ABSTRACT
Background: In Spring 2020 many academic institutions transitioned to remote learning in response to the developing COVID-19 pandemic. These changes affected skills-based training, as schools of pharmacy were forced to transition traditionally in-person assessments to a remote setting. The purpose of this article is to describe the experience of pharmacy skills lab coordinators when transitioning summative skills-based assessments (SSBA). Methods: A web-based survey instrument administered through QualtricsXM was sent to all institutions in the Big Ten Academic Alliance-Performance Based Assessment Collaborative. Only one member from each institution completed the survey on behalf of the institution. The survey consisted of four sections: changes made to skills evaluated; changes made to the delivery of those evaluations; challenges to and strategies used by the skills lab program when switching to remote learning; and recommendations for incorporating remote learning within future SSBAs. Survey respondents were invited to participate in an optional unstructured interview regarding survey answers. Results: Nine of ten invited institutions responded to the survey. Of the nine respondents, three participated in the post-survey interview. Overall, 79.5% (93/117) of skills planned to be assessed were assessed with or without modification, with 8.5% (10/117) of skills canceled and 10.3% (12/117) of skills assessments postponed. The most common challenges mentioned were the lack of preparation time, inability to assess certain skills virtually, and student barriers. The most common recommendations made were to prioritize lab components and incorporate flexibility in planning and scheduling. Discussion: The results indicate that most skills were still assessed during the Spring 2020 semester. Though the transition to remote learning was challenging and unique for each institution, common strategies and recommendations identified here provide opportunities for academics to analyze and prioritize learning objectives and to rethink how to develop and deliver SSBAs as remote assessments.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) and recombinant Factor VIIa (rFVIIa) have been used for emergent reversal of warfarin anticoagulation. Few clinical studies have compared these agents in warfarin reversal. We compared warfarin reversal in patients who received either 3 factor PCC (PCC3) or low-dose rFVIIa (LDrFVIIa) for reversal of warfarin anticoagulation. METHODS: Data were collected from medical charts of patients who received at least one dose of PCC3 (20 units/kg) or LDrFVIIa (1000 or 1200 mcg) for emergent warfarin reversal from August 2007 to October 2011. The primary end-points were achievement of an INR 1.5 or less for efficacy and thromboembolic events for safety. RESULTS: Seventy-four PCC3 and 32 LDrFVIIa patients were analyzed. Baseline demographics, reason for warfarin reversal, and initial INR were equivalent. There was no difference in the use of vitamin K or fresh frozen plasma. More LDrFVIIa patients achieved an INR of 1.5 or less (71.9% vs. 33.8%, p =0.001). The follow-up INR was lower after LDrFVIIa (1.25 vs. 1.75, p < 0.05) and the percent change in INR was larger after LDrFVIIa (54.1% vs. 38.8%, p = 0.002). There was no difference in the number of thromboembolic events (2 LDrFVIIa vs. 5 PCC3, p = 1.00), mortality, length of hospital stay, or cost. CONCLUSIONS: Based on achieving a goal INR of 1.5 or less, LDrFVIIa was more likely than PCC3 to reverse warfarin anticoagulation. Thromboembolic events were equivalent in patients receiving PCC3 and LDrFVIIa.
