Telehealth diabetes services for non-English speaking patients.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown the use of telehealth in diabetes management to be as efficacious as traditional clinic visits; however, these studies focused on English-speaking populations. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether telehealth is an effective approach for participation in pharmacist collaborative diabetes management services among non-English-speaking or limited English proficiency (LEP) patients at a federally qualified health center (FQHC). The secondary objective was to evaluate glycated hemoglobin (A1c) as a clinical outcome in patients participating in telehealth versus in-person visits. METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review. Patients were non-English-speaking or LEP adults (≥ 18 years of age) with a diagnosis of type-2 diabetes (T2D) referred for pharmacist collaborative diabetes management services by a medical provider. This study reviewed patient participation and A1c values over 6 months (May to October) of 2 consecutive years (2019 and 2020). RESULTS: In this study, 40 patients in 2019 and 50 patients in 2020 met the inclusion criteria. In 2019, the primary visit model was in-person and 123 total visits were scheduled with a pharmacist. In 2020, the primary visit model was telehealth and 143 total visits were scheduled. In 2019, there were 28 no-show visits, which accounted for 22.8% of total visits. In 2020, there were 27 no-show visits, which accounted for 18.9% of total visits. The mean change in A1c from baseline to follow-up was found to decrease by 1.0% in 2019 and 0.95% in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that telehealth participation in pharmacist-provided collaborative T2D services and decrease in A1c were similar during telehealth compared with in-person visits among non-English-speaking and LEP patients at a FQHC. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to determine the overall impact of telehealth in non-English-speaking or LEP patients.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Impact of Novel Active-Learning Approaches Through iBooks and Gamification in a Reformatted Pharmacy Course.

Objective. To compare pharmacy students' assessment and evaluation ratings of a newly formatted nonprescription products course that used innovative technology and gaming to that for a traditional nonprescription products course. Methods. Examination scores and course evaluations of students who completed the traditional course on nonprescription products were analyzed and compared with those of students who completed a revised course on nonprescription products that used teaching techniques in educational technology. Results. Students in the traditional course significantly outperformed those in the comparator group in eight nonprescription categories on examinations, while students in the new course significantly outperformed those in the comparator group in four categories. Students in the new course outperformed those in the traditional course in two additional examination categories, however these were not significant. Almost all students in both courses agreed or strongly agreed with each course evaluation item, including those items where use of gamification and iBooks were most likely considered. Conclusion. Improvements in student examination performance and course satisfaction may not be immediately seen in a course in which new teaching techniques using educational technology including gamification and iBooks are introduced.

Service or Disservice? Ensuring Pharmacy Students Provide Authentic Service-Learning.

Service-learning is an academic activity that most US colleges and schools of pharmacy report including in their curriculum. Service-learning can be a valuable form of experiential education that helps to reinforce didactic curricula and develop and refine the soft skills needed for pharmacy practice. However, while providing various forms of service in communities, student pharmacists may not be conducting authentic service-learning. To be considered authentic, service-learning requires the adoption of structured learning outcomes, engaged and prepared students, mutually beneficial experiences for community and students, and completion of student reflection guided with faculty feedback.3-6 Considering all of these essential elements, perhaps service-learning is not occurring in communities and pharmacy education today as much as we thought.

Teach students, Empower patients, Act collaboratively and Meet health goals: an early interprofessional clinical experience in transformed care.

PURPOSE: Transformation of care teaching is often didactic and conceptual instead of practical and operational. Clinical environments, slow to transform, limit student exposure to key experiences that characterize transformed care. We describe the design and implementation of TEAM Clinic (Teach students, Empower patients, Act collaboratively, Meet health goals) - an early clinical learning experience to address this gap. METHODS: The TEAM Clinic curriculum was based on a review of existing curricula and best practice recommendations for the transformation of care. Three key elements were selected as the focus for a low-volume, high-service clinic: patient centeredness, interprofessional collaboration and team-based care. Learners and medically and socially complex patients were recruited for voluntary participation and completed anonymous surveys about the experience during and afterward. RESULTS: Nine first-year medical students, two first-year social work students and one pharmacy resident were integrated into the interprofessional team. Students were assigned roles adapted to their level and skill set; deliberate interprofessional pairing was assigned to broaden perspectives on scope and role of team members. Upon completion of this two-semester experience, 11 of the 12 learners returned surveys; all rated the experience as positive (strongly agree or agree) on the Authentic Clinical Interprofessional Experience - Evaluation of Interprofessional Site tool. Patient surveys indicated satisfaction with multiple aspects of the visit. CONCLUSION: TEAM Clinic provided a practical example of transformation of care teaching in a not-yet-transformed environment. Logistical barriers included space, schedule and staffing. Facilitators included alignment with the goals of core curricula and faculty. Limitations included that this description of these curricula and this pilot come early in our longitudinal development of TEAM Clinic, constraining our ability to measure behavioral changes around interprofessional education, teamwork or patient centeredness. Next steps would examine the trajectory to these outcomes in the preclinical student group.