Determining Indicators of High-Quality Application Activities for Team-Based Learning

Vancomycin Flight Simulator: A Team-Based Learning Exercise

BACKGROUND

Team-based learning (TBL) encourages learners to think critically to solve problems they will face in practice. Pharmacokinetic dosing and monitoring are complex skills requiring the application of learned knowledge. The study sought to assess the impact of a TBL, vancomycin dosing activity in a Pharmaceutical Skills IV course measured with exam question performance during the second professional year.

METHODS

This retrospective, descriptive study relates a TBL activity, assigned to 85 students, which included an individual student pre-preparation quiz, assigned readings, in-class individual and team-based readiness assessments, small group application of a vancomycin patient case, and group discussion/feedback on clinical decisions with supportive reasoning. The class year before and class year of the TBL implementation were compared using the total percentage of points possible earned by the class years, by topic. To minimize potential confounding, the primary outcome was the change in topic performance by the rank difficulty (e.g., the largest possible benefit being the hardest topic becoming the easiest with no other variation in topic rank difficulty).

RESULTS

In the year of implementation, the mean individual readiness assurance test (IRAT) performance was 5.5 ± 1.88 (10 points possible, 55%). The mean team readiness assurance test (TRAT) performance was 10 of 10 points possible (100%). The class exam item performance in the year before (n = 101) and year of (n = 84) TBL implementation showed a general decline in exam scores. However, the vancomycin topic difficultly went from fifth easiest, to second easiest, with less than 1% change in raw score.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a pharmacokinetic TBL activity appeared to moderately support the students' vancomycin learning. Additional studies are warranted on APPE readiness and performance.

How to use the Delphi method to aid in decision making and build consensus in pharmacy education

OUR SITUATION

As pharmacy educators, we often encounter situations such as designing new curricula or establishing shared values for an organization that may be ambiguous or controversial. To generate effective solutions, it is often necessary to build group consensus with key stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to describe and provide recommendations for using the Delphi method, a process for facilitating discussions and aiding in decision making.

METHODOLOGICAL LITERATURE REVIEW

An overview of the Delphi method, including its multiple variations, is presented. Steps necessary to complete a Delphi study (building a protocol, developing a research question, defining panelists and panel size, piloting the protocol, round one item creation and analysis, round two and beyond, consensus, increasing clarity, and reporting) is described.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR APPLICATION(S)

Practical recommendations are provided to support use the Delphi method to build consensus in research. These recommendations include: (1) clarify the purpose of the Delphi, (2) ensure the research questions are grounded in the literature and are relevant, (3) carefully consider panelist processes, (4) determine any definitions that should be given to or developed by panelists, (5) determine methods for enhancing clarity, and (6) employ methods to reduce attrition.

POTENTIAL IMPACT

The Delphi method provides a systematic approach to generating consensus in pharmacy education for commonly encountered situations such as committee meetings, research studies, faculty retreats, classroom activities, and lab meetings.

Effects of peer-led study sessions on first-year student pharmacist performance in pharmacy math

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate effects of peer-led study sessions on performance in a traditionally challenging course, Pharmacy Math, among first-year student pharmacists (P1s).

METHODS

Peer-led study sessions were conducted throughout fall 2019 for P1s. Sessions were led by two second-year student pharmacists and focused on study skills and course-related strategies, principles, and content. P1s who attended the majority (at least five) of study sessions were compared to those who attended fewer sessions on student demographics, undergraduate science grade point average, and course outcome (pass/did not pass) using chi-square and independent samples t-tests. Relative risk (RR) was calculated. A sub-analysis of students considered at risk of failing was also conducted.

RESULTS

There were 200 P1 participants. Twenty-four students (12%) attended the majority of the sessions and 176 students (88%) attended fewer sessions. Of the 24 students who attended ≥ five study sessions, all passed Pharmacy Math, while 12 of the 176 students who attended fewer sessions failed Pharmacy Math. Students who attended ≥ five sessions had a 6.8% reduction in risk of failing compared to students who attended fewer sessions (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.895, 0.97). More striking, at-risk students who attended ≥ five study sessions had a 17.1% reduction in risk of failing.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-led study sessions contribute to reduced risk of failing Pharmacy Math among students who attend a majority of study sessions. Improvements for the future were identified, including mandatory attendance, group structure, and creative ways to cover concepts.

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.