Exploring the Value of Medical Affairs Learning Experiences for Pharmacy Students and Residents.

The objective of this article is 3-fold: to strengthen the understanding of medical affairs (MA) among pharmacy professionals; to provide greater visibility into the value experienced by educators, learners, and the practice of pharmacy across the health care ecosystem when MA learning opportunities are available; and to provide a framework for organizations who seek to establish an MA experiential rotation. The authors collated information from published literature, anecdotal experience, and interviews with experiential education leaders from several colleges of pharmacy. As a result, the article summarizes the current perceptions of MA practice among educators and students and highlights how MA experiences may support pharmacy learners in the future.

Utilization of a technology-assisted workflow to prepare controlled substance oral syringes.

PURPOSE: Utilization of technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) systems has gained popularity in the sterile compounding setting. This study was designed to evaluate whether safety and efficiency could be seen when preparing oral controlled substance doses gravimetrically vs volumetrically. METHODS: This 2-phase observational study combined manual data collection with automated logs generated by a single TAWF. During phase I, oral controlled substance solutions were prepared volumetrically. In phase II, the same subset of medications was to be prepared gravimetrically via the same TAWF. Findings from phases I and II were compared against each another to determine safety, efficiency, and documentation differences between the volumetric and gravimetric workflows. RESULTS: Thirteen different medications were evaluated during phase I (1,495 preparations) and phase II (1,781 preparations) of this study. Mean compounding time (min:sec) increased in phase II when compared to phase I (1:49 vs 1:28; P < 0.01), with the deviation detection rate also increasing (7.9% vs 4.7%; P < 0.01). Despite a target in phase II of utilizing gravimetric analysis for more than 80% of preparations, only 45.5% (811 preparations) were prepared with this workflow, as adoption challenges and dose size limitations prevented compliance. Doses that were prepared gravimetrically had a mean accuracy rate of 100.6% (the mean achieved dose was 0.6% higher than the mean prescribed dose) and a rejection rate of 0.99% (compared to the phase I rejection rate of 1.07%; P = 0.67). CONCLUSION: The gravimetric workflow provided accuracy and additional safety checks when compared to the volumetric alternative, all while providing users with greater access to data. Health systems should consider staffing, product sourcing, patient populations, and medication safety when determining the balance between volumetric and gravimetric workflows.