Accreditation Assessment Process

1
AACP January 2019
The Accreditation Assessment Process – Hints and Tips for Candidates
What are the markers looking for?
There are five broad areas that the markers use to assess case study answers. Each of these areas
have performance criteria associated with them which are listed at the end of this document in table
format. The performance criteria describe the overall evidence from which your competency is
assessed. The marker will be looking to see that you have demonstrated evidence of your
competency in each of these areas:
1. Ability to identify gaps in the information available & suggest methods for obtaining that
information from an appropriate source
2. Ability to identify actual, suspected or potential drug- and disease-related problems,
relevant to the individual patient
3. Appropriate level of clinical judgment and skills to provide prioritised recommendations
to GP resulting from medication review
4. Appropriate knowledge and use of references to support decision making
5. Appropriate written communication skills and language in a letter or report to the GP.
Question 1 of the case studies asks: What further information would assist in making your
assessment of this patient. Explain reasons for obtaining this information. Who/where would you
obtain this information? Here are some tips:
• Read the case closely – is there information missing about medication management (e.g. if
half a tablet is being taken does the patient have a tablet cutter?). To assess compliance –
would a dispensing history help?
• Consider the sources of information that might be available to you e.g. the patient, carer,
pharmacy, GP surgery. The marker will be looking to see that you sought information that is
specific to the patient in the case – not a list of generalised questions.
• Does the patient have any concerns/issues that are not being managed or that might be
related to medicines?
• Is information missing that might be useful for specific conditions e.g. swallowing ability in
patient who has had a stroke, or caffeine intake in patient with insomnia.
• Do you have access to the relevant information to decide if the patient is being well
controlled including recent laboratory test results? If you need more results, be specific
about what you need and the reasons why you need them.
Question 2 of the case studies asks: Based on the information provided, identify potential and actual
medication-related and disease related problems, and patient concerns. Suggest how these could be
addressed and/or monitored. Here are some thoughts for consideration:
2
AACP January 2019
• The marker will be looking to see that you have a process for identifying potential issues and
that you apply advanced pharmaceutical and therapeutic knowledge to consideration of
whether medication use is indicated, appropriate, safe and effective.
• In your answer to this question, you need to demonstrate your clinical knowledge to the
marker
• What is the effectiveness of the medication/s and the risks vs benefits to the patient?
• Is the patient’s compliance/adherence a problem?
• What is the appropriateness of the dose, frequency and duration of use of each medication?
• Are there potential drug interactions (and if so are they clinically significant)?
• Are there any drug/disease interactions?
• Are any patient symptoms present that could be related to adverse drug reaction/s?
• Is there any discrepancy between what is being taken and what has been prescribed?
• Referencing your answer to this question is important. These references should be inserted
at the conclusion of your answer to question 2. Refer to the AACP Reference Guide.
Question 3 of the case studies requires you to Write a letter or report to the doctor, outlining your
key findings for this patient and your suggestions or recommendations to the prescriber. To do this
effectively you should:
• Use your assessments of medication related issues and patient concerns from Question 2 to
form the basis of your letter. You need to demonstrate your judgement when you decide
what information should be included in the report and what could be left out.
• If the patient is currently unwell it would be prudent to telephone the GP – please indicate
to the marker if you would do this (this can be a “note to assessor” and would be reflected in
your written report also).
• Your report needs to be patient focused and it should list any concerns the patient might
have with symptoms, (and whether any medications might be contributing to these
symptoms) and how they are coping with their medications.
• Make sure you prioritise the issues according to your clinical judgement – as a rule of thumb
address patient concerns and/or reason for referral as your priorities– please identify what
you think are high and low priorities (and why) in question 2.
• Offer supported recommendations using appropriate communication and language
• Do not diagnose. Ensure that your discussion describes medication related issues and
patient concerns. Overall management of chronic conditions and triaging of patients to
other health professionals is the role of the GP and if addressed at all in your report requires
great tact.
3
AACP January 2019
• Make sure that the letter is coherent and that spelling is correct (in particular it looks
unprofessional if medications, patient names or the GP name is incorrect). Use the approved
name of each medication with the brand name in brackets if appropriate.
• Make use of headings, paragraphs – there is no required format but ensure that you include
a list of medications that the patient is actually taking so that the GP can reconcile your list
with their referral list of medicines.
• Ensure you add a disclaimer to your letter.
References to the report are only required if you mention something that is new, controversial
or that you feel the GP might want to verify. Do not reference information the GP already knows
• Make sure your letter or report to the GP can be read and interpreted in isolation to your
answers to questions 1 and 2. You should provide a compelling patient-focussed, evidencebased reason/s for changes to the patient’s medication regimen.
References
References are your ‘tools of the trade’ for medication review services and are the basis of your
credibility. You are required to provide references in order for AACP to assure that you have
appropriate resources available that are independent, credible and respected by GPs when
undertaking reviews–consider using NPS MedicineWise publications, Australian Prescriber, relevant
National Guidelines, TGA Medication Safety Updates (all available online).
• Use relevant, up-to-date references that are interpreted correctly and that will justify your
recommendations
• Use references that a GP is familiar with or has access to such as those listed above and
AMH, Therapeutic Guidelines.
Please refer to Reference Guide available from the Resources page on the AACP web site before
attempting the case study (log in required).
AACP sample case studies
Make sure you carefully read the HMR and RMMR sample cases on the AACP website before
attempting your first case study. These samples provide an indication of what you need to include in
your answer.
Also available on the website are four voice over power point presentations (VOPs) of Clinical Case
Study Preparation Guides. These VOPs have been designed to assist candidates as they complete the
case study component of the AACP accreditation process. They each provide an overview of an
appropriate answer to an AACP case study, discuss some of the common issues encountered when
completing the case studies and illustrate different ways of addressing the case study questions.
Mentor Support
AACP mentors are trained, experienced, practising, accredited pharmacists who are available to
assist candidates as they proceed through the case study component of the accreditation
assessment.
You will need to negotiate the fee for this service with your mentor, and also the time frame for the
review of your case study.
4
AACP January 2019
The names and contact details of the AACP mentors are available on the AACP website in the Stage
Two Assessment Process Resources section (login required)
MMR Case Study Marking Assessment Sheet
For each case that you submit you will be provided with an assessment sheet. The marker will
provide you with formative feedback but will usually only document examples (not in every
instance) of areas where improvements are required to meet the relevant competencies.
The assessment sheet is reproduced below.
5
AACP January 2019
MMR CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT MARKING SHEET

Candidate MRN:
CASE STUDY number:
First attempt Resubmission Other
Initial HMR
HMR2
RMMR1
RMMR2

Candidates please note:
• Your assessment rating for each performance criteria has been assessed
based on the following:

Consistently Consistently demonstrates the expected standard of practice with
very rare lapses
Usually Demonstrates the expected standard of practice with occasional
lapses
Sometimes Demonstrates the expected standard of practice less than half of
the time – much more haphazard than “Usually”
Rarely Very rarely meets the standard expected. No logical thought
process appears to apply

• Competence requires “Consistently” or “Usually” to be obtained for all
performance criteria.
• This MMR case study assessment marking sheet will be used to mark both
initial and resubmitted case studies. Should a candidate’s initial case study be
assessed “Not yet competent” the resubmitted case study will be marked on
the same marking sheet using the resubmit boxes.
Assessor’s comment:
6
AACP January 2019
1. Demonstrate ability to identify gaps in the information available & suggest
methods for obtaining that information from an appropriate source

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
First Resubmit
1.1. Obtains additional relevant clinical information through
consultation with consumers and/or carers or other
health professionals (with consumer consent).
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
1.2. Uses relevant information sources to clarify or confirm
information, or meet additional information needs.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
1.3. Identifies factors likely to adversely affect adherence to
intended medication treatment regimen.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
FORMATIVE FEEDBACK:
Resubmission:

7
AACP January 2019
2. Demonstrate ability to identify actual, suspected or potential drug- and diseaserelated problems, relevant to individual patient

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
First Resubmit
2.1. Understands the pathophysiology and required monitoring
of the consumer’s medical condition/diseases. Considers
the appropriateness of the current medication treatment in
the context of consumer and drug factors.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
2.2. Applies evidence-based resources, treatment guidelines or
protocols to assess the medication treatment regimen.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
2.3. Identifies clinically significant potential or actual
medication- related problems in the current medication
treatment regimen.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
2.4. Understands the pharmacological and/or therapeutic basis
for use of medicines and the therapeutic goals to be
achieved.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
FORMATIVE FEEDBACK:
Resubmission:

8
AACP January 2019
3. Demonstrate appropriate level of clinical judgment and skills to provide
prioritised recommendations to GP resulting from medication review of patient

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
First Resubmit
3.1. Participates in assessment of whether medication
treatment is achieving therapeutic goals/outcomes.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
3.2. Assesses treatment options and formulates evidence
based recommendations for changes to medication
management that, where appropriate, are informed by
laboratory tests or investigations.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
3.3. Uses professional judgment to determine whether
changes in the medication treatment regimen are
warranted in the interest of improved safety or efficacy.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
3.4. Prioritises the care needs of consumers.Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
FORMATIVE FEEDBACK:
Resubmission:

9
AACP January 2019
4. Demonstrate appropriate knowledge and use of references to support decisionmaking

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
First Resubmit
4.1. Ensures information resources are sufficient and
appropriate for the types of information usually
requested/provided.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
4.2. Applies a standardised referencing technique to link
information to the evidence base.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
FORMATIVE FEEDBACK:
Resubmission:

10
AACP January 2019
5. Demonstrate appropriate written communication skills and language in a letter
or report to the GP

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT
First Resubmit
5.1. Develops a report that formalises medication management
recommendations (including calculated doses and dosing
frequency) and the evidence base from which they were
developed. Communicates recommendations to the
consumer/carer, prescribers, other health
professionals/facility personnel, as appropriate.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
5.2. Ensures communication is appropriate to the audience and
the material.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
5.3. Expresses thoughts and ideas clearly, consistently and
unambiguously.
Consistently
Usually
Sometimes
Rarely
FORMATIVE FEEDBACK:
Resubmission:

11
AACP January 2019
OVERALL ASSESSMENT

First attempt
COMPETENT* NOT YET
COMPETENT
Assessor’s COMMENTS
Resubmission
COMPETENT* NOT YET
COMPETENT
Assessor’s COMMENTS
Other
COMPETENT* NOT YET
COMPETENT
Assessor’s COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *