Evaluating the impact of integrating SMART goal setting in preceptor development using the Habits of Preceptors Rubric.

PURPOSE: The impact of goal setting in pharmacy preceptor development was evaluated using the Habits of Preceptors Rubric (HOP-R), a criterion-referenced assessment developed to assess, quantify, and demonstrate growth across 11 preceptor habits. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated initial and follow-up survey responses from the 2019-2020 Clinician Educators Program cohort at Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Glendale Campus. Enrollees in this teaching and learning curriculum (TLC) were invited to assess their precepting habits using the HOP-R after attending the first seminar and again toward the end of the longitudinal program. Using online surveys, participants rated their precepting capabilities as developing, proficient, accomplished, or master level for each habit. In the initial survey, each participant selected a habit of focus for deliberate development and established an individualized goal using the specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) framework. In the follow-up survey, participants indicated their satisfaction with and progress toward accomplishing their precepting goal. RESULTS: Initial survey results from 55 study participants identified developing as the most frequently self-reported habit level (53%; n = 605 ratings), while master was the least frequently reported (1%). In the follow-up assessment, accomplished (45%) was the most frequently self-reported habit level, while master (5%) remained the least reported. The cohort reported a median progress in SMART goal accomplishment of 69% (range, 12% to 100%; n = 54). CONCLUSION: Preceptor and resident pharmacists reported perceived advancement in precepting capabilities within the conceptual framework of the HOP-R encompassing both their self-selected habit of focus and adjacent habits while enrolled in a TLC. SMART goals facilitated qualitative and quantitative assessment of development.

Evaluation of institutional cancer registries in Colombia

The four primary objectives of this descriptive study were to: 1) design a quality-measurement instrument for institutional cancer registries (ICRs), 2) evaluate the existing ICRs in Colombia with the designed instrument, 3) categorize the different registries according to heir quality and prioritize efforts that will efficiently promote better registries with the limited resources available, and 4) determine the institution with the greatest likelihood of successfully establishing Colombia's second population-based cancer registry. In 1990 the National Cancer Institute of Colombia developed 13 instituion-based cancer registries in different Colombian cities in order to promote the collection of data from a large group of cancer diagnostic and treatment centers. During the first half of 1997, this evaluation reviewed 12 registries; one of the original 13 no longer existed. All of the Colombian institutions (hospitals) that maintain institution-based cancer registries were included in the study. At each institution, a brief survey was administered to the hospital director, the registry coordinator, and the registrar (data manager). Researchers investigated the institutions by looking at six domains that are in standard use internationally. Within each domain, questions were developed and selected through the Delphi method. Each domain and each question were assigned weights through a consensus process. In most cases, two interviewers went to each site to collect the information. The university hospitals in Cali, Pereira, and Medellin had substantially higher scores, reflecting a good level of performance. Four of the 12 institutions had almost no cancer registy work going on. Five of the 12 hospital directors considered that the information provided by the cancer registries influenced their administrative decisions. Three of the registries had patient survival data. Four of the institutions allocated specific resources to operate their cancer registries; in the other 8 hospitals there was no clear budget allocation. Seven of the hospital directors could not identify five or more objectives of a cancer registry. Data management was usually poor and resources insufficient at most of the institutions. In summary, the cancer registry system in Colombia varies greatly from institution to institution. A few of the hospitals do a good job while others have neglected the registries. The high, identical total scores for Pereira and Medellin suggest they would be good locations to establish new population-based cancer registries similar to the existing one in Cali. However, the overall characteristics in Pereira may provide a more appropriate environment for the second registry, with Medellin as an alternative

Evaluation of institutional cancer registries in Colombia / Evaluación de los registros de cáncer institucionales en Colombia

The four primary objectives of this descriptive study were to: 1) design a quality-measurement instrument for institutional cancer registries (ICRs), 2) evaluate the existing ICRs in Colombia with the designed instrument, 3) categorize the different registries according to heir quality and prioritize efforts that will efficiently promote better registries with the limited resources available, and 4) determine the institution with the greatest likelihood of successfully establishing Colombia's second population-based cancer registry. In 1990 the National Cancer Institute of Colombia developed 13 instituion-based cancer registries in different Colombian cities in order to promote the collection of data from a large group of cancer diagnostic and treatment centers. During the first half of 1997, this evaluation reviewed 12 registries; one of the original 13 no longer existed. All of the Colombian institutions (hospitals) that maintain institution-based cancer registries were included in the study. At each institution, a brief survey was administered to the hospital director, the registry coordinator, and the registrar (data manager). Researchers investigated the institutions by looking at six domains that are in standard use internationally. Within each domain, questions were developed and selected through the Delphi method. Each domain and each question were assigned weights through a consensus process. In most cases, two interviewers went to each site to collect the information. The university hospitals in Cali, Pereira, and Medellin had substantially higher scores, reflecting a good level of performance. Four of the 12 institutions had almost no cancer registy work going on. Five of the 12 hospital directors considered that the information provided by the cancer registries influenced their administrative decisions. Three of the registries had patient survival data. Four of the institutions allocated specific resources to operate their cancer registries; in the other 8 hospitals there was no clear budget allocation. Seven of the hospital directors could not identify five or more objectives of a cancer registry. ...

Los cuatro objetivos principales de este estudio descriptivo fueron los siguientes: 1) diseñar un instrumento de medición de calidad para los registros de cáncer institucionales (RCI), 2) evaluar los RCI ya existentes en Colombia con dicho instrumento, 3) clasificar por categorías los distintos registros según su calidad y dar prioridad a iniciativas para promover el mejoramiento de los registros con los recursos limitados disponibles, y 4) determinar qué institución tiene las mayores probabilidades de establecer con buenos resultados el segundo registro de cáncer de base poblacional. En 1990 el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer de Colombia creó 13 registros de cáncer institucionales en diferentes ciudades colombianas con el fin de promover la recolección de datos de un extenso grupo de centros de diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer. En la primera mitad de 1997, esta evaluación abarcó 12 registros, ya que uno de los 13 originales había desaparecido. Todas las instituciones colombianas (hospitales) que mantienen registros de cáncer poblacionales se incluyeron en el estudio. En cada institución se administró una encuesta al director del hospital, al coordinador del registro y a la persona encargada de incorporar los datos. Los investigadores estudiaron cada institución teniendo presentes seis áreas que están en uso en el ámbito internacional. Dentro de cada área se formularon y escogieron preguntas mediante el método Delphi. A cada área y cada pregunta se les asignó un peso mediante un proceso consensual. En la mayor parte de los casos, dos entrevistadores fueron a cada lugar a recoger la información. Los hospitales universitarios en Cali, Pereira y Medellín tuvieron puntajes bastante más altos como consecuencia de su buen rendimiento. Cuatro de las 12 instituciones tenían muy poca actividad de registro de casos de cáncer. Cinco de los 12 directores de hospitales sentían que la información proporcionada en los registros de cáncer influía en sus decisiones administrativas. Tres de los registros tenían datos sobre la supervivencia de los pacientes. Cuatro de las instituciones adjudicaban recursos específicos para llevar sus registros de cáncer; en los otros ocho hospitales no había ninguna adjudicación de fondos explícitamente para este fin. Siete de los directores de hospitales no pudieron identificar cinco o más de los objetivos de un registro de cáncer. La mayoría de las instituciones tenían un manejo de datos deficiente y una insuficiencia de recursos. En resumen, el sistema de registros de cáncer en Colombia varía enormemente de una institución a otra. Algunos de los hospitales llevan bien esta actividad, mientraque otros han descuidado sus registros. Las altas puntuaciones totales que sacaron por igual Medellín y Pereira sugieren que serían buenos lugares para establecer nuevos registros de cáncer poblacionales similares al que existe en Cali. No obstante, las características generales de Pereira podrían ofrecer un ambiente más propicio para el segundo registro, con Medellín como segunda opción