Objective. To determine whether a 2-year continuing professional development (CPD) training program improved first-year (P1) and second-year (P2) pharmacy students' ability to write SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timed) learning objectives. Design. First-year students completed live or online CPD training, including creating portfolios and writing SMART objectives prior to their summer introductory pharmacy practice experience (IPPE). In year 2, P1 and P2 students were included. SMART learning objectives were graded and analyzed. Assessment. On several objectives, the 2011 P1 students (n 5 130) scored higher than did the P2 cohort (n 5 105). In 2011, P2 students outscored their own performance in 2010. In 2011, P1 students who had been trained in online modules performed the same as did live-session trainees with respect to SMART objectives. Conclusion. With focused online or live training, students are capable of incorporating principles of CPD by writing SMART learning objectives.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify potential failure points in a new chemotherapy preparation technology and to implement changes that prevent or minimize the consequences of those failures before they occur using the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) approach. Methods An FMEA was conducted by a team of medication safety pharmacists, oncology pharmacists and technicians, leadership from informatics, investigational drug, and medication safety services, and representatives from the technology vendor. Failure modes were scored using both Risk Priority Number (RPN) and Risk Hazard Index (RHI) scores. Results The chemotherapy preparation workflow was defined in a 41-step process with 16 failure modes. The RPN and RHI scores were identical for each failure mode because all failure modes were considered detectable. Five failure modes, all attributable to user error, were deemed to pose the highest risk. Mitigation strategies and system changes were identified for 2 failure modes, with subsequent system modifications resulting in reduced risk. Conclusion The FMEA was a useful tool for risk mitigation and workflow optimization prior to implementation of an intravenous compounding technology. The process of conducting this study served as a collaborative and proactive approach to reducing the potential for medication errors upon adoption of new technology into the chemotherapy preparation process.

A survey of pharmacy directors at cancer centers revealed gaps between what respondents considered important pharmacist services in the provision of cancer clinical trials and the actual performance of those services in their institution.

Issues facing pharmacy leaders in 2015 include practice model growth and the role of pharmacy students, clinical privileging of health-system pharmacists and provider status, medication error prevention, and specialty pharmacy services. The goal of this article is to provide practical approaches to 4 issues facing pharmacy leaders in 2015 to help them focus their department's goals. This article will address (1) advances in the pharmacy practice model initiative and the role of pharmacy students, (2) the current thinking of pharmacists being granted clinical privileges in health systems, (3) updates on preventing harmful medication errors, and (4) the growth of specialty pharmacy services. The sample template of a strategic plan may be used by a pharmacy department in 2015 in an effort to continue developing patient-centered pharmacy services.

Objective Patients who have an up-to-date and accurate medication list are less susceptible to medication errors and allow care teams to make more informed treatment decisions. Through utilizing student pharmacists to provide medication history services, we anticipate improved patient safety and overall quality of patient care. The purpose of this project was to implement a medication history service for ambulatory oncology patients of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Methods A phased approach was utilized to implement a standardized operating procedure for completing medication histories in ambulatory oncology patients. Data collection included number of total medication discrepancies, percentage of patients with high-risk medications, and high-risk medication classes involved in discrepancies. Additionally, time data were collected, including time spent calling the patient, completing patient work up, and preceptor oversight. Results Students completed medication histories for 60 patients; 83% of patients had at least one discrepancy with 21% of those discrepancies involving a high-risk medication. High-risk medications involved in discrepancies included oral chemotherapeutic agents, anticoagulants, insulin, and opioids. Conclusion The majority of patients seen had at least one medication discrepancy that was identified and corrected through the medication history service. By correcting the discrepancy, the likelihood of medication errors occurring was decreased. Continuous workflow changes are being made to identify the number and type of resources to expand the service to all appropriate ambulatory oncology patients at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center.