Development and Initial Evaluation of an Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience Readiness Assessment Plan.

Objective. To describe the composition of an advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) readiness assessment plan (APPE-RAP) along with initial findings following retrospective application to a cohort of students.Methods. The APPE-RAP uses existing summative assessment data within the ExamSoft platform on six skills and 12 ability-based outcomes from the pre-APPE curriculum. Thresholds were created to sort students into three readiness categories for skills and knowledge, determine overall readiness, and identify need for curricular review. Students that completed their third professional year in spring 2021 served as the pilot cohort. The APPE-RAP was applied after the cohort progressed to APPEs to analyze appropriateness of categorization and revise the plan before full implementation.Results. The APPE-RAP was applied to 131 students that progressed to APPEs in spring 2021. Overall, 87.9% were APPE ready for all skills and aggregate knowledge. Two skills met criteria for curricular review. Seven students (5.3%) were categorized as red on at least one skill after one remediation attempt. Nine students (7%) were categorized as red on an aggregate knowledge-based ability-based outcomes (ABO) evaluation. Four students (3.1%) did not pass one of their first two experiential rotations. Using a red categorization on aggregate knowledge as a risk indicator identified APPE failure with 94% specificity and a 98% negative predictive value.Conclusion. Existing assessment data may be leveraged to identify assessment targets to help quantify APPE readiness. Further research is warranted to identify additional assessment thresholds that enhance quantification of APPE readiness as well as the impact of focused remediation on attainment of APPE readiness.

Academic electronic health records as a vehicle to augment the assessment of patient care skills in the didactic pharmacy curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Standards 2016 state students must be "practice-ready" upon graduation and utilizing health information technology is one skill needed to ensure students are practice-ready. Incorporating academic electronic health records (EHRs) into the didactic pharmacy curriculum is one tool for preparing students to be practice-ready, but it is unclear if this technology is used to facilitate assessment of students' patient care skills. METHODS: A 35-question electronic survey was distributed to each school/college of pharmacy (S/COP) with questions focused on general use of EHRs and characterizing EHRs as a tool to assess students' patient care skills in the didactic curriculum. Aggregate, anonymous data was reported and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-nine survey responses were suitable for inclusion in the analysis (43.8% response rate). Of those, 37 S/COP (62.7%) used an EHR in the didactic curriculum. Frequently performed and assessed EHR functions were collecting information and documentation, and EHRs were most commonly utilized to assess students' abilities to perform the collect (96.9%) and assess (93.8%) steps of the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process. EHRs were perceived to be most effective in assessing the following Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education Educational Outcomes: patient-centered care (93.9%), problem solving (83.9%), and learner (80.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the use of EHRs in S/COP is critical. Determining which outcomes are best suited to be assessed utilizing this technology and the optimal method to do so is an appropriate next step.

An initial environmental scan of APPE readiness assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Standards 2016 require schools/colleges of pharmacy (s/cop) to assess students' readiness to enter advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). However, literature describing how schools are meeting this standard is limited. The purpose of this study was to conduct an environmental scan to describe how s/cop assess student readiness to enter APPEs. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to assessment leads at United States s/cop, regardless of accreditation status. Respondents answered questions related to their current approach to assessing student APPE readiness, existence of intentional assessment plans, competencies used, assessment methods, benchmarks, and remediation strategies. Aggregate data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two S/COP (36.1%) responded. The majority (90.1%) were fully accredited schools. Most respondents have an intentional APPE readiness plan (73.5%), although the duration since implementation varied. There was no consensus among schools on which competencies informed APPE readiness with 67.3% listing Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE) 2013 outcomes, 61.2% Guidance for Standards 2016 Appendix A, 53.1% pre-APPE domains (Standards 2007), and 30.6% Entrustable Professional Activities. Twenty-eight S/COP (57.1%) reported having individual student-level data to assess student APPE readiness. The most common methods for validating student APPE readiness were preceptor (48.9%) and student (44.9%) surveys. CONCLUSIONS: This environmental scan begins to identify trends in how S/COP is approaching the assessment of student readiness to begin APPEs. Further research is needed to identify best practices and practical methods to ensure compliance with current accreditation standards.

Cost Justification of the BioFire FilmArray Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel Versus Standard of Care for Diagnosing Meningitis in a Community Hospital.

BACKGROUND:: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Gram stain and culture along with CSF viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are the current standard of care (SOC) to diagnose meningitis. Unfortunately, these tests take up to 72 hours to provide results and are not always sensitive to detect a pathogen. BioFire FilmArray (FA) meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel uses PCR to provide quick, accurate identification of the causative organism. For community hospitals, the cost of this technology may be prohibitive. OBJECTIVE:: To compare the institution cost of current SOC versus the anticipated cost of the FA ME panel to diagnose and treat suspected meningitis. METHODS:: A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating adult patients with a lumbar puncture performed and empiric antimicrobials administered for a diagnosis of meningitis. The time to receive CSF culture results and cost associated with empiric antimicrobials were assessed and compared to the theoretical time to results and cost of treatment using the FA ME panel. RESULTS:: Thirty-three patients were included in the analysis. The cost of antimicrobials using SOC was $63.43 versus $24.70 per treatment course if using the FA ME panel ( P < .001). When the cost of diagnostic testing supplies per patient was included, the median cost of SOC was $239.63 versus $239.14 per treatment course when using the FA ME panel ( P = .15). CONCLUSION:: There is potential for significant cost savings in direct antibiotic utilization if FA ME is used versus SOC to diagnose meningitis in a community hospital. Antimicrobial cost savings were able to offset the increased cost of testing.