ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has required many pharmacy programs to increase their utilization of technology or shift the course of delivery entirely online. Delivery in this setting has exposed areas in the use of technology where pharmacy programs need to improve (such as staff and student training). This study performed a document analysis of strategic plans to identify technology-related strategies and where gaps in planning currently exist. Accredited pharmacy programs in Canada and the USA were included for analysis. A total of 77 strategic plans were identified. Strategic plans were searched for the phrases: "tech", "online", "distance" and "e-learning" to identify technology-related statements. Statements relating to technology in education were coded for (1) the prioritized "action" and (2) the objective or "goal" of this strategy. Quantitative analysis of these codes revealed that the "action" was most frequently to introduce or improve technology (54.4%), and the "goal" most frequently related to enhancing teaching/course delivery/learning (34.2%). Strategic plans appeared to frequently focus on the technology itself, with little consideration for the human aspect of operating technology or readiness of programs to embrace technology. Moving forward, strategic priorities with respect to technology should be refocused towards system readiness and account for resources necessary for target user upskilling and acceptance.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical efficacy data for gentamicin in the treatment of gonorrhea. DATA SOURCES: A keyword search of PubMed (1966 to April 2020), EMBASE (1947 to April 2020), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to April 2020) was conducted. The electronic search was supplemented with manual screening of references from identified articles and a search of ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing trials. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Comparator and noncomparator studies reporting microbiological outcomes of treatment with gentamicin for gonorrhea in humans were included. Data extracted included study year, authors, aim, setting, population, dosing protocols, and outcome results. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 407 articles were identified, of which 11 met inclusion criteria. Two studies were randomized controlled trials, and 1 additional randomized noncomparator study was identified. All other studies were nonrandomized and noncomparator in nature. The highest quality evidence suggests that gentamicin is not noninferior to ceftriaxone (both in addition to azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhea but may achieve cure rates >90%. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the efficacy of gentamicin-based regimens for the specific treatment of extragenital gonorrhea. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Results of this review could affect patient care and clinical practice because they clearly demonstrate the role of gentamicin for the treatment of gonorrhea as a second-line agent. Future research should confirm findings, especially for the role of gentamicin in extragenital infections. CONCLUSIONS: Gentamicin-based regimens should be reserved for second-line treatment of urogenital and extragenital gonorrhea infections.
