Angelina Lim1, Gina Arora2, Brigid McInerney3, Michelle Vienet4, Kay Stewart5, Kirstie Galbraith6. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Electronic address: Angelina.lim@monash.edu. 2. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Electronic address: gina.arora@monash.edu. 3. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Electronic address: brigid.mcinerney@monash.edu. 4. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Electronic address: michelle.vienet@monash.edu. 5. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Electronic address: kay.stewart@monash.edu. 6. Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Electronic address: kirstie.galbraith@monash.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Intern Foundation Program (IFP) is an innovative new program for intern pharmacists (provisionally registered pharmacists) that integrates academic theory with structured workplace learning and regular feedback, incorporates research training, and streamlines training of clinical educators (CEs). The aim of this research was to evaluate aspects of the IFP from the perspectives of both CEs and interns, gauging opinion about the impact on workload, structured workplace learning, addition of research training, CE-student relationships, CE standardized training, and intern transition to practice. METHODS: Two focus groups were conducted to explore CE (N = 6) and pharmacy intern (N = 7) perspectives of the IFP. A topic guide was constructed to address the research aims. Thematic analysis was undertaken by two team members independently then in discussion. RESULTS: Both the CE and intern groups reported that the IFP enabled more structured supervision and fostered a better intern-CE relationship with beneficial support from the university. IFP standardized rubrics and checklists used as part of workplace learning assisted with more consistent feedback for interns and training approaches for CEs alongside CE training. Participants also reported that undertaking a research project provided them with enhanced learning and new skill development. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the pilot agreed that the IFP is a valuable program, deemed complementary to the intern training program that assists intern transition to independent practice through implementation of a unique curriculum based largely on workplace learning, research training, fostering better CE-intern relationships, robust CE training, and close university-workplace support.
OBJECTIVE: The Intern Foundation Program (IFP) is an innovative new program for intern pharmacists (provisionally registered pharmacists) that integrates academic theory with structured workplace learning and regular feedback, incorporates research training, and streamlines training of clinical educators (CEs). The aim of this research was to evaluate aspects of the IFP from the perspectives of both CEs and interns, gauging opinion about the impact on workload, structured workplace learning, addition of research training, CE-student relationships, CE standardized training, and intern transition to practice. METHODS: Two focus groups were conducted to explore CE (N = 6) and pharmacy intern (N = 7) perspectives of the IFP. A topic guide was constructed to address the research aims. Thematic analysis was undertaken by two team members independently then in discussion. RESULTS: Both the CE and intern groups reported that the IFP enabled more structured supervision and fostered a better intern-CE relationship with beneficial support from the university. IFP standardized rubrics and checklists used as part of workplace learning assisted with more consistent feedback for interns and training approaches for CEs alongside CE training. Participants also reported that undertaking a research project provided them with enhanced learning and new skill development. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the pilot agreed that the IFP is a valuable program, deemed complementary to the intern training program that assists intern transition to independent practice through implementation of a unique curriculum based largely on workplace learning, research training, fostering better CE-intern relationships, robust CE training, and close university-workplace support.