BackgroundThe motivation to volunteer on a medical service trip (MST) may involve more than a simple desire for philanthropy. Some volunteers may be motivated by an intrinsic interest in volunteering in which the context of the volunteer activity is less important. Others may volunteer because the context of their volunteering is more important than their intrinsic interest in volunteering. Furthermore, MSTs may pose a variety of ethical problems that volunteers should consider prior to engaging in a trip. This study evaluated the motivations and barriers for graduate health care students volunteering for an MST to either the Dominican Republic or Mississippi. Volunteers’ understanding of some of the ethical issues associated with MSTs was also assessed.MethodsThirty-five graduate health professions students who volunteered on an MST were asked to complete an online survey. Students’ motivations and barriers for volunteering were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale and Fisher’s exact test. Ethical understanding of issues in volunteering was assessed using thematic analysis.ResultsStudents’ motivations for volunteering appeared to be related to the medical context of their service more than an inherent desire for volunteer work. Significant differences were seen in motivations and barriers for some student groups, especially those whose volunteer work had less opportunity for clinical service. Thematic analysis revealed two major themes and suggested that students had an empirical understanding that volunteer work could have both positive and negative effects.ConclusionsAn understanding of students’ motivations for volunteering on an MST may allow faculty to design trips with activities that effectively address student motivations. Although students had a basic understanding of some of the ethical issues involved, they had not considered the impact of a service group on the in-country partners they work with.

The practice of pharmacy continues to evolve as more pharmacists complete the education, training, and credentialing necessary to provide direct patient care. Ongoing advocacy of legal and regulatory changes at the state level is essential to support an expanded scope of practice for these qualified pharmacists. Determining the eligibility requirements for pharmacists in advanced practice roles is an important component of this advocacy. Board certification through the Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS)is an appropriate qualifying credential. This commentary will overview board certification through BPS, differentiate board certification from a certificate program, and provide examples of state pharmacy practice act language that includes board certification as a qualifying credential. The commentary will include a recommendation and rationale for board certification to be included in state pharmacy practice acts as the credential required for pharmacists to practice in direct patient care roles. This commentary will serve as a resource for advocates working at the state level to revise pharmacy practice acts.

No abstract

The American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Board of Regents charged the 2020 to 2021 Publications Committee to review and revise the 2004 ACCP guideline statement on therapeutic interchange. The committee reviewed previous guidelines and relevant published literature. After development of new guidelines, the committee and Board of Regents voted in support of the updated guideline. The ACCP reaffirms its support of therapeutic interchange. Additional recommendations for appropriate implementation and practice of therapeutic interchange are provided. Therapeutic interchange is an important tool in optimizing patient care, improving access to care, and reducing the cost of medications.