, MSc

    1. Departments of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Psychopharmacology Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    2. Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Psychopharmacology Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
    Search for more papers by this author

Psychopharmacology Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room F327, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.

Abstract

Clinical psychopharmacology training at the University of Toronto (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) was in need of improvement. The authors developed and evaluated a Clinical Psychopharmacology Educational Curriculum to complement the education provided to trainees and staff. The program consisted of journal clubs, case rounds, and didactic research tutorials and lectures. The program was attended by staff, fellows, psychiatry residents, graduate pharmacology students, medical students, and pharmacists. No course credit or continuing medical education credits were offered for participating in the program. The program ran for two academic years (September 1994-June 1996). Anonymous evaluation forms were collected after the sessions. These evaluated content, presentation style, and educational value, each on a scale from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent). Ratings for each component of the curriculum were close to excellent. The case rounds were rated slightly better for presentation style and educational value. Positive ratings suggest that similar efforts, particularly using case-based methods, should be developed in other teaching hospitals contingent on availability of qualified faculty and funding.

Ancillary