Vasudha Gupta1, Jamie Woodyard2, Kimberley Begley3, Stacey Curtis4, Deanna Tran5. 1. Roseman University College of Pharmacy, Henderson, NV, 11 Sunset Way, Henderson, NV 89014, United States. Electronic address: vgupta@roseman.edu. 2. Purdue University College of Pharmacy, 575 Stadium Mall Drive, RHPH 349, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States. Electronic address: woodyard@purdue.edu. 3. Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, 2500 California Plaza, Vinardi Center 235, Omaha, NE 68178, United States. Electronic address: kimbegley@creighton.edu. 4. University of Florida College of Pharmacy, 1225 Center Drive, HPNP 2336, Gainesville, FL 32610, United States. Electronic address: scurtis@cop.ufl.edu. 5. University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, 20 North Pine St, Room N421, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States. Electronic address: Dtran@rx.umaryland.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Limited literature exists regarding current practices in teaching and assessment of drug utilization review (DUR) skills in pharmacy schools. This manuscript aimed to: (1) examine how assessment is conducted for DUR activities using survey results and (2) summarize the assessment strategies of DUR activities via analysis of tools in colleges of pharmacy. METHODS: A survey was administered to members of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Laboratory Instructors Special Interest Group via Qualtrics. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate survey results and the assessment tools (i.e. rubrics/checklists) collected were analyzed qualitatively to determine common content areas. RESULTS: Out of the 113 institutions emailed, 48 (42.5%) responses were complete and represented individual colleges. Thirty-four of those 48 both implemented and assessed DUR activities. Fourteen institutions (41%) utilized one DUR assessment tool throughout the entire curriculum. The majority (62%) used the assessment tool in the first professional year, with a paper tool being the most frequently utilized (74%). "Identification of drug-related problems" (97%) and "determination of the pharmacist's action" (85%) were listed as important components of the assessment tool. Faculty noted that the assessment tool was easy to use (55%) and adequately assessed students' knowledge/skills (55%). A validated assessment tool (85%) and inclusion of technology (50%) would improve delivery of student feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variability existed in how schools incorporated and assessed DUR activities. Developing a standardized method of teaching and assessing DUR is important to adequately prepare the next generation of pharmacists.
INTRODUCTION: Limited literature exists regarding current practices in teaching and assessment of drug utilization review (DUR) skills in pharmacy schools. This manuscript aimed to: (1) examine how assessment is conducted for DUR activities using survey results and (2) summarize the assessment strategies of DUR activities via analysis of tools in colleges of pharmacy. METHODS: A survey was administered to members of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Laboratory Instructors Special Interest Group via Qualtrics. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate survey results and the assessment tools (i.e. rubrics/checklists) collected were analyzed qualitatively to determine common content areas. RESULTS: Out of the 113 institutions emailed, 48 (42.5%) responses were complete and represented individual colleges. Thirty-four of those 48 both implemented and assessed DUR activities. Fourteen institutions (41%) utilized one DUR assessment tool throughout the entire curriculum. The majority (62%) used the assessment tool in the first professional year, with a paper tool being the most frequently utilized (74%). "Identification of drug-related problems" (97%) and "determination of the pharmacist's action" (85%) were listed as important components of the assessment tool. Faculty noted that the assessment tool was easy to use (55%) and adequately assessed students' knowledge/skills (55%). A validated assessment tool (85%) and inclusion of technology (50%) would improve delivery of student feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variability existed in how schools incorporated and assessed DUR activities. Developing a standardized method of teaching and assessing DUR is important to adequately prepare the next generation of pharmacists.