In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmacy education has shifted from in-person teaching and assessments to the virtual environment. Many education programs had previously adopted objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) to assess communication abilities in-person with standardized patients (SPs). However, comparative student outcome data between virtual and in-person methods as well as guidance on how to conduct communication-based OSCEs in the virtual environment is lacking. The University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (SSPPS) describes its methods of conducting two types of communication-based OSCEs (patient counseling and gathering a medical history). Student performance data from the two virtual OSCEs in 2020 was compared to results from two 2019 in-person OSCEs using Mann Whitney U Tests. The 2020 cohort scored significantly higher than the 2019 cohort in all variables (i.e., using effective verbal and non-verbal communication, using patient friendly education, organizing the encounter, demonstrating empathy, establishing trust, professionalism) and in overall score. However, the effect size for these findings indicate the differences between performances are generally small and more likely due to changes in grading patterns due to the pandemic.

*Objective: To understand how underserved populations attend to prescription warning label (PWL) instructions, examine the importance of PWL instructions to participants and describe the challenges associated with interpreting the information on PWLs. Methods: Adults from an underserved population (racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with low income, older adults) who had a history of prescription medication use and were able to understand English took part in semistructured interviews. Participants were presented with eight different prescription bottles with an attached PWL. Participants were asked, "If this prescription was yours, what information would you need to know about the medicine?" The number of participants who attended to the warning labels was noted. Other questions assessed the importance of PWLs, the challenges with understanding PWLs, and ways a pharmacist could help participant understanding of the PWL. Results: There were 103 participants. The mean age was 50.25 years (SD=18.05). Majority attended to the PWL. Participants not currently taking medications and who had limited health literacy were likely to overlook the warning labels. Majority rated the warning instructions to be extremely important (n=86, 83.5 %), wanted the pharmacist to help them understand PWLs by counseling them on the information on the label (n=63, 61.2%), and thought the graphics made the label information easy to understand. Conclusions: PWLs are an important method of communicating medication information, as long as they are easily comprehensible to patients. In addition to placing PWLs on prescription bottles, health care providers need to counsel underserved populations on medication warnings, especially individuals with limited health literacy who are not currently using a prescription medication.

Objectives:The primary objective of the study was to assess the mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) when acarbose was added to insulin and non-insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the discontinuation rate of acarbose, and to assess the number of patients who were placed on insulin despite the addition of acarbose.Methods:A retrospective chart review was conducted on veterans with T2DM initiated on acarbose between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. To be included, patients must have had a refill history indicating at least 3 months of acarbose use and HbA1c readings within 6 months prior to initiation and after at least 3 months of use. Excluded patients were those with type 1 diabetes mellitus, serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dL at acarbose initiation, or a diagnosis based on ICD-9 codes for an existing gastrointestinal condition or liver cirrhosis. The two-tailed, paired t-test was used for analysis of the primary objective and descriptive statistics were used for all other outcomes.Results:Of the 146 patients screened, 102 patients were included in the study. Exclusions were primarily due to patients not being on acarbose for at least 3 months (n=43). The average HbA1c before and after acarbose initiation was 9.08% (SD=1.74) and 8.43% (SD=1.74) respectively, with an average HbA1c reduction of 0.65% (n=102, p=0.0005). Forty patients (39.2%) discontinued acarbose after at least 3 months of use. Of the 73 patients not on insulin at the time of acarbose initiation, 19 (26%) were started on insulin therapy despite addition of acarbose.Conclusion:Acarbose can be considered in patients who may reach their HbA1c goal with minimal HbA1c reduction. However, adverse effects are a limitation to use. Potential risks and benefits should be assessed and discussed with the patient prior to prescribing acarbose.

Students' self-assessment correlated with faculty assessment of performance during clinical case discussions. Increased use of self-assessments for professional development in pharmacy and other healthcare professional curricula should be considered.