Relative costs of anesthesiologist prepared, hospital pharmacy prepared and outsourced anesthesia drugs.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia drugs can be prepared by anesthesia providers, hospital pharmacies or outsourcing facilities. The decision whether to outsource all or some anesthesia drugs is challenging since the costs associated with different anesthesia drug preparation methods remain poorly described. METHODS: The costs associated with preparation of 8 commonly used anesthesia drugs were analyzed using a budget impact analysis for 4 different syringe preparation strategies: (1) all drugs prepared by anesthesiologist, (2) drugs prepared by anesthesiologist and hospital pharmacy, (3) drugs prepared by anesthesiologist and outsourcing facility, and (4) all drugs prepared by outsourcing facility. MAIN RESULTS: A strategy combining anesthesiologist and hospital pharmacy prepared drugs was associated with the lowest estimated annual cost in the base-case budget impact analysis with an annual cost of $225 592, which was lower than other strategies by a margin of greater than $86 000. CONCLUSION: A combination of anesthesiologist and hospital pharmacy prepared drugs resulted in the lowest annual cost in the budget impact analysis. However, the cost of drugs prepared by an outsourcing facility maybe lower if the capital investment needed for the establishment and maintenance of the US Pharmacopeial Convention Chapter <797> compliant facility is included in the budget impact analysis.

A qualitative analysis of common concerns about challenges facing pharmacy experiential education programs.

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively analyze free-text responses gathered as part of a previously published survey in order to systematically identify common concerns facing pharmacy experiential education (EE) programs. METHODS: In 2011, EE directors at all 118 accredited pharmacy schools in the US were asked in a survey to describe the most pressing issues facing their programs. Investigators performed qualitative, thematic analysis of responses and compared results against demographic data (institution type, class size, number of practice sites, number and type of EE faculty member/staff). Expert and novice investigators identified common themes via an iterative process. To check validity, additional expert and novice reviewers independently coded responses. The Cohen kappa coefficient was calculated and showed good agreement between investigators and reviewers. RESULTS: Seventy-eight responses were received (66% response rate) representing 75% of publicly funded institutions and 71% of schools with class sizes 51-150. Themes identified as common concerns were site capacity, workload/financial support, quality assurance, preceptor development, preceptor stipends, assessment, onboarding, and support/recognition from administration. Good agreement (mean percent agreement 93%, ƙ range=0.59-0.92) was found between investigators and reviewers. CONCLUSION: Site capacity for student placements continues to be the foremost concern for many experiential education programs. New concerns about preceptor development and procedures for placing and orienting students at individual practice sites (ie, "onboarding") have emerged and must be addressed as new accreditation standards are implemented.

Status of pharmacy practice experience education programs.

OBJECTIVE: To assess financial, personnel, and curricular characteristics of US pharmacy practice experiential education programs and follow-up on results of a similar survey conducted in 2001. METHODS: Experiential education directors at 118 accredited US pharmacy colleges and schools were invited to participate in a blinded, Web-based survey in 2011. Aggregate responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and combined with data obtained from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy to assess program demographics, faculty and administrative organizational structure, and financial support. RESULTS: The number of advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) sites had increased by 24% for medium, 50% for large, and 55% for very large colleges and schools. Introductory pharmacy practice experience (IPPE) sites outnumbered APPEs twofold. The average experiential education team included an assistant/associate dean (0.4 full-time equivalent [FTE]), a director (1.0 FTE), assistant/associate director (0.5 FTE), coordinator (0.9 FTE), and multiple administrative assistants (1.3 FTE). Most faculty members (63%-75%) were nontenure track and most coordinators (66%) were staff members. Estimated costs to operate an experiential education program represented a small percentage of the overall expense budget of pharmacy colleges and schools. CONCLUSION: To match enrollment growth, pharmacy practice experiential education administrators have expanded their teams, reorganized responsibilities, and found methods to improve cost efficiency. These benchmarks will assist experiential education administrators to plan strategically for future changes.