Methods for assessing the acquisition of pharmaceutical care skills among students and pharmacists: a scoping review

Abstract Introduction Competency-based education is central to preparing health professionals for complex, patient-centered practice. In clinical pharmacy, assessing medication-related care competencies remains challenging due to a lack of standardized frameworks adaptable to digital learning environments. This scoping review mapped competency assessment methods across healthcare disciplines, evaluated reported validation approaches, and identified tools adaptable to clinical pharmacy education and independent, asynchronous e-learning. Methods Following PRISMA-ScR and JBI guidelines, a scoping review was conducted from January to April 2025 across PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and SciELO without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies described or validated assessment tools targeting competencies aligned with the Association Nationale des Enseignants de Pharmacie Clinique (ANEPC) framework, which were evaluated in or adaptable to e-learning environments. Data on study design, tool characteristics, targeted competencies, validation approaches, and psychometric reliability were extracted and synthesized qualitatively. Tool adaptability to digital environments was categorized into clear tiers, explicitly distinguishing empirical evidence from author-inferred proposed applications. Results From 3,625 records, 34 studies met inclusion criteria. Most originated in medicine (53.0%), with 76.5% published from 2017 onwards; only five (14.7%) focused specifically on pharmacy. Assessed domains included communication, evidence-based medicine (EBM), clinical reasoning, and problem-solving. Primary methods comprised Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), EBM instruments, clinical reasoning tests, and structured rating scales. Validation evidence varied substantially; Cronbach’s alpha was the most common reliability indicator, whereas evidence for response processes, consequences of testing, and longitudinal validity was sparse. Qualitative synthesis revealed that written, structured tools offered high adaptability for asynchronous digital delivery, whereas performance-based methods requiring standardized patients or live examiners demonstrated moderate adaptability without digital modifications. Conclusions Competency assessment methods across health professions are diverse but supported by heterogeneous validity evidence. Although several tools offer a stronger potential for adaptation to clinical pharmacy and asynchronous e-learning, findings from other disciplines cannot be assumed valid for pharmaceutical care. Adapting these instruments requires rigorous content, contextual, and psychometric validation within pharmacy cohorts. This review provides an evidence map to guide the development of a standardized, pharmacy-specific competency assessment framework.