2020 SHPA Virtual Congress
Gathering the profession in a year like no other, the 2020 SHPA Virtual Congress features a dynamic two-day program showcasing the latest in pharmacy practice, clinical pearls from across the practice spectrum and focused sessions reflecting on 2020 and the hot topics of COVID-19 and Aged Care.
Registration includes access to all live Congress sessions, along with online access to all contributed papers and posters, and the 2020 SHPA Virtual Congress Book of Abstracts in a fully integrated digital flipbook.
Be inspired by orations from the recipients of the prestigious SHPA Awards, including the 2020 Fred J Boyd Award, and share in moments of celebration for the popular-vote winners of the 2020 Members’ Awards, new SHPA Fellow inductees and 2020 SHPA Resident of the Year.
Please note, program times are listed in AEDT
All registration categories include:
- Access to the live content on Saturday 21 & Sunday 22 November
- Presentations will be available online following the Congress
- Access to electronic poster display
All fees are listed in AUD and include GST. Registration payments via electronic funds transfer will close on Friday 6 November.
|SHPA Member: intern/technician||$95.00|
|NZHPA Member: intern/technician||$120.00|
*Refers to a pharmacy student, being an individual studying BPharm or MPharm at a tertiary education institution in Australia approved by the Pharmacy Board of Australia which leads to registration to practice pharmacy in Australia.
Online registration has now closed. If you would like to attend, please contact email@example.com for assistance prior to 4:00pm Friday 20 November 2020 AEDT.
Abstract submissions for the 2020 SHPA Virtual Congress have now closed.
Abstract submission and review criteria
Abstract submissions that do not conform will be excluded from consideration. Abstracts will ONLY be accepted via the online abstract submission portal.
Selection of oral and poster presentations is dependent on the abstract content and adherence to the abstract submission criteria.
All successful contributed paper and poster presenters must register and pay to attend the full congress.
- Abstracts should describe work that has not previously been presented at a previous SHPA National conference or event (publication or presentation of the work at another conference is not a criterion for exclusion).
- Abstracts must be no more than 300 words in length, including headings and references but excluding the title.
- The abstract title should be brief (no more than 15 words in length) and clearly state the nature of the work.
- Author details (including institutions, affiliations or other identifying information) MUST NOT appear in the abstract.
- No tables, graphs, pictures or diagrams are permitted in the abstract.
- Abbreviations should be avoided where possible. Any abbreviations used should be spelled out in full on first use.
- Statistical results should conform with the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html).
- References are not required but may be included. References should follow the reference citation guide at https://www.shpa.org.au/resources/reference-citation-guide
For the 2020 SHPA Virtual Congress, abstracts are welcomed for the following three categories. Each category has specific headings which must be used for the abstract.
Original research (includes Clinical Research, Drug Use Evaluations, Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, Pharmacoeconomic Analysis, etc.)
Background: should briefly describe the rationale for the study.
Aim/Objective(s): a one sentence statement of the main study objective(s).
Methods: should include study design, methods, intervention.
Results: a summary of the main results including any relevant statistical analysis.
Conclusion(s): the main conclusion and interpretation of the results which are supported by the data provided.
Objective: briefly describe the rationale for the case report.
Clinical Features: relevant demographic information, medical history, presenting problems and diagnoses.
Literature review: briefly examine current literature relating to or surrounding the case report.
Pharmacist Interventions, Case Progress and Outcomes: these may be presented together or separately and should detail the pharmacist’s role in the case.
Conclusion(s): outlining lessons learnt and/or implications/importance of the case report to pharmacy practitioners.
Pharmacy practice (includes Administration Projects, Health Professional Education, Medication Safety Initiatives, etc.)
Background: the background section should briefly describe background and rationale for service, program, problem, need, etc.
Description: the description section should describe the concept, service, role, or situation.
Action: the action section should describe the steps taken to identify and resolve a problem(s), implement change, or develop and implement the new program.
Evaluation: the evaluation should describe the evaluation process of the project and results of evaluation.
Implications: the implications section should describe the concept’s importance and usefulness to current and/or future practice.
Abstract submission information
All abstracts must be submitted electronically via the abstract submission portal.
You will be asked to enter the presenting author’s contact details, affiliation information, abstract title, proposed type of presentation (oral or poster), author(s), and brief biographical details of the presenting author.
If submitting more than one abstract, each abstract must be submitted under the name of the presenting author.
The presenting author is invited to indicate their preference for oral or poster presentation only (or either). However, the final decision is that of the 2020 SHPA Virtual Congress management team and will be solely determined by the quality and suitability of the abstract.
Ensure all authors have reviewed the abstract(s) and agreed to its submission.
You will be asked to select up to a maximum of three (3) specialty practice areas that relate to your abstract from the following list:
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health
- Clinical trials
- Compounding services
- Critical care
- Dispensing and distribution
- Education and educational visiting
- Electronic medication management
- Emergency medicine
- General medicine
- Geriatric medicine
- Infectious diseases
- Leadership and management
- Medical specialties (other than already listed)
- Medication Safety
- Medicines information
- Mental health
- Oncology and haematology
- Paediatrics and neonatology
- Pain management
- Palliative care
- Rural and remote
- Surgery and perioperative medicine
- Technician and assistants
- Transitions of care and primary care
- Women’s and newborn healthAbstract review criteria
Criteria 1: Clarity of writing (includes adherence to the abstract preparation guidelines)
Unacceptable (1): The abstract is completely disorganised or jumbled and is difficult to comprehend.
Fair (2): The abstract makes sense, but the sentences are not well structured, or the language could be more concise and there are more than a few typos.
Good (3): The research / case study / practice is described in general terms and the language of the abstract is clear.
Excellent (4): The research / case / practice is clearly described, and the abstract is concise and well written using appropriate scientific language.
Criteria 2: Innovation / novel practice
Unacceptable (1): The research / case / practice outlined in the abstract is not new or novel and has been described multiple times before.
Fair (2): The abstract outlines a somewhat novel topic or a new spin on previously seen work.
Good (3): The research / case / practice outlined in the abstract is original or novel but is not fully realised in the abstract.
Excellent (4): The abstract describes a completely innovative or novel piece of work / topic which is of the utmost interest.
Criteria 3: Significance / Impact / Relevance to clinical practice
Unacceptable (1): The work described in the abstract has no or minimal impact on clinical practice.
Fair (2): The research / case / practice outlined in the abstract makes some reference to the practitioner’s role and the impact to clinical practice but is not explicit or is only applicable in the one setting.
Good (3): The work described in the abstract is a good example of how the practitioner is involved in practice and has widespread applicability.
Excellent (4): The work described in the abstract shows how the practitioner is leading practice and/or collaborating with other health professionals to maximise impact on patient care.
Criteria 4: Methodology (Research abstracts and Pharmacy Practice)
Unacceptable (1): No aim or objective. Methods are unclear and there are no or limited results.
Fair (2): The aim/objective is unclear. The methods and results are present but are incomplete and/or superficial.
Good (3): The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective and the methods and results align with the aim.
Excellent (4): The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective which the method accurately tests. Results are comprehensive and align with the aim.
Criteria 4: Importance of the case (Case report abstracts)
Unacceptable (1): There is no, or limited information presented about the patient and case. The case is of little interest.
Fair (2): The case reported is not well described and is of little interest or relevance to pharmacy practice.
Good (3): The case reported contains all relevant details and includes the practitioner’s role in the outcome or resolution.
Excellent (4): The abstract comprehensively outlines all relevant details of the case and the practitioner’s role and provides important lessons for clinical practice.
2020 SHPA Virtual Congress Gold Supporters
2020 SHPA Virtual Congress
2020 SHPA Virtual Congress