Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third most common cause of death in the USA. In 2010, the cost of COPD in the USA was projected to be approximately US$50 billion, which includes $20 billion in indirect costs and $30 billion in direct health care expenditures. These costs can be expected to continue to rise with this progressive disease. Costs increase with increasing severity of disease, and hospital stays account for the majority of these costs. Patients are diagnosed with COPD following a multifactorial assessment that includes spirometry, clinical presentation, symptomatology, and risk factors. Smoking cessation interventions are the most influential factor in COPD management. The primary goal of chronic COPD management is stabilization of chronic disease and prevention of acute exacerbations. Bronchodilators are the mainstay of COPD therapy. Patients with few symptoms and low exacerbation risk should be treated with a short-acting bronchodilator as needed for breathlessness. Progression of symptoms, as well as possible decline in forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1), warrant the use of long-acting bronchodilators. For patients with frequent exacerbations with or without consistent symptoms, inhaled corticosteroids should be considered in addition to a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and may even consist of “triple therapy” with all three agents with more severe disease. Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors may be an option in patients with frequent exacerbations and symptoms of chronic bronchitis. In addition to a variety of novel ultra-LABAs, LAMAs and combination bronchodilator and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapies, other bronchodilators with a variety of mechanisms are also being considered, to expand therapeutic options for the treatment of COPD. With more than 50 new medications in the pipeline for the treatment of COPD, optimal management will continue to evolve and grow more complex as benefits of therapy are balanced with the limitations and needs of each patient.

Postgraduate year one (PGY1) and postgraduate year two (PGY2) residencies serve to develop pharmacists into skillful clinicians who provide advanced patient-centered care in various general and specialized areas of pharmacy practice. Pharmacy residencies are a minimum requirement for many clinical pharmacy positions, as well as for positions in academia. The role of clinical pharmacists typically includes teaching, regardless of whether they pursue an academic appointment. Common teaching duties of pharmacist-clinicians include giving continuing education or other invited presentations, providing education to colleagues regarding clinical initiatives, precepting pharmacy students (early and advanced experiences) and residents, and educating other health care professionals. Although ASHP provides accreditation standards for PGY1 and PGY2 residencies, the standards pertaining to teaching or education training are vague. Through the years, teaching certificate programs that develop residents' teaching skills and better prepare residents for a diverse pharmacy job market have increased in popularity; moreover, teaching certificate programs serve as an attractive recruitment tool. However, the consistency of requirements for teaching certificate programs is lacking, and standardization is needed. The Task Force on Residencies developed two sets of guidelines to define teaching experiences within residencies. The first guideline defines the minimum standards for teaching experiences in any residency-training program. The second guideline is for programs offering a teaching certificate program to provide standardization, ensuring similar outcomes and quality on program completion. One of the main differences between the guidelines is the recommendation that residency programs offering a teaching certificate program be affiliated with an academic institution to provide the pedagogy and variety of teaching experiences for the resident. Residency program directors should consider adopting these guidelines to offer consistent teaching experiences. In addition, residents should inquire about the elements of teaching in a program as an aid to selecting the training best suited to their needs.

No abstract

Objective. To determine pharmacy students' knowledge retention from and comfort level with a patient-case simulation compared with a written patient case. Design. Pharmacy students were randomly assigned to participate in either a written patient case or a simulated patient case in which a high-fidelity mannequin was used to portray a patient experiencing a narcotic and acetaminophen overdose. Assessment. Participants' responses on a multiple-choice test and a survey instrument administered before the case, immediately after the case, and 25 days later indicated that participation in the simulated patient case did not result in greater knowledge retention or comfort level than participation in the written patient case. Students' knowledge improved post-intervention regardless of which teaching method was used. Conclusions. Although further research is needed to determine whether the use of simulation in the PharmD curriculum is equivalent or superior to other teaching methods, students' enthusiasm for learning in a simulated environment where they can safely apply patient care skills make this technology worth exploring.