Analysis of Research and Scholarship Criteria Within Promotion and Tenure Documents of US Pharmacy Schools.

Objective. To describe criteria for evaluating faculty scholarship within the promotion and tenure guidance documents of US schools and colleges of pharmacy.Methods. Promotion and tenure documents were obtained from the websites of US pharmacy schools or requested via electronic mail, and institutional characteristics were collected from publicly available online data. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to systematically catalogue document characteristics and criteria for promotion and tenure.Results. Promotion and tenure guidance documents from 121 (85%) of 142 pharmacy schools were analyzed. Institutions were 55% public and equally distributed across Carnegie institutional classifications as well as geographic and extramural funding stratifications. Publications (94%) and grants and contracts (87%) were the most frequently included criteria for faculty advancement. More than 50% of schools recognized the criteria within promotion and tenure guidance documents but did not explicitly require faculty to achieve them before receiving promotion and/or tenure. For institutions that required publications for advancement, the most frequently required criterion was publication in peer-reviewed journals (47%). Few schools (22%) documented a specific number of required publications.Conclusion. This analysis provides a comprehensive review of scholarship criteria in academic pharmacy promotion and tenure guidance documents. There was wide variability among scholarship criteria, and documents often lacked specific language defining scholarship requirements. As a result, faculty may find the documents less helpful for self-assessment and preparation toward promotion and/or tenure. These benchmark data can assist pharmacy faculty and administrators in developing and revising promotion and tenure guidance documents to include clear criteria and better align with peer institutions.

Positioning the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Squarely on the Center of the Desk.

The scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) is one of four traditionally defined domains of research. Yet faculty members who pursue the SOTL may feel disadvantaged because of its relatively low perceived value by many institutions. Thus, interested faculty members may relegate the SOTL to a limited, secondary line of research and instead pursue other types of research that appear to be more highly valued by the institution. This commentary explores the benefits to the institution when the SOTL is expressly valued and purposefully supported. We advocate for a multifaceted approach by which pharmacy education leaders can examine how the SOTL is valued, encouraged, and supported through organizational structure and policy. Approaches to solidify and communicate the institutional value of the SOTL are discussed. Specific attention to ensure the SOTL is represented in rewards and incentive systems, such as the college or school's promotion and tenure policies, may empower faculty members to pursue success in this area of research.

A Self-Assessment Guide for Resident Teaching Experiences.

The 2015 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Educational Affairs Committee was charged with developing a self-assessment guide for residency programs to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the outcomes of resident teaching curricula. After extensively reviewing the literature, the committee developed assessment rubrics modeled after the 2013 ACCP white paper titled "Guidelines for Resident Teaching Experiences" and the revised American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) 2014 accreditation standards for PGY1 residencies, which place greater emphasis on the teaching and learning curriculum (TLC) than the previous accreditation standards. The self-assessment guide developed by the present committee can serve as an assessment tool for both basic and expanded TLCs. It provides the criteria for program goals, mentoring, directed readings with topic discussions, teaching experiences, and assessment methodology. For an expanded TLC, the committee has provided additional guidance on developing a teaching philosophy, becoming involved in interactive seminars, expanding teaching experiences, developing courses, and serving on academic committees. All the guidelines listed in the present paper use the measures "not present," "developing," and "well developed" so that residency program directors can self-assess along the continuum and identify areas of excellence and areas for improvement. Residency program directors should consider using this new assessment tool to measure program quality and outcomes of residency teaching experiences. Results of the assessment will help residency programs focus on areas within the TLC that will potentially benefit from additional attention and possible modification.

Severe anaphylactic reaction after repeated intermittent exposure to lepirudin.

Lepirudin, a recombinant DNA derivative of hirudin, is used to prevent thromboembolic complications caused by heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II. Anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported with its use in patients both with and without known previous exposure to lepirudin. We describe the case of a 57-year-old woman who received five uneventful courses of lepirudin therapy before having a severe anaphylactic reaction during administration of the intravenous bolus dose that began her sixth course. The patient experienced cardiorespiratory arrest but recovered from the reaction. The decision to administer lepirudin to a patient who has previously received it should be reached with due consideration of the risk:benefit ratio and strategies to manage risk resulting from readministration. Risk factors for an anaphylactic reaction to lepirudin may include use of an initial bolus dose, intravenous rather than subcutaneous administration, length of any single course of therapy beyond 3 days, and repeat administration of lepirudin within 100 days.

Olmesartan medoxomil: the seventh angiotensin receptor antagonist.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and adverse effects of olmesartan medoxomil, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist for the treatment of hypertension. DATA SOURCES: Information was obtained from MEDLINE searches (1996-April 2002) of English-language medical literature. Search terms included CS-866, olmesartan, olmesartan medoxomil, RNH-6270 (active metabolite of olmesartan), Benicar, angiotensin receptors, and antihypertensive agents. In addition, references from relevant articles were reviewed for additional citations. The authors independently reviewed literature identified in the searches. Studies evaluating olmesartan (i.e., abstracts, clinical trials, data on file with manufacturer) were considered for inclusion. STUDY SELECTION: All articles identified from data sources with pertinent information regarding olmesartan medoxomil were evaluated, and all information deemed relevant was included in this review. DATA SYNTHESIS: Olmesartan medoxomil is a competitively priced addition to the class of angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Monotherapy with olmesartan medoxomil in once-daily doses of 20-40 mg has produced significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Adverse effects have been minimal with olmesartan medoxomil, with dizziness being the only adverse effect occurring more often than with placebo in clinical trials. Additionally, animal studies indicate that olmesartan medoxomil may prove to be useful treatment for diabetic nephropathy, as well as atherosclerosis. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil has a favorable safety and efficacy profile, with blood pressure-lowering effects comparable to those of other angiotensin receptor blockers (i.e., losartan, valsartan, irbesartan). At this time, formulary decisions will be driven primarily by economic issues. Theoretical benefits of olmesartan medoxomil in reducing atherogenesis and lowering angiotensin II concentrations better than the alternative agents will be determined only with more extensive research.