Tricia M. Berry

Asthma Friendly Pharmacies: A Model to Improve Communication and Collaboration among Pharmacists, Patients, and Healthcare Providers

Pharmacists, with expertise in optimizing drug therapy outcomes, are valuable components of the healthcare team and are becoming increasingly involved in public health efforts. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in diverse community pharmacy settings can implement a variety of asthma interventions when they are brief, supported by appropriate tools, and integrated into the workflow. The Asthma Friendly Pharmacy (AFP) model addresses the challenges of providing patient-focused care in a community pharmacy setting by offering education to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians on asthma-related pharmaceutical care services, such as identifying or resolving medication-related problems; educating patients about asthma and medication-related concepts; improving communication and strengthening relationships between pharmacists, patients, and other healthcare providers; and establishing higher expectations for the pharmacist’s role in patient care and public health efforts. This article describes the feasibility of the model in an urban community pharmacy setting and documents the interventions and communication activities promoted through the AFP model.

Comparison of Patient Simulation Methods Used in a Physical Assessment Course

Objective. To determine whether there is a difference in student pharmacists’ learning or satisfaction when standardized patients or manikins are used to teach physical assessment. Design. Third-year student pharmacists were randomized to learn physical assessment (cardiac and pulmonary examinations) using either a standardized patient or a manikin. Assessment. Performance scores on the final examination and satisfaction with the learning method were compared between groups. Eighty and 74 student pharmacists completed the cardiac and pulmonary examinations, respectively. There was no difference in performance scores between student pharmacists who were trained using manikins vs standardized patients (93.8% vs. 93.5%, p=0.81). Student pharmacists who were trained using manikins indicated that they would have probably learned to perform cardiac and pulmonary examinations better had they been taught using standardized patients (p<0.001) and that they were less satisfied with their method of learning (p=0.04). Conclusions. Training using standardized patients and manikins are equally effective methods of learning physical assessment, but student pharmacists preferred using standardized patients.

Design and Validation of Patient-Centered Communication Tools (PaCT) to Measure Students' Communication Skills

Objective. To develop a comprehensive instrument specific to student pharmacist-patient communication skills, and to determine face, content, construct, concurrent, and predictive validity and reliability of the instrument. Methods. A multi-step approach was used to create and validate an instrument, including the use of external experts for face and content validity, students for construct validity, comparisons to other rubrics for concurrent validity, comparisons to other coursework for predictive validity, and extensive reliability and inter-rater reliability testing with trained faculty assessors. Results. Patient-centered Communication Tools (PaCT) achieved face and content validity and performed well with multiple correlation tests with significant findings for reliability testing and when compared to an alternate rubric. Conclusion. PaCT is a useful instrument for assessing student pharmacist communication skills with patients.