Engaging faculty advisors to promote students' personal and professional development.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: With the increasing emphasis on personal and professional development in pharmacy curricula, programs often need to enhance or modify existing resources to meet standards. A major initiative of developing a consistent and standardized student advising process involving both clinical and non-clinical faculty as advisors to promote development of pharmacy students was an avenue taken at our institution. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Faculty were identified as ideal individuals to assist in mentoring and assessing students' personal and professional development given the long-term relationships they develop with students throughout both the didactic and experiential curriculum. Development and implementation of a longitudinal faculty advising program incorporating elements of student self-assessment, reflection, and faculty-based objective assessment is described. FINDINGS: We found both students and faculty benefited from this advising program in different ways, with students feeling more supported and faculty feeling more engaged and informed about the pharmacy curricula and student career-pathways. SUMMARY: A faculty advising program, as described in this article, can be utilized for both student success and faculty development in the pharmacy education setting.

Evaluation of an Instrument to Assess Students' Personal and Professional Development During the Faculty Advising Process.

Objective. To evaluate a tool designed to assess Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students' personal and professional development prior to beginning advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs).Methods. A five-item instrument, entitled the Faculty Advisor's Assessment of the Advisee (FAAA) tool, was developed to assess and monitor pharmacy students' progress over the three-year didactic curriculum. Question anchors were created to describe characteristics exhibited by the student that matched categories of not engaged, beginning, emerging, or engaged. Possible FAAA composite scores ranged from 7 to 20. Using the FAAA tool, faculty advisors assessed their advisees' values, engagement, self-awareness, professionalism, and leadership in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Individual and aggregate cohort reports were run and data for each of the three years were matched with students. To determine if the FAAA showed progression in assessed dimensions in the students during the first, second, and third professional (P1, P2, and P3) years, a Friedman test was performed. Cronbach alpha was used to assess the reliability of the instrument.Results. The data of 93 students were matched for the P1 through the P3 years. Median (IQR) for the FAAA composite score levels for the P1, P2, and P3 were 13 (12-16), 17 (15-19) and 18 (16-20), respectively. Significant differences existed at all timepoints compared, including from the P1 to P2, P2 to P3, and P1 to P3 years. The reliability of the FAAA scale was strong across all three years (winter 2017, α=0.87; winter 2018, α=0.89; and winter 2019, α=0.87). All items appeared worthy of retention as removal did not significantly increase their reliability.Conclusion. A five-item tool which assesses pharmacy students' personal and professional development during the first three years of a PharmD program could be used by faculty advisors to assess student's progress across the didactic curriculum.

Feasibility of Interprofessional Education in a Community Pharmacy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate student learning, preceptor opinions, and feasibility of conducting interprofessional education in a community pharmacy. METHODS: Six pharmacy and 6 physician assistant students from 2 universities were paired to practice together in a community pharmacy for 1 day and clinic or emergency department for 1 day. Investigator-developed surveys were completed anonymously by students and preceptors. Students self-assessed learning and team attitudes. Preceptors evaluated team functioning and provided feedback. Students and preceptors attended separate focus groups to discuss their experiences. RESULTS: Students reported improved understanding of discipline-specific roles. Students stated shared learning would improve future ability to work on a team (n = 9), helped with understanding patients' clinical problems (n = 8), and improved professional communications (n = 8). Students thought teams avoided healthcare delivery errors (n = 12), improved patient care (n = 11), increased efficiency (n = 8), and increased interventions (n = 7) compared to solo practice. Some students (n = 6) felt preceptors did not provide enough feedback. Students and preceptors stated the project should be continued. Students suggested improving orientation by including team functioning expectations and insuring patient availability for medication therapy management reviews. Preceptors wanted more training on providing team feedback and thought the experience should be longer to accommodate physician assistant student orientation to pharmacy operations. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional education in a community pharmacy was feasible and resulted in students learning about discipline roles, team functioning, and team care. Additional training and orientation for both students and preceptors are needed. More than 1 day at each practice site is needed to enhance interprofessional learning and skills.

Using community pharmacies and team observed structured clinical encounters (TOSCEs) for interprofessional education and training.

INTRODUCTION: Collaborative practice improves patient outcomes and is a needed student skill. An interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP) program was developed using community pharmacies, clinics, and emergency departments. This study's purpose was to assess student pharmacists' team attitudes and skill development after the IPECP using team observed structured clinical encounters (TOSCEs). METHODS: Nineteen pairs of fourth-year pharmacy and second-year physician assistant students practiced together in a community pharmacy (two days) and clinic or emergency department (two days). They completed TeamSTEPPS training and two team modules. Assessments included TOSCEs and pre/post attitude surveys. RESULTS: Students significantly increased all TOSCE domain skills with pre- to post-mean score (SD) of: team communications 3.0 (0.5) to 4.1 (0.5), collaboration 2.8 (0.6) to 4.0 (0.5), roles and responsibilities 2.4 (0.4) to 3.8 (0.5), patient-centered care 2.8 (0.5) to 4.1 (0.6), conflict management 2.8 (0.5) to 4.1 (0.6), team functioning 2.7 (0.6) to 3.9 (0.6), and global performance 2.8 (0.6) to 4.0 (0.5). Afterwards, students reported positive attitudes about team-based patient care. All students stated the experience increased patient and healthcare professional communication skills and understanding of patient problems, and decreased errors. Most students (84%) agreed team care increased interventions compared to individually provided care. Most students (84%) thought the experience was worthwhile, and 68% agreed the IPECP program should be continued. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports that IPECP can be conducted in a community pharmacy and clinic or emergency department to improve student team skills as evidenced by documented team skills development during TOSCEs.

Moving the Pharmacy Practice Model Initiative forward within a state affiliate.

PURPOSE: Efforts to advance the ASHP Pharmacy Practice Model Initiative (PPMI) in the Michigan Society of Health-System Pharmacists (MSHP) are described. SUMMARY: After the Pharmacy Practice Model Summit in November 2010, the board of directors of MSHP began to strategize ways to help health-system pharmacists in Michigan achieve the vision and concepts envisioned by the PPMI. The ultimate goal was to develop a process for acting on recommendations developed by the PPMI to advance the practice of health-system pharmacy in Michigan. A task force was formed and reviewed the 147 national recommendations from the ASHP Pharmacy Practice Model Summit and grouped them into related areas of focus. Six focus areas were identified: acute care, ambulatory care, education and training, organizational affairs and leadership, pharmacy technicians, and technology and information systems. A PPMI Michigan conference was arranged in which focus groups would assess these six areas. Each focus group was limited to six or seven participants, with a member of the task force serving as the facilitator for the group. Individual focus groups then formulated recommendations MSHP could develop into actionable strategies to address the key issues identified during the morning session. A total of 56 recommendations were submitted by the focus groups for consideration by all conference participants. Over 80% of the recommendations were deemed to be high impact/high feasibility. CONCLUSION: A process for acting on recommendations of the ASHP PPMI to advance the practice of health-system pharmacy within the state of Michigan was developed.