Economic Considerations and Cost-Saving Strategies for Sterile Compounding Education.

OBJECTIVE: To determine economic considerations associated with the facilitation of sterile compounding education for students in schools and colleges of pharmacy across the United States. METHODS: An online survey was sent to members of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Pharmaceutics Section and Laboratory Instructor's Special Interest Group. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected on general information about the institution, student cohorts, compounding courses, types of compounds prepared, equipment, budgets, personnel, and cost-saving measures. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS. Open-ended responses were used by respondents if the primary question could not adequately capture their institution-specific information. These answers were added to the study findings. RESULTS: Of 555 surveys sent, 40 were completed. Reported annual sterile compounding budgets ranged from $500 to $95,500. Twenty-two percent of respondents reported collecting a lab fee from students to offset associated costs. Seventy percent of respondents specified cost-saving measures, including the use of expired drugs, reusing supplies or personal protective equipment, price comparisons, simulated drugs, and donations. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study may assist pharmacy administrators and faculty in evaluating the costs associated with sterile compounding education and determining ways to reduce costs while maintaining the intent and quality of these courses.

Economic Considerations and Cost-Saving Strategies for Nonsterile Compounding Education.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the economic considerations, including cost-saving strategies, associated with nonsterile compounding education for students in schools and colleges of pharmacy across the United States. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Pharmaceutics Section and Laboratory Instructor's Special Interest Group members. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected about the institution, student cohorts, compounding courses, equipment, budgets, personnel, and cost-saving measures. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS. Open-ended responses were used by respondents if the primary question could not adequately capture their institution-specific information. These answers were added to the study findings. RESULTS: Of 555 surveys sent, 46 were completed. Reported annual compounding budgets ranged from $3000 to $96,000. Reported annual equipment maintenance costs ranged from $400 to $18,000. Fifty percent of respondents reported students shared equipment, and 29.6% collected a lab fee from students to offset costs. Approximately half of respondents reported the use of cost-saving measures, including contract pricing, purchasing supplies in bulk, price comparisons, use of simulated drugs, re-use of personal protective equipment, and procurement of donations. Fifty percent of respondents employed laboratory assistants to support nonsterile compounding sessions, with paid positions ranging from $200 to $1000 per semester. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study may assist pharmacy administrators and course directors in evaluating the costs associated with nonsterile compounding education across the Academy and, more importantly, determining ways to reduce such costs while maintaining the intent and quality of these courses.