Challenges to Implementation of the Co-Curriculum in Accredited Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To determine areas of concern, and challenges to implementing and assessing the co-curriculum in accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs, along with how confident programs are in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding areas of concern, challenges, and confidence in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement. The frequency of responses to items are presented along with comparisons based on characteristics, including institution type, cohort size, most recent ACPE accreditation review, and supporting offices. Results. The most common concerns centered on the documentation and assessment process. The most commonly reported challenges were lack of enthusiasm or buy-in from faculty, staff, and students; lack of a clear definition of co-curriculum; and faculty time and insufficient staff. Overall, programs had a high level of confidence in their ability to meet the requirements for co-curriculum. The only differences found were related to supporting offices and cohort size. Conclusion. The results suggest that having supporting offices may reduce the co-curriculum burden. Similarly, student cohort size may have an impact on the challenges for some programs, particularly those with moderate-sized cohorts reporting challenges related to faculty and staff. Further research is needed to determine how programs address these critical issues, and to explore whether programs report differently on these areas after completing an accreditation review. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating co-curriculum

Co-Curriculum Implementation and Assessment in Accredited Doctor of Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To determine how accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs implement and evaluate the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding how co-curriculum models were being implemented, including types of activities, structure, learning outcomes, oversight, and assessment. The frequency of responses to items were presented to describe the general features of co-curriculum models. Results. The types of co-curricular activities reported by programs were generally consistent, with the majority of programs categorizing these activities and allowing students to choose which they would engage in. Most respondents reported that the program mapped co-curricular activities to learning outcomes, primarily ACPE Standards 1-4. The structural oversight of the co-curriculum typically included a co-curriculum committee, subcommittee, or task force, and supporting offices. The most common offices/departments involved in the co-curriculum were assessment, student affairs/services, experiential education, and academic/curricular affairs. The most common assessments were reflections, self-assessment surveys, and checklists. Conclusion. In most programs, implementation of the co-curriculum was a joint effort among various individuals, committees, and offices. Given the developing nature of programs, descriptive studies should be repeated to identify how programs develop and enhance co-curriculum models. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating the current state of co-curriculum implementation and potential areas for program development

Co-Curriculum Implementation and Assessment in Accredited Doctor of Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To determine how accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs implement and evaluate the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding how co-curriculum models were being implemented, including types of activities, structure, learning outcomes, oversight, and assessment. The frequency of responses to items were presented to describe the general features of co-curriculum models. Results. The types of co-curricular activities reported by programs were generally consistent, with the majority of programs categorizing these activities and allowing students to choose which they would engage in. Most respondents reported that the program mapped co-curricular activities to learning outcomes, primarily ACPE Standards 1-4. The structural oversight of the co-curriculum typically included a co-curriculum committee, subcommittee, or task force, and supporting offices. The most common offices/departments involved in the co-curriculum were assessment, student affairs/services, experiential education, and academic/curricular affairs. The most common assessments were reflections, self-assessment surveys, and checklists. Conclusion. In most programs, implementation of the co-curriculum was a joint effort among various individuals, committees, and offices. Given the developing nature of programs, descriptive studies should be repeated to identify how programs develop and enhance co-curriculum models. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating the current state of co-curriculum implementation and potential areas for program development

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Improving rating scales: Applying Rasch analysis to student pharmacists' attitudes towards herbal medications

Background: This study analyzed the psychometric properties of a cross-sectional survey of student pharmacists' attitudes regarding herbal medications using a polytomous Rasch model. Seven items assessed students' attitudes towards herbal medications using a 6-point agreement scale (0 to 5). Student responses were reviewed to identify outliers and aberrant response patterns, assess scale fit, and perform item analysis. Scale performance was assessed to determine if response categories were independent and equally represented. Items were reviewed for model fit and construct validity with significant item gaps identified using a z-test. Impact: A total of 324 students completed the survey. The initial 6-point scale was analyzed. Student responses with outfit mean-square (MNSQ) values > 5 were removed, yet the scale did not have appropriate functionality. The categories were merged to form a 4-point scale with no improvement. Therefore, two different 3-point scale options were analyzed: response categories of 0, 1 to 3, and 4 to 5; and response categories of 0, 1 to 4, and 5. With ten students removed, both 3-point scales mat the requirements for functionality and all items exhibited good fit with MNSQ values between 0.6 and 1.4, person-separation value of 1.29, and person-reliability value of 0.62. Recommendations: Both 3-point scales ma the requirements for Rasch analysis. The most optimal scale was the 0, 1 to 4, and 5 option. Discussion: This study provides findings from the survey validity assessment alongside the survey results, which is useful for readers to have confidence in the quality of the study findings.12 month embargo; available online 27 March 2019This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

National Trends in the Adoption of Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment for Student Assessment and Remediation

Objective. To determine and describe the current uses of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) by US schools and colleges of pharmacy. Methods. Assessment professionals from 135 US schools and colleges of pharmacy were invited to complete a 38-item electronic survey. Survey items were designed to investigate common uses of the PCOA, cut points, and “stakes” assigned to the PCOA, identification of at-risk students, and remediation approaches. Results. The school response rate was 68%. The most common uses of the PCOA included curricular assessment (76%), individual student performance assessment (74%), and cohort performance assessment (71%). The PCOA was most frequently administered to third-year pharmacy (P3) students. The approach for assigning “stakes” to PCOA performance varied among programs depending on the student’s professional year in the curriculum. Programs used a variety of approaches to establish the benchmark (or cut point) for PCOA performance. Remediation for at risk students was required by less than 25% of programs. Remediation was most commonly required for P3 students (22%). Conclusion. Survey results indicate wide variability between programs regarding PCOA cut points (benchmarks), stakes, and remediation approaches. In the future, it will be important for pharmacy educators to identify and study best practices for use of PCOA within student assessment and remediation plans

National Trends in the Adoption of PCOA for Student Assessment and Remediation

Objective: Utilize results of a national survey to describe current uses of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) including: assignment of cut-points and stakes; characterization of how “at-risk” students are identified; and frequency and types of remediation processes. Methods: Assessment professionals from 135 US schools and colleges of pharmacy were invited to complete a 38-item survey. Survey items were designed to investigate common uses of the PCOA, cut-points and “stakes” assigned to the PCOA, identification of at-risk students, and remediation approaches. The survey was administered electronically using SurveyMonkey. Data were analyzed using SPSS v. 21. Results: The school response rate was 68%. The most common uses of the PCOA included curricular assessment (76%), individual student performance assessment (74%), and cohort performance assessment (71%). The PCOA was most frequently administered to third professional year (P3) students. The approach for assigning “stakes” to PCOA performance varied amongst programs depending on the student’s professional year in the curriculum. There were a variety of approaches used to establish the benchmark (or cut-point) for PCOA performance. Remediation for at risk students was required by less than 25% of programs. Remediation was most commonly required for P3 students (22%). Conclusion: Survey results indicate wide variability between programs regarding PCOA cut-points (benchmarks), stakes, and remediation approaches. In the future, it will be important for pharmacy educators to identify and study best practices for use of PCOA within student assessment and remediation plans