Brenda S. Bray

Using Human Patient Simulation to Prepare Student Pharmacists to Manage Medical Emergencies in an Ambulatory Setting

Objective. To implement a simulation-based educational experience focused on medical emergencies in an ambulatory pharmacy setting. Design. Second-year student pharmacists were assigned randomly to groups and played the role of pharmacists in a community pharmacy setting in which a simulated patient experienced 1 of 5 emergency scenarios: medication-related allergic reaction, acute asthma attack, hypoglycemia, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The students were expected to use patient assessment techniques to determine which emergency the simulated patient was experiencing and the appropriate intervention. Following each simulation, a debriefing session was conducted. Assessment. Eighty-two student pharmacists completed the simulation activity. Ninety-three percent of student groups correctly identified the emergency. A post-activity survey instrument was administered, and 83% of responders indicated this activity was effective or very effective. Conclusion. Simulation of emergencies seen in an ambulatory pharmacy setting allowed students to assert knowledge, practice communication skills, apply assessment techniques, and work as a team in a low-risk environment.

Use of Simulation-based Teaching Methodologies in US Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy

Objectives. To characterize the use of high-fidelity mannequins and standardized patients in US pharmacy colleges and schools. Methods. A survey instrument was sent to 105 doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) programs to collect data on the use of simulation and to identify barriers to using simulation-based teaching methods. Results. Eighty-eight colleges and schools completed the survey instrument (response rate 84%). Of these, 14 did not use high-fidelity mannequins or standardized patients within the curriculum. Top barriers were logistical constraints and high resource cost. Twenty-three colleges and schools used simulation for introductory pharmacy practice experiences (IPPEs), 34 for interprofessional education, and 68 for evaluation of at least 1 core competency prior to advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). Conclusions. Although the majority of US colleges and schools of pharmacy use simulation-based teaching methodologies to some extent in the pharmacy curricula, the role of simulation in IPPEs, interprofessional education, and assessment of competency-based skills could be expanded.

Impact of Participation on a Solid Organ Transplant Team on Student Pharmacists’ Perceptions of Interprofessional Roles

Objective. To examine student pharmacists’ perceptions of interprofessional roles before and after completing an advanced pharmacy practice experience on solid organ transplantation. Methods. Student pharmacists across the United States participating in an APPE on a solid organ transplant team completed an online pre- and post-APPE survey instrument examining perceptions of interprofessional roles, communication, and teamwork. Results. Student pharmacists’ scores on interprofessionalism increased significantly on 17 of 22 items. Positive changes were seen in the interprofessional education core competency areas of roles and responsibilities, interprofessional communication, and teams and teamwork. Conclusion. Student pharmacist participation in interprofessional clinical APPEs can positively influence their professional development as they prepare to become members of multi-disciplinary teams in the healthcare workforce.

Implementation and Use of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment at US Schools of Pharmacy.

Objective. To describe how schools and colleges of pharmacy use the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) in relation to student assessment and curricular feedback. Methods. A survey was distributed to all programs that have implemented the PCOA. The survey was designed to assess 3 domains regarding the use of the PCOA: rationale for use, logistics of administration, and performance data review and distribution. Results. A 79% response rate (41/52) was obtained. The mix of responses was 93% current PCOA users and 7% past users. The most common reasons for PCOA use were for programmatic assessment and benchmarking. The examination was most frequently administered during the P3 year, with minimal stakes attached to performance. Significant differences in responses based on public vs private institution were seen with respect to length of accreditation of current PCOA users, messaging to students regarding performance, inclusion of results in student advising, and distribution of results to stakeholders. Conclusion. Programs were using the PCOA primarily as an assessment in the P3 year for reasons related to programmatic and curricular assessment. Some differences existed between public and private institutional PCOA use and examination-related processes and results distribution.