Background:Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are the latest addition to a list of professional competencies that pharmacy educational organizations support, and accreditation organizations require, for assessment by colleges and schools of pharmacy.Objective:The study’s objective is to assess the use of Core EPAs in the patient care domain (by practice setting, position, and preceptor status) in contemporary pharmacy practice.Methods:This survey assessed the EPA activities of pharmacists practicing in North Dakota. The pharmacists were asked “how many times in the past 30 days have you delivered the following services in your practice setting?” Response options were: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more times.Results:Of 990 potential respondents, 457 pharmacists (46.1%) returned a survey, and 107 (10.8%) answered every survey item in the patient care domain. Respondents reported that the highest rated activity items “Collect information to identify a patient’s medication-related problems and health-related needs,” and “Analyze information to determine the effects of medication therapy, identify medication-related problems, and prioritize health-related needs” were performed an average of 3.9 times per week (SD=1.8), and 3.8 times per week (SD=2.0), respectively. Both of these items, were reported for 70% of the respondents at 5 or more times per week. For these items, the highest reported practice setting was ‘other’ practice settings (e.g., long-term care, community health centers) followed by chains, hospitals, and independent pharmacies. By position, clinical pharmacists and preceptors reported the highest activity levels for most EPAs and supportive example tasks.Conclusions:This study provides empirical evidence suggesting (but not proving) that EPAs have potential as a means to assess outcomes in pharmacy education and practice. Our study sets the stage for future work that further refines and assesses core EPA activities and supportive example tasks to measure the impact of how this process relates to outcomes of care.
Objective. To evaluate the impact of including Health Sciences Reasoning Test (HSRT) scores in the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) admissions process compared with other criteria used. Methods. The HSRT was administered to all prepharmacy students who were selected for an interview (n=122) as part of the PharmD program admissions process. The HSRT score and other evaluation criteria were used to establish candidate rankings. The correlation between total HSRT scores and other measures used in the admissions process then was evaluated. Results. Candidate rankings were not noticeably different when the HSRT scores were excluded from the admission process. The HSRT scores were significantly and highly correlated with applicants' Pharmacy College Admission Test (PCAT) cumulative percentile scores. Conclusions. The HSRT can be an effective method to evaluate critical-thinking ability as part of the admissions process into a PharmD program. However, the usefulness of the HSRT as an admissions screening tool is mitigated by information redundancies with other evaluation criteria, specifically the PCAT.
Objective. To implement and assess a required public health poster project in a doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) program. Design. Third-year PharmD students collaborated in pairs to research a public health topic relating to pharmacy practice. Each student group prepared an informational poster, while receiving feedback from a faculty mentor at each stage of the project. The students presented their completed posters at a statewide pharmacy conference. Assessment. Faculty members evaluated the posters with a grading rubric, and students completed a survey instrument that assessed the overall experience. In general, faculty members rated the class highly across all domains of the grading rubric. The class generally agreed that the poster project increased their awareness of public health issues related to pharmacy practice, overall knowledge of public health, and presentation skills. Conclusion. The implementation of a poster project was well received by students and faculty members as an effective method for enhancing public health instruction in the PharmD program at North Dakota State University.
Objective. To evaluate the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) admissions interview process at North Dakota State University (NDSU). Methods. Faculty pairs interviewed candidates using a standardized grading rubric to evaluate qualitative parameters or attributes such as ethics, relevant life and work experience, emotional maturity, commitment to patient care, leadership, and understanding of the pharmacy profession. Total interview scores, individual attribute domain scores, and the consistency and reliability of the interviewers were assessed. Results. The total mean interview score for the candidate pool was 17.4 of 25 points. Mean scores for individual domains ranged from 2.3 to 3.0 on a Likert-scale of 0-4. Nine of the 11 faculty pairs showed no mean differences from their interview partner in total interview scores given. Evaluations by 8 of the 11 faculty pairs produced high interrater reliability. Conclusions. The current interview process is generally consistent and reliable; however, future improvements such as additional interviewer training and adoption of a multiple mini-interview format could be made.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.