Background: Discovering methods of Residency Teaching Certificate Programs (RTCPs) will allow for collaboration in developing best practices to ensure both high quality of programming and outcomes for participants. Objective: The primary objective of this project is to describe and compare how RTCPs are conducted in the state of Ohio. Secondarily, to identify current practices in assessing RTCPs in both programmatic effectiveness and individual resident teaching outcomes. Methods: The seven coordinators of the seven Ohio RTCPs (n=7) were contacted via email and asked to participate in an IRB-approved interview, either in-person or telephonically. Standardized questions were developed to inquire about six categories of interest: demographics/background, administration/logistics, content, assessment of the resident, program financing, and program continuous quality improvement (CQI). All seven programs participated in interviews. Data was coded by multiple members of the research team for presentation in aggregate form. Results: RTCPs include seminar days at the respective pharmacy colleges; however, the number, length, and content of seminars vary. The majority of programs (n=5) stated using inherited curriculum and materials passed down from previous coordinators. While each RTCP requires participants to submit a teaching portfolio, only three of seven programs assess the summative portfolios. All programs (n=7) award participants a certificate based on completion of requirements without a defined minimum performance standard. Two programs are collecting participant feedback after every session for CQI however no programs are completing an annual programmatic assessment of resident outcomes. The majority of coordinators (n=7) are interested in collaborating and sharing “best practices” between RTCPs in the state. Conclusions: Although published and available resources exist surrounding the development and delivery of RTCPs, in Ohio, their use varies greatly. The most striking outcomes highlighted the lack of resident and program assessment of outcomes in RTCPs.  The research has brought forth ideas of ways to improve these programs through resident assessment, program assessment and also leads to reflection and innovation around the best way to deliver these programs.

Background: Currently, there are no accreditation requirements for pharmacy resident teaching certificate programs (RTCPs) but rather suggested guidelines and documents for individual programs to follow. RTCP curriculums are often “handed-down” from past personnel and vary based on individual interpretation. Quality improvement may be overlooked when programs do not report to governing bodies. Objective: The primary objective of this quality improvement project was threefold: 1) to identify past RTCP participants’ perceptions regarding program seminars, activities, and requirements; 2) to determine the short-term and long-term impact on participant careers and interaction with learners; and 3) to improve the program to meet participants' needs. Methods: A 25 item Qualtrics survey was sent to 93 past pharmacy residents who completed the RTCP. Delivery of the survey was confirmed to 89 previous residents. Participants provided consent and were given 12 days to complete the survey. Data was collected and coded by the research team independently. Results: The participants hold positions in a variety of roles, with 68.3% of participants currently holding a non-academia position. The top five most beneficial activities during the RTCP were: giving a large room lecture, facilitating small group learning, developing test questions, delivering professional CE, and meeting with their teaching mentor. Most seminar topics were beneficial to residents during the RTCP, with over two-thirds of the topics (n=23) found beneficial by at least 90% of the participants. A total of 92.9% of respondents said that the most beneficial aspect of having an assigned mentor was the teaching advice and feedback provided. Conclusions: The perceptions and beliefs of past RTCP participants were obtained regarding how beneficial the programming, activities, and mentorship offered were during and after RTCP completion. Quality improvement ideas from this work include redistribution of time in seminars compared to hands-on activities, the adoption of tracks or concentrations within the RTCP, and the creation of mentor training and development.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Despite international guidelines’ recommendations, spirometry is underutilized in the diagnosis and management of asthma and COPD. Spirometry may be an opportunity for trained pharmacists to meet the needs of patients with suspected or diagnosed lung conditions. The aim of this scoping review is to describe the literature including pharmacist provided spirometry services, specifically to identify: 1) the models of pharmacist provided spirometry services, and additional services commonly offered alongside spirometry, 2) pharmacist training and capability to obtain quality results, and (3) pharmacist, physician, and patient perspectives. Methods In September 2020, a comprehensive literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted to identify all relevant literature on the topic of pharmacist provided spirometry services using the search term: “pharmacist or pharmacy” and “spirometry or pulmonary function test or lung function test.” Literature was screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria and selected articles were charted and analyzed using the themes above. Results A total of 27 records were included. The scoping review found that pharmacist provided spirometry has been conducted around the world in community pharmacies and clinic settings. Community pharmacists may increase access to spirometry screening; the lack of communication with primary care providers and remuneration are barriers that need to be overcome to optimize the utility of the service. Clinic-based services are interprofessional and collaborative, allowing a patient to receive the test, results, diagnosis, and medication changes in one visit. Following comprehensive training, pharmacists felt confident in their ability to perform spirometry and met quality standards at acceptable rates. Conclusion Spirometry is an opportunity for pharmacists to improve evidence-based practice for screening and diagnosing lung conditions along with providing comprehensive services to complement testing. Data around provider and patient perspectives is limited and should be further investigated to determine if providers and patients would value and collaborate with pharmacists providing spirometry services.