“Patient-Centeredness” (PC) is a theoretical construct made up of a diverse constellation of distinct concepts, processes, practices, and outcomes that have been developed, arranged, and prioritized heterogeneously by different communities of professional healthcare practice, research, and policy. It is bound together by a common ethos that puts the holistic individual at the functional and symbolic center of their care, a quality deemed essential for chronic disease management and health promotion. Several important contributions to the PC research space have adeptly integrated seminal PC conceptualizations to improve conceptual clarity, measurement, implementation, and evaluation in research and practice. This systematic scoping review builds on that work, but with a purpose to explicitly identify, compare, and contrast the seminal PC conceptualizations arising from the different healthcare professional groups. The rationale for this work is that a deeper examination of the underlying development and corresponding assumptions from each respective conceptualization will lead to a more informed understanding of and meaningful contributions to PC research and practice, especially for healthcare professional groups newer to the topic area like pharmacy. The literature search identified four seminal conceptualizations from the healthcare professions of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Policy. A compositional comparison across the seminal conceptualizations revealed a shared ethos but also six distinguishing features: (1) organizational structure; (2) predominant level of care; (3) methodological approach; (4) care setting origin; (5) outcomes of interest; and (6) language. The findings illuminate PC’s stable theoretical foundations and distinctive nuances needed to appropriately understand, apply, and evaluate the construct’s operationalization in contemporary healthcare research and practice. These considerations hold important implications for future research into the fundamental aims of healthcare, how it should look when practiced, and what should reasonably be required of it.

When students fail to meet minimum competence standards on summative pharmacy skills-based assessments, remediation can beused toensure studentreadiness for progression.Skills-based remediation ischallenging as a high volume of resources is required to develop an action plan that addresses the heterogeneity in student needs and to create and execute another assessment equivalent to the initial assessment. Although many Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) programs face these same challenges, there is no consensus on how to best address them. Recently, faculty from six PharmD programs convened to share ideas and approaches to overcoming these challenges. This commentary aims to define remediation as it pertains to summative skills-based assessments, share our consensus views regarding remediation best practices, and highlight areas where there is more work to be done. Our intent is to advance the ongoing conversation and empower institutions to develop their own effective and impactful skills-based remediation policies, procedures, and activities.

No abstract

Background: Heart disease and stroke are among the leading causes of death in Native Americans. Knowledge of heart attack and stroke symptomology are essential for prompt identification of symptoms and for appropriate action in seeking care. Knowledge of heart attack and stroke symptoms among US Native American adults was this study's focus. Methods: Multivariate techniques were used to analyze national surveillance data. Native American adults comprised the study population. Low heart attack and stroke knowledge score was the dependent variable. Results: Logistic regression analysis yielded that Native American adults with low heart attack and stroke composite knowledge scores were more likely to be: older, less educated, poorer, uninsured, a rural resident, male, without a primary health care provider, and lacking a recent medical checkup. Conclusions: The identified characteristics of Native American adults with heart attack and stroke knowledge deficits or disparities should guide educational initiatives by health care providers focusing on improving such knowledge.

BackgroundIn Spring 2020 many academic institutions transitioned to remote learning in response to the developing COVID‐19 pandemic. These changes affected skills‐based training, as schools of pharmacy were forced to transition traditionally in‐person assessments to a remote setting. The purpose of this article is to describe the experience of pharmacy skills lab coordinators when transitioning summative skills‐based assessments (SSBA).MethodsA web‐based survey instrument administered through QualtricsXM was sent to all institutions in the Big Ten Academic Alliance‐Performance Based Assessment Collaborative. Only one member from each institution completed the survey on behalf of the institution. The survey consisted of four sections: changes made to skills evaluated; changes made to the delivery of those evaluations; challenges to and strategies used by the skills lab program when switching to remote learning; and recommendations for incorporating remote learning within future SSBAs. Survey respondents were invited to participate in an optional unstructured interview regarding survey answers.ResultsNine of ten invited institutions responded to the survey. Of the nine respondents, three participated in the post‐survey interview. Overall, 79.5% (93/117) of skills planned to be assessed were assessed with or without modification, with 8.5% (10/117) of skills canceled and 10.3% (12/117) of skills assessments postponed. The most common challenges mentioned were the lack of preparation time, inability to assess certain skills virtually, and student barriers. The most common recommendations made were to prioritize lab components and incorporate flexibility in planning and scheduling.DiscussionThe results indicate that most skills were still assessed during the Spring 2020 semester. Though the transition to remote learning was challenging and unique for each institution, common strategies and recommendations identified here provide opportunities for academics to analyze and prioritize learning objectives and to rethink how to develop and deliver SSBAs as remote assessments.