OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare perceptions of key informants representing U.S. colleges/schools of pharmacy and community pharmacy practice sites regarding (1) value associated with community pharmacy residency programs (CPRPs) and (2) barriers to offering CPRPs . DESIGN: Descriptive, non-experimental, cross-sectional study. SETTING: United States, June 13, 2009, through July 13, 2009. PARTICIPANTS: 554 respondents to a Web-based survey. INTERVENTION: Key informants representing the following four organizational groups were surveyed: (1) colleges/schools of pharmacy participating in CPRPs, (2) colleges/schools of pharmacy not participating in CPRPs, (3) CPRP community pharmacy practice sites, and (4) non-CPRP community pharmacy practice sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Value of CPRPs to participating pharmacies, value of CPRPs to participating colleges/schools of pharmacy, and barriers to offering CPRPs. RESULTS: Overall, 267 key informants from colleges/schools of pharmacy and 287 key informants from pharmacy practice sites responded to the survey (n = 554 total respondents). Of these, 334 responders provided data that were usable for analysis. The most important types of value to the respondents were altruistic in nature (e.g., pharmacy education development, pharmacy profession development, community engagement). However, barriers to offering CPRPs were more practical and included challenges related to accreditation and operational issues. Further, evidence indicated that (1) lack of leadership, (2) lack of revenue generated from such programs, and (3) the cost of reimbursement for residents may be fundamental, multidimensional barriers to implementing CPRPs. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for starting and continuing CPRPs, "industry norms" that would require CPRP training for certain types of employment, and creation of models for patient care revenue would help develop and position CPRPs in the future.
OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare perceptions of key informants representing U.S. colleges/schools of pharmacy and community pharmacy practice sites regarding (1) value associated with community pharmacy residency programs (CPRPs) and (2) barriers to offering CPRPs . DESIGN: Descriptive, non-experimental, cross-sectional study. SETTING: United States, June 13, 2009, through July 13, 2009. PARTICIPANTS: 554 respondents to a Web-based survey. INTERVENTION: Key informants representing the following four organizational groups were surveyed: (1) colleges/schools of pharmacy participating in CPRPs, (2) colleges/schools of pharmacy not participating in CPRPs, (3) CPRP community pharmacy practice sites, and (4) non-CPRP community pharmacy practice sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Value of CPRPs to participating pharmacies, value of CPRPs to participating colleges/schools of pharmacy, and barriers to offering CPRPs. RESULTS: Overall, 267 key informants from colleges/schools of pharmacy and 287 key informants from pharmacy practice sites responded to the survey (n = 554 total respondents). Of these, 334 responders provided data that were usable for analysis. The most important types of value to the respondents were altruistic in nature (e.g., pharmacy education development, pharmacy profession development, community engagement). However, barriers to offering CPRPs were more practical and included challenges related to accreditation and operational issues. Further, evidence indicated that (1) lack of leadership, (2) lack of revenue generated from such programs, and (3) the cost of reimbursement for residents may be fundamental, multidimensional barriers to implementing CPRPs. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for starting and continuing CPRPs, "industry norms" that would require CPRP training for certain types of employment, and creation of models for patient care revenue would help develop and position CPRPs in the future.
Authors: Samuel F Stolpe; Alex J Adams; Lynette R Bradley-Baker; Anne L Burns; James A Owen Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Magaly Rodriguez de Bittner; Alex J Adams; Anne L Burns; Carolyn Ha; Michelle L Hilaire; Donald E Letendre; Douglas J Scheckelhoff; Terry L Schwinghammer; Andrew Traynor; David P Zgarrick; Lynette R Bradley-Baker Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 2.047