Preceptor tips for navigating generational differences with introductory and advanced pharmacy practice experience students.

Ideally, precepting during introductory and advanced pharmacy practice experiences should be tailored to meet the individualized needs of learners. Understanding generational similarities and differences that exist between both learners and educators will facilitate meaningful interaction and improve learning outcomes. A common pitfall among preceptors is to judge the values of their pharmacy learners based on the stereotypes of the generations. This tends to be more evident when the preceptor's generation differs from the generation of the learner. The following article describes generational attributes that influence experiential learning with general tips for how preceptors can use this information to enhance their interactions with learners. By comparing and contrasting the predominant generations in the current pharmacy education landscape (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials), the article will demonstrate how multi-generational interactions impact pharmacy education. As Millennials are the majority of experiential learners, the focus will be on their learning preferences and how preceptors can help engage these learners. Practical advice and tools on engaging Millennial learners will be reviewed. Case vignettes will demonstrate how to identify ways to tailor precepting to meet the needs of the learner, avoid common pitfalls, facilitate meaningful interaction, and, ultimately, improve learning outcomes.

Preceptor tips for navigating generational differences with introductory and advanced pharmacy practice experience students

Ideally, precepting during introductory and advanced pharmacy practice experiences should be tailored to meet the individualized needs of learners. Understanding generational similarities and differences that exist between both learners and educators will facilitate meaningful interaction and improve learning outcomes. A common pitfall among preceptors is to judge the values of their pharmacy learners based on the stereotypes of the generations. This tends to be more evident when the preceptor's generation differs from the generation of the learner. The following article describes generational attributes that influence experiential learning with general tips for how preceptors can use this information to enhance their interactions with learners. By comparing and contrasting the predominant generations in the current pharmacy education landscape (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials), the article will demonstrate how multi-generational interactions impact pharmacy education. As Millennials are the majority of experiential learners, the focus will be on their learning preferences and how preceptors can help engage these learners. Practical advice and tools on engaging Millennial learners will be reviewed. Case vignettes will demonstrate how to identify ways to tailor precepting to meet the needs of the learner, avoid common pitfalls, facilitate meaningful interaction, and, ultimately, improve learning outcomes

No disponible

Nanopharmaceuticals (part 1): products on the market.

In 2000, the National Institute of Health launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative to support, coordinate, and advance research and development of nanoscale projects. The impact of this new program on health-science related research and development became quickly visible. Broad governmental financial support advanced the start of new, and the deepening of already existing, interdisciplinary research. The anticipated merger of nanoscience with medicine quickly instigated the conceptualization of nanomedicine. The adoption of nanoscience terminology by pharmaceutical scientists resulted in the advent of nanopharmaceuticals. The term "nano" became tantamount to "cutting-edge" and was quickly embraced by the pharmaceutical science community. Colloidal drug delivery systems reemerged as nanodrug delivery systems; colloidal gold became a suspension of nano gold particles. In this review, we first review nanoscience related definitions applied to pharmaceuticals, we then discuss all 43 currently approved drug formulations which are publicized as nanopharmaceuticals, and finally we analyze clinical aspects of selected drug formulations.

Use of low-molecular-weight heparin during dental extractions in a medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines recommend against discontinuation of oral anticoagulation therapy during most dental procedures because severe bleeding complications are rare and there is an increased risk for thromboembolic events in patients for whom warfarin therapy is interrupted. Although interruption of oral anticoagulation and bridge therapy with low-molecular- weight heparin (LMWH) may be indicated for high-risk individuals undergoing certain procedures, the use of LMWH in tooth extractions is expensive and often unnecessary. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify and characterize procedural use of LMWH for dental extractions with respect to current consensus recommendations. METHODS: The Idaho Medicaid pharmacy and medical claims database was queried to identify patients with a tooth extraction procedure between February 1, 1998, and January 31, 2005. Patients on warfarin therapy for 2 months before tooth extraction were identified as were claims for LMWH within 30 days before the procedure or 5 days after. Patient profiles were reviewed to determine number of extractions, rate of LMWH use, indication for anticoagulation, and associated drug costs. RESULTS: Of 55,260 Medicaid patients who had a tooth extraction, 518 (0.9%) had received warfarin for at least 2 consecutive months before the tooth extraction procedure. Of these, 31 patients (6%) received LMWH therapy at the time of extraction for a total of 35 procedures. All procedures selected for review carried a low bleeding risk, with an average of 1.3 teeth extracted per procedure. The indications for anticoagulation included 16 procedures (45.7%) involving patients with a history of a thromboembolic event more than 90 days before the procedure, 10 procedures (28.5%) involving patients with a prosthetic valve, 4 procedures (11.4%) involving anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation, and 5 procedures (14.2%) involving patients with a history of thromboembolism fewer than 3 months before the procedure. LMWH costs for these 35 extractions totaled $22,294, or an average of $637 per procedure or $474 per extracted tooth. Enoxaparin was used in all but 1 of the procedures, with an average 5-day supply (average 8 enoxaparin units) dispensed per procedure. The costs associated with the required additional drug monitoring, e.g., INR monitoring, were not included in this analysis. CONCLUSION: Although the overall number of dental procedures in anticoagulated patients using LMWH was small in our review, this inappropriate use resulted in avoidable costs to this Medicaid program.