Search

Objective. To identify common practices for measuring quality of experiential education (EE) programs at US schools and colleges of pharmacy. Methods. In-depth, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with directors of experiential education or their equivalent, to identify elements of quality assurance (QA) processes for EE. To ensure representativeness from all fully accredited programs, purposeful sampling was used for participant solicitation and enrollment until both code and meaning saturation were reached. Participants were asked questions in six domain areas (preceptor and student performance, site quality, role of site visits, coursework, and achievement of learning outcomes). An iterative data coding and analysis process identified themes and notable practices within each domain area. Results. Interviews were conducted with representatives of 29 programs. All participants reported evaluating preceptor performance. Fewer participants identified a deliberate site assessment process, with most equating preceptor and site evaluation. Participants conducted site visits primarily to assess site quality and maintain relationships with preceptors. Few participants were able to provide details of a process used for evaluating experiential education coursework and student outcomes. All participants used student performance assessments to measure the quality of student performance. Overall, participants almost universally reported collecting data, less frequently described processes for data evaluation, and rarely shared outcomes arising from data collection and analysis. Conclusion. Themes and notable practices identified in this study provide initial benchmarks for QA programs for EE and will inform content and metrics of subsequent follow-up studies. A six-step process for QA for EE is proposed.

Objective. To identify common components of inpatient general medicine advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs) across sites, determine which components were important to standardize, and distinguish a benchmark of each component that would indicate standardization. Methods. In-depth interviews about the student experience were conducted with two students and one or more preceptors at each of 12 inpatient general medicine sites in the greater Seattle metropolitan area. Data from transcribed interviews were analyzed, then collapsed into a single spreadsheet for comparison. Overall themes for component groups were identified and components within each theme tested for importance in overall quality of the student experience. Components important for quality of the student experience were deemed "key components" and component metrics were developed for benchmarking. Results. Three themes were essential in the quality of the learning experience at inpatient general medicine sites: welcoming of the student by the preceptors, integration of the student into the site, and student interaction with patients and other health care providers. Key components to be standardized across sites were a structured orientation, written site-specific student guidelines and performance expectations, regular and meaningful student-preceptor interactions, identified performance competency standards, clear delineation of student patient care load and responsibilities, and daily interactions with patients and other health care providers. Conclusion. Qualitative evidence from sites can be used to identify key components to standardize across practice sites offering the same experiential course. These key components aid in the welcoming of the student to the site, integration of the student into the workflow, and daily opportunities for the student to interact with patients and with health care providers.

Objective. To design an experiential education curriculum that sequentially and deliberately prepares community pharmacy-bound graduates to practice at the level of the care provider and display the skills needed to be a pharmacist-in-charge. Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pharmacy stakeholders. Transcriptions from the interviews were analyzed to identify common themes in needed community pharmacy training for core and elective advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). The themes were used to distinguish key elements of a community pharmacy experiential education curriculum that would meet the project objective. Results. Forty-two individuals were interviewed: 11 were interviewed individually and 31 in focus groups, with each group comprising two to six individuals. There were 11 focus groups. Theme analysis allowed differentiation of activities and performance levels for the community pharmacy introductory pharmacy practice experience (IPPE) and the core APPE as well as the goal of the core APPE for all program graduates. Participants identified two important elective APPEs for students planning to practice in community pharmacy after graduation: an advanced patient care experience and a management experience. Participants emphasized the importance of sequencing the core and advanced elective APPEs so that the advanced electives could build upon the skills demonstrated in the core APPE. Participants identified knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for practice-readiness upon graduation. Conclusion. The identified experiential education curriculum for students planning to practice in the community pharmacy setting upon graduation will prepare them to provide care to complex community-dwelling patients and function as a pharmacist-in-charge in this setting.

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 describe best practices, necessary resources, and success or lessons learned from established consortia in pharmacy education. Methods. Using semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis, interviews with members of established consortia in pharmacy education were conducted until saturation was reached. Themes were analyzed and meaningful descriptions of consortia characteristics were developed using systematic text condensation. Results. Thirteen interviews were conducted. The primary purpose for forming a consortium was identified as threefold: share ideas/best practices; facilitate collaboration; and perform shared problem-solving. For experiential education consortia, two additional purposes were found: share capacity for practice sites, and promote standardization across programs. When investigating best practices for established consortia, three main themes were identified. These included strategies for: (1) relationship building within consortia, (2) successful outcomes of consortia, and (3) sustainability. Successful outcomes included scholarship and, sometimes, program standardization. Sustainability was linked to structure/support and momentum. Respect was considered the foundation for collaborative relationships to flourish in these consortia. Conclusions. Pharmacy education consortia form through a process that involves relationship building to produce outcomes that promote sustainability, which benefits both pharmacy schools and individual faculty members. Consortium formation is a viable, productive, and often necessary institutional goal for pharmacy schools.