The Clinical Training Center: A layered‐learning rotation model to meet departmental goals at a community teaching hospital

Abstract

IntroductionQuality experiential education (EE) programs are the mainstay of hands‐on learning for Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) candidates, but challenges remain in the health system setting regarding capacity. Layered‐learning practice models (LLPM) provide the opportunity to both increase student capacity and add benefit to the hospital pharmacy department.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to describe a before and after assessment of a rotation practice model change to benefit departmental goals at a community teaching hospital.MethodsThe Clinical Training Center (CTC) model was implemented in 2016 in tandem with a curricular transformation at the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy. Faculty within the hospital pharmacy department developed a model to accommodate an increased student capacity and created a hands‐on, layered‐learning environment to provide direct patient care to non‐rounding clinical inpatient units and decreased staff‐to‐patient bed volumes.ResultsWith the implementation of the CTC rotation model, student capacity on the health systems and transitions of care rotations increased by 2.4‐fold (from 32 student‐months to 77 student‐months per year). The student‐driven care team provided comparable levels of clinical interventions to decentralized clinical pharmacists and increased direct patient contact by 2.2‐fold. Six decentralized clinical pharmacists experienced a 48% decrease in patient volume due to the CTC model. Capacity concerns within the institution were alleviated without the need for additional pharmacist preceptors. Other benefits of the model included peer‐to‐peer learning between different student levels and successful transition to a predominantly online training platform.DiscussionThe CTC model successfully provided hands‐on patient care opportunities to multiple levels of pharmacy students in an LLPM. This model allowed for similar rates of clinical pharmacy intervention to decentralized pharmacists, decreased clinical pharmacist‐patient volumes, and increased face‐to‐face patient contact by pharmacy personnel.