An assessment of interprofessional education in schools/colleges of pharmacy in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacy educational standards provide requirements for interprofessional education (IPE). However, there has not been a comparison of IPE structure between doctor of pharmacy programs in the United States (US). The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding current IPE programs and curricula in schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COP) across the US. METHODS: A survey was developed and emailed to at least one faculty member or administrator from each S/COP responsible for IPE or experiential education. The survey gathered information on IPE status, structure, and oversight. It also explored mechanisms promoting IPE success, pieces of advice for starting or expanding IPE, and hurdles for IPE implementation. RESULTS: Eighty-five S/COP representing 59.9% of programs in the US responded to the survey. All respondents felt IPE was either very important or important to pharmacy education. Mechanisms that promoted IPE success included partnerships, faculty interest in IPE, having an IPE center, being located on an academic medical center, administrative support, and integrating IPE during curricular development. IPE hurdles included logistics, faculty buy-in, sustainability, distance from other programs, and differing accreditation standards across programs. Themes of advice for others were to be innovative/patient/flexible, collaborative, identify key initial partners, develop a director or coordinator of IPE position, and receive administrative support. CONCLUSIONS: IPE is a vital component to training the next generation of health professionals, but the process for can be daunting. Building on the successes of others and predicting barriers can assist S/COP in developing effective IPE.

Medical Marijuana Use in a Community Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of marijuana use between patients with early- versus advanced-stage cancers. Differences in adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions between those who use marijuana and those who do not were also compared. METHODS: Patients age 18 years and older who were receiving chemotherapy were asked to complete an electronic self-reported questionnaire. In addition to questions about patient demographics, current adverse effects, cancer type and stage, comorbidities, performance status, treatment regimen, and general marijuana use, those patients who used marijuana within the last 30 days (current marijuana users) were asked additional questions about the route and frequency of marijuana administration, about reason(s) for use, about possession of a marijuana card, and if they had received any counseling about marijuana. Drug-drug and drug-disease interactions were also analyzed. RESULTS: The overall incidence of marijuana use was 18.3% (32 of 175 patients). The incidence of marijuana use in patients with early- versus advanced-stage cancers was 19.6% (11 of 56 patients) versus 17.6% (21 of 119 patients; P = .75). Patients who use marijuana reported more pain, nausea, appetite issues, and anxiety. There were more drug-drug interactions associated with marijuana use, primarily with concurrent CNS depressants. The frequency of drug-disease interactions between those who use marijuana versus those who do not was similar. CONCLUSION: Approximately one in five patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy were using marijuana, and the frequency was equal in early- and advanced-stage cancer groups. The risks versus benefits should be discussed with all patients who use marijuana.