Objective. To examine the relationship between the NAPLEX and Pre-NAPLEX among pharmacy graduates, as well as determine effects of pre-pharmacy, pharmacy school, and demographic variables on NAPLEX performance. Methods. A retrospective review of pharmacy graduates’ NAPLEX scores, Pre-NAPLEX scores, demographics, pre-pharmacy academic performance factors, and pharmacy school academic performance factors was performed. Bivariate (eg, ANOVA, independent samples t-test) and correlational analyses were conducted, as was stepwise linear regression to examine the significance of Pre-NAPLEX score and other factors as related to NAPLEX score. Results. One hundred fifty graduates were included, with the majority being female (60.7%) and white (72%). Mean NAPLEX score was 104.7. Mean Pre-NAPLEX score was 68.6. White students had significantly higher NAPLEX scores compared to Black/African American students. NAPLEX score was correlated to Pre-NAPLEX score, race/ethnicity, PCAT composite and section scores, undergraduate overall and science GPAs, pharmacy GPA, and on-time graduation. The regression model included pharmacy GPA and Pre-NAPLEX score. Conclusion. The findings provide evidence that, although pharmacy GPA is the most critical determinant, the Pre-NAPLEX score is also a significant predictor of NAPLEX score.

No description available.

To review the literature on treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prevention of cardioembolic stroke with direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in low- and high-body-weight patients and to make recommendations regarding agent selection and dosing in these patient populations. Summary: The selection and optimal dosing of DOACs in low- and high-body-weight patients has not yet been fully elucidated by clinical trials; however, evidence suggests that issues of both safety and efficacy in patients at the extremes of body weight may warrant careful consideration when selecting a DOAC for such patients. This review provides a thorough discussion of the use of DOACs in the treatment of VTE and prevention of cardioembolic stroke in patients at the extremes of body weight and provides guidance regarding agent selection. Conclusion: While the published evidence on use of DOACs in patients at extremes of body weight is sparse, apixaban and rivaroxaban appear to have the most favorable safety and efficacy profiles. Edoxaban and dabigatran should be avoided.

What is Known and Objective: The development of rapid diagnostics has revolutionized antimicrobial stewardship with efforts targeting earlier de-escalation or discontinuation of antibiotics. The respiratory viral panel (RVP) is one tool quickly able to detect common viral and bacterial pathogens using polymerase chain reaction technology. Utility may be further enhanced in conjunction with procalcitonin (PCT). However, the optimal use of the RVP to the clinical pharmacist in the treatment of community-acquired respiratory infections remains unclear. Methods: The purpose of this guide is to review the available literature regarding the impact of the RVP with and without procalcitonin on antimicrobial stewardship efforts and to provide guidance on how to use each of these tools. Results and Discussion: In total, 13 studies were included, 5 of which utilized PCT in conjunction with RVP and 8 of which did not use PCT. The majority of studies were retrospective in nature, and the most common outcomes evaluated were antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) and time to antibiotic discontinuation. What is New and Conclusion: After review, RVP alone has limited value to antimicrobial stewardship; however, when used in conjunction with procalcitonin, RVP has the potential to reduce antibiotic use and duration.

Comprehensive genomic profiling has an emerging role in cancer therapeutics. As treatment options remain needed for advanced cancers, patients are relying increasingly more on tumor genomic alterations as possible targets for cancer treatment. Frequent tumor fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations are seen in many cancers, and include genetic amplifications, mutations, rearrangements and fusions. FGFR inhibitors target these receptor alterations and show promise as a drug class. Currently 2 medications are currently FDA approved: erdafitinib and pemigatinib. Through the FDA accelerated approval process, erdafitinib is indicated to treat metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR2 and FGFR3 alterations, whereas pemigatinib is indicated to treat unresectable cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 alterations. Despite growing knowledge about such advanced cancers, treatment is usually palliative. With multiple FGFR inhibitors in the pipeline, further FDA approvals are possible, and it is likely their role in therapy will extend to other cancer types. This review outlines erdafitinib, pemigatinib, their role in cancer, as well as outlining the possible future use of other FGFR inhibitors in urothelial carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and other malignancies.

Introduction: This study assessed student perceptions, preparation, and result use strategies of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA). Secondarily, it studied the effect of schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COP) PCOA management on student perceptions. Methods: A 52-item electronic questionnaire assessed PCOA preparation of final year students, review/use of results, remediation participation, self-reported motivation, and perceptions of the exam's ability to measure PCOA blueprint areas and North American Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX)/advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) readiness. Programs were given a questionnaire to determine their PCOA practices. Results: The student survey was completed by 341 students (40% response rate). Students prepared very little for the PCOA and few reported participation in PCOA-based remediation (6%). Students perceived the PCOA to measure the four domains moderately well, although administrative sciences were significantly lower. Students reported less confidence in the exam's ability to measure APPE/NAPLEX-readiness. Although few used the PCOA to guide their NAPLEX preparation (18%), they were more likely to do so than for APPEs (4%). Students reported a higher perceived increase in motivation if PCOA results were connected to APPE placement, remediation, and progression as opposed to prizes, rewards, or other recognitions. Conclusion: This is the first multi-institutional study to review student perceptions about the PCOA. These data can be used along with other PCOA data to help schools develop incentive, remediation, and examination administration procedures depending on the programs desired use for the PCOA exam.

East Tennessee State University has successfully integrated clinical environments into its IPE curriculum, providing over 200 students from several different health professions training programs with first hand experiences in team based care. Seven partner sites host IPE groups comprised of entry-level students, providing opportunities to interact with members of the health care team, tour the active facility and interact with a patient. Our team will discuss how we navigated complex logistics and partnerships to build these experiences into our paradigm. Attendees will be challenged to think creatively about working with clinical sites outside the university setting and provided with guidance for their program. At least 40 minutes of the workshop will utilize active learning techniques. This workshop will consist of four sections, three similarly structured followed by a final reflective section. The first three sections (Building the Framework, Faculty Facilitators, and Clinical Partners) will be structured similarly. A brief introduction will prompt participants to identify potential barriers, helpful resources, and/or logistical concerns associated with each topic. This will be a small group activity where attendees share and record their discussion on a provided template. This will be followed by a brief overview of how the topic was approached for implementation of the ETSU IPE curriculum, while incorporating group responses to create a large group discussion. Our team brings the value of each representing the perspective of the various roles involved in the implementation: faculty, site leader, and director.In the fourth section, attendees will use content from the prior sections to develop a blue print for their program’s opportunities in clinical environments. Our team will answer specific questions and provide consultations with the draft of attendees’ individualized blue print. The blue print can then serve as a tool to spark the development of a strategic plan for the integration of clinical environments at their program. Learner Outcomes:At the end of this workshop, attendees are expected to be able to:1) identify potential barriers, helpful resources and logistical details for partnering with clinical sites to create IPE experiences in clinical environments;2) identify barriers and helpful resources to assist faculty in facilitating IPE groups in the clinical environment;3) create a blueprint as a guide to incorporating clinical environments into the IPE curriculum.

The lack of interprofessional training for providers entering the healthcare system was identified as a major omission in the preparation of healthcare workers in the early 2000's. Subsequently, the World Health Organization identified a need for the development of Interprofessional education (IPE) programs to adequately prepare providers to work in teams. Since then, the pedagogy and evidence base for IPE has grown.However, there has been little focus on preparing faculty to teach from an interprofessional model. Ratka et al. conducted a literature review of articles appearing in several data bases up until December 2015 and found only 17 published papers describing an Interprofessional Education Faculty Development (IPEFD) program or providing empirical support. Further, in a comparative study of global interprofessional education initiatives researchers identified several barriers to implementing IPE programs including “teaching,” “faculty attitudes,” “training of implementors” and “professional development of IPE educators”.To address the shortage in trained educators, some accrediting bodies have included a standard for adequately trained faculty to provide IPE instruction. Therefore, an important first step in implementing IPE is increasing the awareness of IPE across a Health Sciences Center campus as well as meeting the need for faculty training and support.This poster describes the complexity of an institution-wide approach to increasing awareness, then interest, and finally engagement with & development in a structured IPE program at an Academic Health Sciences Center campus within a regional, state-funded university. The use of various programmatic structures including IPE Grand Rounds, IPE Course Innovation Development, IPE Emerging Leaders Program, and a formal IPE Faculty Meta Development Process will be described.This multifaceted approach included new programming that both increased awareness of the IPE philosophy at our institution as well as increasing opportunities for formal development of faculty within our IPE programming. This multi-pronged approached allowed for a ladder of engagement for faculty at all levels of interest.

Emerging research has shown that there are sustainable models for collaborative practice in primary care (Corso, Hunter, Dahl, Kallenberg, & Manson, 2016; Robinson & Reiter, 2014). The adaptation of these innovative practice models into currently functioning primary care p practices requires health care professionals to be flexible in order to “fit” interventions into a service delivery model that is oriented to population health. A significant driver of interprofessional practice implementation will be the dissemination of: 1) these models across the spectrum of health care providers and 2) solid business plans demonstrating sustainability. The uptake of long-standing, non-student based collaborative practice models in primary care is essential for the future of interprofessional education (IPE; Earnest & Brandt, 2014). First, the establishment of strong team-based primary care practices provides true and practical application of classroom concepts learned during foundational IPE training. Second, a critical extension of IPE in health care professions training programs is seeding local practices with newly minted providers who are prepared to develop these sustainable models. These providers are situated to: 1) demonstrate the value of IPE in the real world, 2) provide high fidelity training sites for future IPE students, and 3) lead the field of interprofessional practice and innovation. At East Tennessee State University, we have assisted several IPE post-doctoral trainees in developing positions in collaborative primary care around our region. Today, several psychology and pharmacy graduates are working in primary care clinics based in urban and rural areas, academic health center and private-sector health care settings, and within for-profit and federally-qualified health care. These new professionals have increased the demand for interprofessionally trained providers, prepared for an adaptation to primary care. They have initiated training programs and serve as a model for our current IPE students. In this interactive workshop, we will provide attendees with information on best-practice collaborative models for primary care practice as well as an overview of our business strategy for growing sustainable permanent positions for our graduates with discussion about how to generalize these to new professsions. The session will be structured around two "theory bursts”: one which elaborates integrated practice models and one which describes business models and how to “sell” interprofessional practice. The dissemination of this information will occur in the context of participant engagement. Specifically, we will use small group discussion exercises to facilitate adapting specialty/siloed care to the primary care environment and applying models & plans to participants’ specific situations.

Objectives: To identify personal values that are consistent with participant’s respective profession’s code of ethics. To compare and contrast personal values with those of other team members. To create an interprofessional team code of ethics.