ABSTRACT
Objective. To determine how the standards for teaching pharmacy history were met by U.S. pharmacy schools, whether schools wanted to expand their commitment to pharmacy history, what pedagogical assistance, if any, was desired, and whether elective courses were offered. Methods. There were 133 school deans who were asked to identify the responsible faculty for teaching pharmacy history. A 10-question online survey instrument was designed and emailed to these faculty or the dean if no faculty were identified. Follow-up emails were sent at 2-week intervals. If they were non-responsive after three attempts, then telephone solicitation was attempted. Results. There were 100 schools (75%) that responded. Fifty-three percent were public and 47% were private; with 50% having class sizes of 100 or less, 41% with 101-250, and 9% having over 250. Eighty-six percent of respondents meet the ACPE requirement within a required course. Seventy-two percent devote only one to five hours of instruction to meet the requirement. Sixty-eight percent use no supporting literature, and among those who do, there was no common textbook. Interestingly, 21% wanted more teaching time, and 91% desired pedagogical assistance, varying from a packaged course (26%) to a syllabus with assignments and assessment banks (23%). Conclusion. Since no time or material guidelines were established to fulfill the ACPE pharmacy history educational requirements, these results provide a starting point to judge what is adequate and/or preferred. With the development of teaching guidelines and adoptable teaching materials, the pedagogical solution to this ACPE standard may become more complete and consistent.
Subject(s)
Education, Pharmacy/organization & administration , History of Pharmacy , Schools, Pharmacy/organization & administration , Teaching/organization & administration , History, 17th Century , History, 18th Century , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
The first dual-degree program combining both the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) and the doctor of medicine (MD) degrees was designed and launched by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, in academic year 2013-2014. This joint effort was led by the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy (EMSOP) and the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) to combine expertise in both diagnostic and treatment facets of health care and to prepare graduates for leadership roles in providing and managing comprehensive patient care in a variety of settings. One area of potential value of these skill sets is the drug development industry. A survey was conducted among pharmaceutical executive stakeholders associated with a postdoctoral training program to assess the perceived value of this new dual-degree skill set and to identify particular functions where the combined training has its best fit. Results indicate that the combined nature of this training is highly valued in this setting, especially in the areas of clinical pharmacology, drug safety and pharmacovigilance, medical affairs/strategy, and medical science liaisons. Future monitoring of graduates will further define the value of this dual degree in this and other health care settings.
ABSTRACT
The objectives of the study were: (a) to determine pharmacists' perceptions of the importance of Healthy People (HP) 2000 objectives for their patients and community; and (b) to analyze pharmacists' perceived perceptions about recent trends in the characteristics of patients. Three hundred one useful questionnaire were collected from pharmacists who either own or manage a pharmacy located in New Jersey's 67 cities eligible for financial assistance. Pharmacists consider health objectives which are directly linked to health care such as preventing, detecting, and controlling hypertension, heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and disabling conditions, to be very important. Pharmacists agree to some extent that their patients are now more willing to accept pharmacy counseling services with their prescriptions than before. In conclusion, pharmacists considered objectives related to preventive services to be the most important for HP 2000 objectives, and health promotion and health protection to be less important. The findings of this study will enhance the understanding of pharmacists' perceptions of community health issues and will be beneficial to attain the objectives of HP 2010.
