Evaluation of interactive teaching strategies and learning outcomes on the topic of kidney pharmacotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Students' knowledge retention decreases overtime when experiencing large-group teaching. Engaging class activities improve student learning. We report the rapid changes in teaching methods and measurable learning outcomes on the topic of kidney pharmacotherapy (KP) in a doctor of pharmacy program.

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND SETTING

The KP modules were delivered using two different methods, traditional lecture (TL) (in-person class) and interactive strategies of online learning (ISOL), to fourth-year pharmacy students during the academic years 2019 and 2020, respectively. This study aimed to compare the learning outcomes from TL and ISOL examinations. Students' perceptions regarding their new learning experiences were also explored.

FINDINGS

A total of 226 students were included in the study (TL, n = 118; ISOL, n = 108). The median percentage of the overall score from the ISOL examinations was higher than that achieved by the TL class (73% vs. 67%, P = .003). Further analyses revealed similar improvements in most learning outcomes and cognitive domains. A higher proportion of students taught through ISOL achieved scores >80% than those in the TL group (39% vs. 16%, P < .001). The student respondents provided positive feedback regarding activities in the ISOL cohort.

SUMMARY

The delivery of online KP when integrated with interactive strategies can maintain the outcome-based learning in Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University. Approaches that aid student engagement during teaching and learning become opportunities for the improvement of education adaptability.

Entrustable professional activities for pharmacy students: A primer for solid organ transplant preceptors

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles , AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

The role of a solid organ transplant pharmacist is multifaceted and translates to diverse experiential and elective learning experiences that can be provided to pharmacy learners. Here we provide a guide to integrating pharmacy students into patient care and other pharmacist activities in solid organ transplantation.

SUMMARY

Thoughtful incorporation of learners into clinical practice and clinical research creates a positive learning environment for pharmacy students that can foster the development of core skills necessary for students to become "practice-ready" and "team-ready" pharmacy graduates and can equip them with valuable skills to incorporate into the specialty practice areas and careers they pursue. To help develop these educational experiences, attention to the list of core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) established by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy can help create a rich environment of learning with carefully cultivated tasks. Furthermore, learners can serve as transplant pharmacist extenders to assist in overall patient care and multidisciplinary involvement on the transplant team. This article serves as a "how-to" guide for applying the EPA framework to integrating pharmacy students in patient care and other pharmacist activities in solid organ transplantation and other specialty practice areas.

CONCLUSION

As pharmacy preceptors design and operationalize their teaching to incorporate EPAs, they can benefit from recommendations tailored to specialty practice areas such as solid organ transplantation. Students may start and finish these experiences at different EPA levels, but continuance of training will allow them to achieve the final EPA level across the 6 EPA domains.

Impact of a Layered Learning Practice Model on Delivery of Clinical Pharmacy Key Performance Indicators under a Tertiary Care Centre Oncology Service

BACKGROUND

The layered learning practice model (LLPM), within which a pharmacist supervises both a pharmacy resident and a student, mitigates the growing demand for clinical rotations that has accompanied national expansion of Doctor of Pharmacy programs. A Canadian collaborative of hospital pharmacists established consensus on 8 clinical pharmacy key performance indicators (cpKPIs), activities associated with improved patient outcomes. Increased implementation of the LLPM alongside cpKPI measurement offers opportunities to compare the LLPM with standard practice in terms of pharmaceutical care delivery.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify clinical productivity, as measured by proportions of eligible patients receiving cpKPIs and absolute numbers of completed cpKPIs, across scenarios involving pharmacists working with and without pharmacy learners.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, pharmacy students, pharmacy residents, and pharmacists recorded completion of 7 cpKPIs for oncology inpatients over a total of 6 months in 2017 and 2018. Clinical productivity was described across the following 3 scenarios: presence of one or more pharmacists with one resident and one or more students (P-R-S); presence of one or more pharmacists with one or more students (P-S); and presence of one or more pharmacists only (P; standard practice).

RESULTS

During the study, there were 685 recorded admissions to the inpatient oncology service. Generally, the proportions of patients who received cpKPIs were similar for scenarios with and without pharmacy learners present. Standardized to 20 pharmacist workdays, the total number of cpKPIs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (255 with P-R-S scenario, 281 with P-S scenario, and 258 with P scenario) and the total number of drug therapy problems resolved (i.e., cpKPI 3; 153 with P-R-S scenario, 180 with P-S scenario, and 149 with P scenario) were similar across the scenarios. Scenario P had fewer admitted patients per pharmacist workday (3.2) than scenarios P-S and P-R-S (3.4 and 3.7, respectively), which may have contributed to a trend toward greater proportions of patients receiving cpKPIs under scenario P.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with standard practice, integration of pharmacy learners within an oncology unit did not appear to impair clinical productivity, as demonstrated by the comparable proportions of patients receiving cpKPIs and the total number of completed cpKPIs.