A business-practice model is a guide, or toolkit, to assist managers and clinical pharmacy practitioners in the exploration, proposal, development and implementation of new clinical pharmacy services and/or the enhancement of existing services. This document was developed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Task Force on Ambulatory Practice to assist clinical pharmacy practitioners and administrators in the development of businesspractice models for new and existing clinical pharmacy services in ambulatory settings. This document provides detailed instructions, examples, and resources on conducting a market assessment and a needs assessment, types of clinical services, operations, legal and regulatory issues, marketing and promotion, service development and exit plan, evaluation of service outcomes, and financial considerations in the development of a clinical pharmacy service in the ambulatory environment. Available literature is summarized, and an appendix provides valuable citations and resources. As ambulatory care practices continue to evolve, there will be increased knowledge of how to initiate and expand the services. This document is intended to serve as an essential resource to assist in the growth and development of clinical pharmacy services in the ambulatory environment.

No abstract

Pharmacists, with expertise in optimizing drug therapy outcomes, are valuable components of the healthcare team and are becoming increasingly involved in public health efforts. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in diverse community pharmacy settings can implement a variety of asthma interventions when they are brief, supported by appropriate tools, and integrated into the workflow. The Asthma Friendly Pharmacy (AFP) model addresses the challenges of providing patient-focused care in a community pharmacy setting by offering education to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians on asthma-related pharmaceutical care services, such as identifying or resolving medication-related problems; educating patients about asthma and medication-related concepts; improving communication and strengthening relationships between pharmacists, patients, and other healthcare providers; and establishing higher expectations for the pharmacist's role in patient care and public health efforts. This article describes the feasibility of the model in an urban community pharmacy setting and documents the interventions and communication activities promoted through the AFP model.

Objective. To determine whether there is a difference in student pharmacists' learning or satisfaction when standardized patients or manikins are used to teach physical assessment. Design. Third-year student pharmacists were randomized to learn physical assessment (cardiac and pulmonary examinations) using either a standardized patient or a manikin. Assessment. Performance scores on the final examination and satisfaction with the learning method were compared between groups. Eighty and 74 student pharmacists completed the cardiac and pulmonary examinations, respectively. There was no difference in performance scores between student pharmacists who were trained using manikins vs standardized patients (93.8% vs. 93.5%, p50.81). Student pharmacists who were trained using manikins indicated that they would have probably learned to perform cardiac and pulmonary examinations better had they been taught using standardized patients (p,0.001) and that they were less satisfied with their method of learning (p50.04). Conclusions. Training using standardized patients and manikins are equally effective methods of learning physical assessment, but student pharmacists preferred using standardized patients.

Objective. To determine factors predictive of student failure or poor performance on advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs) at a single pharmacy program. Methods. This retrospective cohort evaluated students entering the Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) program from 2012-2014 at St. Louis College of Pharmacy. Students who received a grade of F for one or more APPEs (failure group) were compared to all other students (non-failure group). A secondary evaluation compared students with a C or F on one or more APPEs (poor performers) to all other students (non-poor performers). Data were collected on didactic and experiential performance, identifiable professionalism issues from introductory pharmacy practice experiences (IPPEs), and academic honor code violations. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine factors associated with APPE failure and poor performance. Results. A total of 669 students were analyzed. Twenty-eight students (4.2%) failed one or more APPEs and 81 students (12.1%) were identified as poor performers (grade of C or F). For the primary outcome, professional grade point average (GPA) of less than 2.7, practicum failure, IPPE professionalism issue(s), and pharmacotherapy course failure were identified for inclusion in the multivariable analysis. The IPPE professionalism issue(s) (HR 4.8 [95% CI 1.9-12.4]) and pharmacotherapy course failure (HR 4.2 [95% CI, 1.6-11.1]) were associated with APPE failure on multivariable regression. On the secondary analysis, the same variables were identified for multivariable regression, with professional GPA of less than 2.7 (HR 2.7 [95% CI 1.5-5]), IPPE professionalism issue(s) (HR 3.9 [95% CI 2.2-6.9]), and pharmacotherapy course failure (HR 2.0 [95% CI 1.1-3.7]) associated with poor performance. Conclusion.Poor academic performance and/or identified unprofessional behavior while completing IPPEs are associated with APPE failure and poor performance. Interventions should be aimed at identifying at-risk students and addressing risk factors prior to APPEs.