Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties–Certified Faculty: A Survey of United States Colleges of Pharmacy

Prevalence and Value of Board Certification Among Pharmacy Practice Faculty in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of board certification among pharmacy practice faculty in the United States, motivators and barriers to certification, and association between board certification and professional achievements and accomplishments that may support career advancement.

METHODS

In phase I, the prevalence of board-certified pharmacy practice faculty in the United States was determined by cross-referencing lists of faculty and board-certified pharmacists. In phase II, faculty were stratified by rank and invited to participate in a survey regarding professional characteristics, motivators and barriers to board certification, and professional achievements and accomplishments that may support career advancement for pharmacy practice faculty.

RESULTS

The prevalence of board certification among the 3276 pharmacy practice faculty was 56%. The prevalence was the highest among assistant professors (61%). A total of 746 faculty completed the survey (33% response rate). Of those respondents, 73% reported being currently certified, 23% never certified, and 4% previously certified. Overall, to be recognized as an expert in the field was identified as the most commonly perceived reason faculty obtain board certification (44%). Currently and previously certified faculty ranked the desire to be recognized as an expert in the field as the most common reason they obtained board certification (61%). There was a positive correlation between board certification and certain professional accomplishments.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of board-certified pharmacy practice faculty has increased since 2011, but motivators and barriers for board certification remain similar. Board certification may support career advancement for pharmacy practice faculty.

Prevalence of and factors that influence board certification among pharmacy practice faculty at United States colleges and schools of pharmacy

Board certification is a means of demonstrating expertise above the minimum licensing standards. For many health care professionals, this credential is a necessity. As pharmacists become involved in more advanced patient care services, board certification becomes an essential component to ensuring quality care. The prevalence of United States pharmacy practice faculty members who are board certified, however, is unknown. In addition, to our knowledge, factors that serve to motivate or discourage faculty from obtaining board certification have not been previously described; thus, 900 pharmacy practice faculty members listed in the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) online directory were invited to complete an online survey regarding motivators and barriers for board certification. In addition, a list of board-certified pharmacists, obtained from the Board of Pharmacy Specialties, was used to check the board certification status of all pharmacy practice faculty members listed in the AACP directory. In 2011, the prevalence of board certification among the 2867 pharmacy practice faculty members was 37% (1063 pharmacists), with the highest prevalence found among assistant professors (39.4%). A total of 322 faculty members (36% response rate) completed the survey; of these, 308 self-identified as pharmacy practice faculty, and their responses were included in the analysis. Current board certification in pharmacy specialties was reported by 163 respondents (52.9%); 14 (4.5%) were previously certified. Among the 308 respondents, the most common perceived reason why pharmacy practice faculty become board certified was the desire to be recognized as an expert in the field (71.5%). Those who were currently board certified indicated personal growth as the most important reason (60.1%). Those previously certified indicated no perceived benefit as the most common reason for not recertifying (71.4%). Among those never certified, no perceived need (52.0%) or benefit (44.8%) were the most common reasons for not becoming certified; however, a majority of those never certified (68%) stated that they would become board certified if there was no associated cost and they were confident they would pass. To increase the prevalence of board certification in pharmacy practice faculty at U.S. schools and colleges of pharmacy, the benefits of this credential must be addressed at each institution. Steps should be taken to assist and encourage board certification.

Education, postgraduate training, board certification, and experience requirements in advertisements for clinical faculty positions

OBJECTIVES

To compare requirements for pharmacy practice faculty positions in advertisements from 2002 through 2006 to those reported from 1990 through 1994.

METHODS

Positions advertised from January 2002 through December 2006 in 3 newsletters and journals were evaluated for required or preferred degree, completion of residencies and/or fellowships, years of work experience, board certification, and other postgraduate training and education. Advertisements were separated by tenure-eligibility and rank.

RESULTS

Of 426 advertisements for faculty members, 77% required additional training, including residencies and fellowships or their equivalent in experience. Board certification was required in only 0.9% but preferred in 11%. Advertisements for tenure-eligible positions did not have more extensive requirements than nontenured, nor did upper vs. lower rank.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to 1996, the number of advertisements requiring postgraduate training to secure a faculty position almost doubled. Whether the qualifications of faculty members recruited match the requirements is unknown.

Value of Board Certification in the Hospital Setting: A Survey of Academic and Nonacademic Medical Centers

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the current attitudes toward pharmacist specialty board certification in an array of hospital practice settings as perceived by directors of pharmacy (DOP) and to identify incentives available to pharmacists to become board certified.

Methods

A seven-question survey was developed that assessed demographic information along with information regarding overall value of board certification in the view of the institution. The types of incentives provided to become a board-certified pharmacist were also evaluated. The survey was administered via the Internet to 295 DOPs within two large listserves, the University HealthSystem Consortium and Pharmacy Systems, Inc. Responses were collected for a total of 4 weeks, with a reminder e-mail sent 2 weeks after survey distribution to encourage survey completion.

Results

A total of 85 DOPs completed the survey. Academic institutions (AIs) had a higher percentage of board-certified pharmacists versus nonacademic institutions (NAIs) (26% vs 6%, P < 0.001). DOPs at AIs placed a higher value on board certification than DOPs at NAIs (93% vs 39%, P < 0.001). AIs were nearly eight times more likely to provide at least one incentive to become board certified compared to NAIs (odds ratio, 7.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.18 to 52.5; P = 0.033).

Conclusions

This investigation demonstrates a lack of dissemination of the benefits of board certification into NAIs. Efforts should be increased to show the value of specialty board certification outside the arena of AIs.

Enhanced pharmacy services, barriers and facilitators in Australia's community pharmacies: Australia's National Pharmacy Database Project

Objective

To report the frequency of 27 enhanced pharmacy services (EPS) provided in Australia's community pharmacies and to analyse barriers and facilitators for providing priority services. Setting A large representative sample of community pharmacies in Australia in 2002.

Method

Questionnaires were mailed to owners or managers of a stratified, representative sample of Australia's community pharmacies; 1131of 1391 consenting pharmacies responded (81.3%). Specifically trained staff, fees charged, structural and other components and plan to introduce EPS were analysed. The barriers and facilitators for all EPS were rated by a Likert scale. Logistic regression models tested for predictors for providing one or more EPS and those related to Australia's National Health Priorities.

Key findings

Eighty-eight per cent of Australia's community pharmacies offered ≥1 EPS. More than 40% offered EPS for asthma, diabetes, methadone, herbal medicines, hypertension and wound care. Pharmacies with higher turnover (odds ratio (OR), 1.90; 99% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05–3.42) and younger owners (OR for age, 0.69; 99% CI = 0.48–0.99) were predictors for providing ≥1 EPS. Higher turnover was a predictor for diabetes care. Enclosed counselling area was a predictor for hypertension care. Owners and managers committed to continuing education was a predictor for diabetes and hyperlipidaemia services. Significant barriers perceived were lack of confidence for diabetes care and not being regarded as ‘part of the job’ for asthma, diabetes, hypertension and weight-management services.

Conclusion

The percentages of pharmacies in Australia that provided equivalent EPS were similar or higher than the UK, New Zealand and USA. The frequency of existing and planned EPS appeared disproportionately low to satisfy national health priorities. Significant barriers and facilitators and pharmacy characteristics for providing EPS were identified. The results assist national bodies to increase the uptake of EPS by pharmacies.

Board certification of pharmacy residency program directors

PURPOSE

A survey was conducted of residency program directors (RPDs) to identify the extent of their Board of Pharmaceutical Specialties (BPS) certification and their motivations and incentives to obtain certification, to determine the number of RPDs who meet the new American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) post-graduate year 2 (PGY2) residency standard for board certification, and to investigate the relationships between RPDs' characteristics and BPS certification.

METHODS

A 35-item, electronic questionnaire was developed to obtain data on the type of residency program or geographic setting and the RPD's practice setting, job title, faculty rank, education and training, length of practice, length of time served as an RPD, and certifications obtained.

RESULTS

Of 717 surveys, 327 were completed. More than one third of all RPDs were currently BPS certified compared with a 30% RPD certification rate according to the BPS directory. A higher percentage of PGY2 RPDs were BPS certified overall compared with PGY1 RPDs. Eighty-two RPDs had completed an ASHP-accredited specialized residency program and were more likely to be BPS certified.

CONCLUSION

In a survey of RPDs, more than one third of the respondents were BPS certified; professional and personal development was the most common motivation to earn certification. New pharmacy residency accreditation standards did not appear to be an important motivator for certification. Of the RPDs who will require board certification with the new standards, 71% already met the requirement. RPDs who practiced in academia or focused on critical care were more likely to be certified than those with training or positions in community practice or practice management.

The critical care clinical pharmacist: evolution of an essential team member

OBJECTIVE

To review the history, training requirements, contributions to patient care outcomes, and workforce issues of critical care pharmacists.

DATA SOURCE AND SELECTION

Literature obtained through Medline search with manual cross-referencing.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Original and selected review articles and guideline documents were reviewed for references to critical care pharmacists and their role on the multiprofessional critical care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care pharmacists are recognized as essential members of the critical care team as a result of contributions to medication safety, improved patient outcomes, and reduced drug costs and as a source of drug information and provider of education. A growing number of pharmacists practice in critical care. Additional opportunities exist and can be met if an adequate supply of trained specialists can be developed.