Search

Purpose The purpose of this reflection or wisdom of experience article is to describe and reflect on the impacts of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on experiential education (EE) leadership and teams. Additionally, this reflection will shift the focus from the spring 2020 environment of SARS-CoV-2 to what EE teams and college administration can learn from those experiences. Moving forward, EE teams and administrators can be better equipped to proactively plan for future emergencies. Description Using the “What? So What? Now What?” model of reflection, this manuscript will broadly describe the experiences of three EE administrators and their teams during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Proposed lessons learned as well as future planning strategies will be presented. Analysis/Interpretation The world of education was unprepared for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and most sectors were left scrambling to adjust to new models very quickly with no planning or preparation. In the realm of pharmacy education, SARS-CoV-2 caused complete disruption for pharmacy students on rotations, clinical sites, preceptors, and EE teams. In reflecting on spring 2020, much can be gained and applied to future planning efforts so that institutions can be better prepared for future crises. Conclusions/Implications While still in the pandemic, schools must plan for the coming year. EE teams can work together to prepare for emergencies, craft contingency plans, and build additional capacity into their teams and available rotation offerings.

Purpose Present the research performed to identify and describe habits of effective pharmacy preceptors and provide a framework for targeted preceptor assessment and development. Methods A 5-round Delphi consensus-building process was used to refine the initial Habits of Preceptors Rubric (HOP-R) developed by the research team. Twenty experts in pharmacy experiential education participated. During the Delphi process, feedback and agreement on all parts of the HOP-R were sought, including the premise, introductory content, framework, preceptor domains, habits, habit level descriptions, and continuous professional development (CPD) plan. After each Delphi round, the research team grouped responses into themes and modified the draft rubric accordingly. These themes were used to frame the response document sent to the expert panel for the following Delphi round; this document explained modifications made to the HOP-R. Consensus was defined as a mean score of ≥3.25 on a 4-point scale (4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) for posed statements or ≥70% agreement for ranked items. Results In the final Delphi round (response rate, 95%), consensus was achieved for all HOP-R individual structural and content elements except the habit level descriptors, for which a secondary rank order analysis was performed. The final HOP-R has 3 domains encompassing 11 preceptor habits that can be displayed across 4 habit levels progressing from developing to master. Conclusion The HOP-R was developed to assess, quantify, and demonstrate growth across a wide variety of pharmacy preceptor habits. Potential utility includes use as a framework to articulate the knowledge, skills, and behaviors of effective preceptors, facilitate the creation of individualized CPD plans, and assess the impact of participation in teaching and learning curricula.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of clevidipine (CLV) versus sodium nitroprusside (SNP) for the treatment of hypertension (HTN) in postoperative cardiac surgery patients at a community hospital. Methods This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included cardiac surgery patients treated with CLV or SNP for postoperative systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the mean number of times the SBP rose above 140 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes included a comparative cost analysis and a safety analysis. Results Forty patients were included in each arm. Patients who received CLV had a higher incidence of SBP readings greater than 140 mm Hg ( p < .05). There were no differences in safety outcomes, number of patients who received as-needed (PRN) antihypertensives, or mean number of PRN antihypertensives required. There were differences in infusion duration (22.4 hours CLV vs 15.6 hours SNP; p = .035), number of infusions dispensed (2.8 CLV vs 1.3 SNP; p = .001), and length of hospital stay (12.33 days CLV vs 7.65 days SNP; p = .013). However, CLV was less expensive based on the AWP cost at the time of review. Conclusions Although a difference in blood pressure control was seen between CLV and SNP, the safety profiles were similar between the 2 drugs. In addition, CLV remained less expensive than SNP for postoperative BP control.