ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2018
Evaluation of a Longitudinal Institutional Advanced Pharmacy Practice Model.
Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Examining Delineated Competencies within Blended Hospital/Health System Pharmacy and General Medicine Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate a longitudinal experiential training model for advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). INNOVATION: A six-month longitudinal pilot program named the Focused Institutional Longitudinal Experience (FILE) program was developed at two academic medical centers to maximize active participation of the student and minimize the time spent orienting and onboarding students to each APPE experience. A unique component of the FILE program is the longitudinal service project, which involved a medication use evaluation, including a review of published literature and drug policy recommendations to medical center quality committees. ANALYSIS: Student ratings regarding the quality and value of the FILE student experience was compared to the traditional APPE model. Nine quality measures were compared (e.g. amount of opportunity for direct patient care experience, learning, integration into healthcare team, and accountability for patient outcomes) between students from the FILE program to peers completing similar APPEs outside the FILE program. FILE students and APPE preceptors also completed surveys regarding the value of several program aspects. KEY
findingsThere was no difference between FILE and non-FILE student self-rated measures of APPE quality, and thus the decision to participate in a longitudinal APPE program should be based on the personal preference of the student. Students in the FILE program agreed or strongly agreed (mean score 4.3) that they felt prepared for post-graduate training at the completion of the program. The potential value that students in a longitudinal program might bring to the site is reinforced by the general agreement by preceptors in the end of year survey that FILE students take less of their time to orient to their service and the trend toward perception that FILE students are more likely to independently participate in patient care activities. NEXT STEPS: To address feedback on preceptor-mentor role and the desire for more interaction with pharmacy residents, students are now paired with a pharmacy resident, and the student and resident work together on the service project with a clinical pharmacist as an advisor. Updated standards of practice clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of students, residents, and the clinical pharmacist preceptor. Annual surveys of FILE students and preceptors provide necessary feedback to continuously improve the quality of the program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.