Evaluation of an interactive education workshop on hospital pharmacists’ ethical reasoning: an observational study

Abstract Background Pharmacists are often faced with scenarios in practice that require application of ethical reasoning and decision-making skills. There is limited research on the ethical decision-making processes of hospital pharmacists. Pharmacists who are compassionate and put the interests of their patients first are thought to positively impact on patient care, but there are often complex health-care system pressures in the hospital setting that cause pharmacists to behave in ways that may conflict with professional values and behaviours. This multisite study aimed to evaluate an interactive education workshop on hospital pharmacists’ ethical reasoning skills and explore the need for ongoing training and support. Methods This mixed-methods study was carried out across two health services including three hospitals. It incorporated a pre-workshop survey, a feedback survey immediately post-workshop and a third survey four weeks after the workshop. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital pharmacists at least four weeks after the ethics workshop. Results In total, 32 participants completed the pre-workshop survey, nominating peers/colleagues as the most common source of support they would consult to inform ethical decision-making (17/118 sources of support). Almost all ( n = 31/33; 94%) strongly agreed/agreed that the education session provided them with ethical reasoning skills and a process/framework which they could use when faced with an ethical issue. Pre- and post-survey responses showed increased self-confidence in identifying the regulatory frameworks applicable to pharmacy privacy requirements ( p = 0.011) and ethical issues applicable to pharmacy privacy requirements ( p = 0.002), as well as applying ethical reasoning to scenarios that involve pharmacy privacy dilemmas/issues ( p = 0.004). Participants’ self confidence in knowing where to find support when faced with clinical and non-clinical ethics questions was improved ( p = 0.002 and p = 0.003 respectively). Participants supported the introduction of quarterly ethics cafes after the workshop, compared to before the workshop ( p = 0.001). Conclusion Hospital pharmacists rely on discussions with colleagues to brainstorm how to address ethical issues. This study showed that a targeted interactive education workshop facilitated familiarity with ethics resources and decision-making processes. It also demonstrated that this approach could be used to enhance hospital pharmacists’ readiness, confidence, and capabilities to recognise and respond to challenging ethical issues.