Drug Interaction Analysis

Proof required

Submit your interaction reference document (minimum 30 interactions across all four categories). Include your primary reference source (BNF, Stockley's, or equivalent).

What gets checked

• All four interaction categories are populated — not weighted entirely toward the common-in-practice category.
• Each entry includes mechanism type, clinical consequence, severity, and monitoring approach — partial entries don't count.
• High-risk category includes at least 6 interactions involving narrow therapeutic index drugs.

Common mistakes

• Reference that lists interactions without mechanism type — copying a drug interaction checker output without understanding.
• High-risk category omitted or underpopulated — NTI drug interactions are the most clinically significant.
• Severity not distinguished — 'avoid combination' and 'monitor' have different clinical implications.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the student to explain the mechanism of one CYP enzyme interaction from their reference.
• Check that NTI drug interactions are present in the high-risk category.
• Ask what 'monitor' means for a specific interaction — they should be able to name what to monitor and how often.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit 5 case analyses (1 page each). Include the case vignette source (published or provided by trainer). Each analysis should list all identified interactions, classify them, and state the monitoring or management consideration. A brief note on which case was hardest and why.

What gets checked

• All significant interactions in each case are identified — not just the most obvious.
• Each interaction is classified using your reference system from Milestone 1 — not just labelled 'significant' or 'not significant'.
• Monitoring considerations are specific (e.g. 'INR monitoring weekly for 4 weeks after starting amiodarone') not vague ('monitor the patient').

Common mistakes

• Identifying only the interactions from drug interaction checkers — cases may contain interactions requiring pharmacokinetic reasoning beyond what a checker flags.
• Monitoring considerations that are copied from the BNF without adaptation to the specific case — the case context should inform the monitoring plan.
• Analysing only the high-risk interactions and ignoring moderate interactions.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the student to walk through the interactions in one case from their analysis — they should be able to explain each classification.
• Ask what the most clinically consequential interaction was across all 5 cases and why.
• Check that monitoring considerations are specific enough to be actionable.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit a written session record countersigned by the examiner: date, duration, examiner credentials, cases discussed, and explicit pass/not-yet-pass assessment including one sentence on the quality of your novel-case analysis.

What gets checked

• Examiner is a registered pharmacist (GPhC registration) or prescriber — not a fellow student.
• Novel case was presented by the examiner, not chosen by the student — tests genuine reasoning, not prepared content.
• Examiner assessment addresses specifically the novel-case performance, not just the prepared presentation.

Common mistakes

• Using only the prepared cases without a novel case element — the examiner must introduce a scenario not in the prepared analyses.
• Examiner without prescribing or pharmacy credentials.
• Monitoring recommendations in the novel case that are copied from the BNF without application to the specific case context.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify GPhC registration number of the examiner.
• Confirm a novel case was presented (not drawn from the student's submitted analyses).
• Ask what the most significant interaction in the novel case was and whether the student identified it correctly.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.