Development of a tool to assess and advance the effectiveness of preceptors: The Habits of Preceptors Rubric

The cognitive apprenticeship model as a framework for desired precepting qualities to inform preceptor development

INTRODUCTION

Positive learner perceptions of learning experiences have been linked to better learning outcomes. More information is needed on learners' desired qualities of preceptors and learning experiences to inform preceptor development. Aligning learners' perceptions with a teaching framework, such as the Cognitive Apprenticeship (CA) framework, may be useful to guide preceptor self-assessment and development. However, information is lacking regarding whether the CA framework is consistent with learners' expectations. The purpose of this study was to determine pharmacy learner perspectives on desired preceptor behaviors and qualities and to evaluate their alignment with the CA framework to inform preceptor development.

METHODS

Twenty-two learners (nine residents and 13 introductory and advanced pharmacy practice students) participated in nine focus group interviews. Data were analyzed qualitatively by inductive coding and pattern coding and then condensed into themes. After initial analysis, the CA framework was adapted into codes and applied to the data to explore the alignment of quality preceptor characteristics with CA.

RESULTS

Learners identified desired general preceptor characteristics, teaching behaviors, and qualities of sites and experience structure in their discussion. All four CA dimensions (Methods, Sociology, Sequencing, and Content) were represented in the described desired preceptor qualities. Most comments were connected to the Methods dimension.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the use of CA as a framework to guide preceptor development and assessment for desired precepting qualities, preceptor behaviors, and learning environments. Additional research is needed for best practices in implementing CA in preceptor assessment and professional development.

Which hematology/oncology patients are high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review? A three-round Delphi survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

INTRODUCTION

Prioritization and acuity tools have been leveraged to facilitate targeted and efficient clinical pharmacist interventions. However, there is a lack of established pharmacy-specific acuity factors in the ambulatory hematology/oncology setting. Therefore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Pharmacy Directors Forum conducted a survey to establish consensus on acuity factors associated with hematology/oncology patients that are high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review.

METHODS

A three-round electronic Delphi survey was conducted. During the first round, respondents were asked an open-ended question to suggest acuity factors based on their expert opinion. Respondents were then asked in the second round to agree or disagree with the compiled acuity factors, in which those with ≥75% agreement were included in the third round. The final consensus was defined as a mean score ≥3.33 on a modified 4-point Likert scale (4 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) during the third round.

RESULTS

A total of 124 hematology/oncology clinical pharmacists completed the first round of the Delphi survey (invitation response rate, 36.7%), of which 103 completed the second round (response rate, 83.1%) and 84 the third round (response rate, 67.7%). A final consensus was achieved for 18 acuity factors. Acuity factors were identified in the following themes: antineoplastic regimen characteristics, drug interactions, organ dysfunction, pharmacogenomics, recent discharge, laboratory parameters, and treatment-related toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi panel of 124 clinical pharmacists achieved consensus on 18 acuity factors that would identify a hematology/oncology patient as a high priority for ambulatory clinical pharmacist review. The research team envisions incorporating these acuity factors into a pharmacy-specific electronic scoring tool.

Guidance for Qualitative Research Manuscripts in Pharmacy Education

The goal of this Best Practice Review is to support researchers in successfully preparing and publishing qualitative research in pharmacy education. Standard practice from the literature and journals' guidance from related fields were reviewed, and recommendations and resources applicable to qualitative research in pharmacy education were compiled for researchers planning to conduct and publish qualitative research. This review provides recommendations, not requirements, for publication in the Journal and is intended to be a guide, especially for authors and reviewers relatively new to the field of qualitative research. Additionally, researchers planning to publish their qualitative research are advised to review available best practices and standards, such as the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Given the diverse methodology of qualitative research, it is important for authors to provide sufficient details and justifications of selected methods for transparency and to report collected results in a manner that allows reviewers and readers to adequately assess the validity of their study and the applicability of the findings.

Evaluating the impact of integrating SMART goal setting in preceptor development using the Habits of Preceptors Rubric

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

The impact of goal setting in pharmacy preceptor development was evaluated using the Habits of Preceptors Rubric (HOP-R), a criterion-referenced assessment developed to assess, quantify, and demonstrate growth across 11 preceptor habits.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated initial and follow-up survey responses from the 2019-2020 Clinician Educators Program cohort at Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Glendale Campus. Enrollees in this teaching and learning curriculum (TLC) were invited to assess their precepting habits using the HOP-R after attending the first seminar and again toward the end of the longitudinal program. Using online surveys, participants rated their precepting capabilities as developing, proficient, accomplished, or master level for each habit. In the initial survey, each participant selected a habit of focus for deliberate development and established an individualized goal using the specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) framework. In the follow-up survey, participants indicated their satisfaction with and progress toward accomplishing their precepting goal.

RESULTS

Initial survey results from 55 study participants identified developing as the most frequently self-reported habit level (53%; n = 605 ratings), while master was the least frequently reported (1%). In the follow-up assessment, accomplished (45%) was the most frequently self-reported habit level, while master (5%) remained the least reported. The cohort reported a median progress in SMART goal accomplishment of 69% (range, 12% to 100%; n = 54).

CONCLUSION

Preceptors and resident pharmacists reported perceived advancement in precepting capabilities within the conceptual framework of the HOP-R encompassing both their self-selected habit of focus and adjacent habits while enrolled in a TLC. SMART goals facilitated qualitative and quantitative assessment of development.

A Qualitative Preceptor Development Needs Assessment to Inform Program Design and Effectiveness

Objective. To assess preceptor teaching challenges and development programming design preferences through a qualitative needs assessment of Doctor of Pharmacy student and resident preceptors.Methods. In 2018, 148 experiential education stakeholders across North Carolina (eg, preceptors, residency program directors, experiential faculty administrators, and practice site administrators) were invited to participate in a 60-minute semi-structured interview as part of a broad preceptor development needs assessment. Interview questions focused on: precepting challenges, positive and negative features of development programs, and preferences for program design. Interview transcripts were coded using thematic analysis.Results. Forty-two participants completed interviews, including preceptors from various rotation types, residency program directors, experiential faculty administrators, and institution administrators. Participants identified numerous teaching challenges related to learners, preceptors, and institutional level factors. Participants often noted there was inadequate time, resources, and support to effectively teach. Desirable preceptor development program features included practical strategies, collaboration with preceptors, delivery by education and practice experts, and topics specific to precepting experience. Participants identified live, on-demand, and webinar formats as acceptable if collaboration and engagement were included. Participants also desired unique training opportunities such as online platforms, coaching programs, and simulated learning environments.Conclusion. Preceptors for pharmacy students and residents face numerous challenges and require sufficient time, support, and resources to develop their skills. Participants requested training that included on-demand, frequent sessions delivered through various modalities, collaboration opportunities, a choice in topics and delivery formats, and sessions from educational and practice experts.

Assessment of Volunteer Preceptors at Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy in the United States

Objective. To identify the way colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States assess the performance of volunteer preceptors who precept students in advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs).Methods. In the summer and fall semesters of 2018, directors of experiential education were invited to complete an online, self-administered questionnaire that included questions dealing with assessment of APPE volunteer preceptors related to promotion and reappointment procedures, abilities and attributes assessed, methods of assessment, and frequency of conducting such assessments. Several attempts were made via email and phone to encourage participation.Results. Eighty-one of 132 (61.4%) fully accredited programs responded with all but one reporting that they evaluated the performance of APPE volunteer preceptors. Forty-one of these 80 (51.3%) indicated that preceptors cannot be promoted in rank, while 47 (58.8%) had a process for preceptor reappointment. The most commonly assessed preceptor abilities and attributes were accessibility, ability to provide feedback to students, communication skills, and professional demeanor. The most reported assessment strategies were summative student evaluations and on-site evaluation of the preceptor by college or school personnel. The frequency of assessments varied based on the assessment method the institution used.Conclusion. Assessment of APPE volunteer preceptors was an integral component of the quality assurance process at almost all responding US pharmacy colleges and schools. The institutions evaluated various preceptor abilities and attributes and used multiple assessment strategies. Findings from this study may help programs review their existing assessment practices, implement new ones, and help to standardize preceptor assessment.

Experiential Education in Pharmacy Curriculum: The Lebanese International University Model

Experiential education is an essential component of pharmacy education in order to allow intern students to experience real conditions and training opportunities in different inpatient and outpatient settings. This paper provides a description of the pharmacy practice experiences (PPEs) in the Lebanese International University (LIU) 5-year bachelor of pharmacy (BPharm) and postgraduate doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) programs; focuses on the opportunities and challenges encountered; and presents a model for experiential education in Lebanon. Learning outcomes and thus students’ acquisition of predefined competencies are evaluated in actual practice settings through assessment tools. Our experiential education program aligns with the accreditation/certification criteria set by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) and equips future pharmacists with the knowledge and skills to become major components in the healthcare team.

A key performance indicators redefinition initiative at a school of pharmacy using a modified Delphi consensus technique

Objective:

The Outcomes and Assessment Committee at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy was tasked with refining the school’s key performance indicators (KPIs) to improve programmatic assessment by focusing on the most important measures.

Methods:

Initially, 56 KPIs were tracked, nine of which were university mandated, divided into 10 modules: admissions, community outreach, continuing education, diversity, faculty experience and success, fundraising, graduate program, research and scholarship, staff experience and success, and student experience and success. Using a three-round Delphi consensus technique, KPIs were reviewed by faculty and staff. Each participant responded whether they considered each KPI to be essential or not essential for school quality assessment and improvement. Consensus for the first, second, and third rounds was defined as ≥90%, ≥80%, and ≥75% agreement, respectively.

Results:

Of 109 faculty and staff invited, 49 participated in the first round, 51 in the second, and 42 in the third. At the end of the third round, accumulated consensus was achieved for 35 out of 88 (39.8%) KPIs that were considered essential and 3 out of 88 (3.4%) that were considered non-essential. Consensus percentage per module was: 15.4% (2/13) admissions, 28.6% (2/7) community outreach, 33.3% (3/9) continuing education, 27.3% (3/11) diversity, 62.5% (5/8) faculty experience and success, 55.6% (5/9) fundraising, 40% (4/10) graduate program, 33.3% (3/9) research and scholarship, 57.1% (4/7) staff experience and success, and 66.7% (4/6) student experience and success.

Conclusions:

Ultimately, 35 KPIs achieved consensus as essential to measure achievement of benchmarks for the school, which totals 44 KPIs, including nine university mandated KPIs. The process facilitated faculty and staff involvement in KPI selection and achieved improved focus for programmatic assessment.