Harold L. Kirschenbaum

The Current Status of Pharmacist-Manned DICs in the United States

The purpose of this article is to communicate current information concerning the status, availability, and scopc of activities of pharmacist-manned drug (medicinal) information centers in the United States (DICs), mainly to provide this data to health professionals who may wish to avail themselves of such services. It is gencrally recognized that one of the deficiencies in the health care system is the unavailability of adequate information for those who prescribe, dispense and administer drugs. Busy clinicians find it impossible to stay abreast of all advances being made every day in drug therapy. This deficiency has resulted in inappropriate drug use and an unacceptable frequency of drug-induced disease. A survey of 19,314 physicians for the Food and Drug Administrations Bureau of Drugs, the largest survey of its type in the United States to date, was conducted to determine the drug information needs, lacks, practices, preferences, and opinions of prescribers. Computer and telephone links to consultants from a university generated the highest level of interest (an estimated 68 per cent of all physicians) as a new source of drug information. I I t appears that the practicing health professional must learn to depend less on a personal individualistic approach to maintaining professional sophistication about drug therapy, and learn to rely on resources that

Assessment of Full-time Faculty Preceptors By Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico

Objective. To identify the manner in which colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico assess full-time faculty preceptors. Methods. Directors of pharmacy practice (or equivalent title) were invited to complete an online, self-administered questionnaire. Results. Seventy of the 75 respondents (93.3%) confirmed that their college or school assessed full-time pharmacy faculty members based on activities related to precepting students at a practice site. The most commonly reported assessment components were summative student evaluations (98.5%), type of professional service provided (92.3%), scholarly accomplishments (86.2%), and community service (72.3%). Approximately 42% of respondents indicated that a letter of evaluation provided by a site-based supervisor was included in their assessment process. Some colleges and schools also conducted onsite assessment of faculty members. Conclusions. Most colleges and schools of pharmacy assess full-time faculty-member preceptors via summative student assessments, although other strategies are used. Given the important role of preceptors in ensuring students are prepared for pharmacy practice, colleges and schools of pharmacy should review their assessment strategies for full-time faculty preceptors, keeping in mind the methodologies used by other institutions.