Search

Objective. To compare performance outcomes of students completing a longitudinal pharmacy practice experience at a single site with those of students completing advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs) at a variety of practice sites. Methods. Performance data and other meaningful outcomes from a cohort of students completing a six-month experience within a single health system (longitudinal group) were compared to data from a group of students completing six months of similar APPEs at multiple health systems (control group). Results. Motivators for participating in the longitudinal program varied, with students in the program identifying practice interest alignment, schedule simplification, and desire to do a residency; and students choosing to not participate in identifying schedule flexibility and experience at a variety of practice sites. The 16 longitudinal students differed from the 20 control students at baseline in grade point average and the number of scheduled community pharmacy APPEs. Performance measures for longitudinal students and control students did not differ significantly, but the difference between students' self-perceived effort and preceptor perception of student effort was significantly different for control students compared to longitudinal students. Residency match rates and number of students receiving recognition for high academic performance were similar in the two groups. Conclusion. Students participating in the longitudinal program had different motivators but comparable outcomes to students who completed similar APPEs at a variety of practice sites., (© 2019 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.)

Objective. To characterize and determine the quality of the student experience in an attending pharmacist model (APM). Methods. In-depth interviews were conducted with students completing an advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) at two general medicine services using the APM over a 2-year time period. Quantitative information about student learning and interprofessional interactions were extracted from student evaluations of the site. Data from the mixed model were analyzed to identify strengths of the APM and areas needing improvement. Results. Strengths of the APM included positive student interaction with the pharmacy resident and more students reporting full integration in and accountability to the interprofessional team for patient outcomes compared to students in non-teaching models. A few students at one site reported a need for greater delineation of expectations, more initial support from preceptors, and initial responsibility for fewer patients. These factors were modified before the second APM year and subsequent reports from students at this site were uniformly positive. Students at the second site did not note areas needing improvement. The APM increased student capacity at both sites. Conclusion. The attending pharmacist model provided a high quality learning experience for students, particularly with regard to integration into and accountability for patient outcomes to the interprofessional team. Qualitative research methods enabled precise detection of areas needing improvement at one site and confirmed that changes made at that site improved the student experience.

Objective: To identify specific preceptor teaching-coaching, role modeling, and facilitating behaviors valued by pharmacy students and to develop measures of those behaviors that can be used for an experiential education quality assurance program., Methods: Using a qualitative research approach, we conducted a thematic analysis of student comments about excellent preceptors to identify behaviors exhibited by those preceptors. Identified behaviors were sorted according to the preceptor's role as role model, teacher/coach, or learning facilitator; measurable descriptors for each behavior were then developed., Results: Data analysis resulted in identification of 15 measurable behavior themes, the most frequent being: having an interest in student learning and success, making time for students, and displaying a positive preceptor attitude. Measureable descriptors were developed for 5 role-modeling behaviors, 6 teaching-coaching behaviors, and 4 facilitating behaviors., Conclusion: Preceptors may need to be evaluated in their separate roles as teacher-coach, role model, and learning facilitator. The developed measures in this report could be used in site quality evaluation.

Objective: To determine how colleges and schools of pharmacy interpreted the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education's (ACPE's) Standards 2007 definitions for core advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs), and how they differentiated community and institutional practice activities for introductory pharmacy practice experiences (IPPEs) and APPEs., Methods: A cross-sectional, qualitative, thematic analysis was done of survey data obtained from experiential education directors in US colleges and schools of pharmacy. Open-ended responses to invited descriptions of the 4 core APPEs were analyzed using grounded theory to determine common themes. Type of college or school of pharmacy (private vs public) and size of program were compared., Results: Seventy-one schools (72%) with active APPE programs at the time of the survey responded. Lack of strong frequent themes describing specific activities for the acute care/general medicine core APPE indicated that most respondents agreed on the setting (hospital or inpatient) but the student experience remained highly variable. Themes were relatively consistent between public and private institutions, but there were differences across programs of varying size., Conclusion: Inconsistencies existed in how colleges and schools of pharmacy defined the core APPEs as required by ACPE. More specific descriptions of core APPEs would help to standardize the core practice experiences across institutions and provide an opportunity for quality benchmarking.