In the 1980s there were 72 colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States and that number had been maintained for many years prior to that date. Today there are 112 holding classes and several others who have gained or are seeking permission to begin in the next few years.
The explanation for this dramatic increase in the number of schools of pharmacy, at least the explanation provided to the public, is the shortage of pharmacists nationwide. Many of the new schools are the first health sciences program at their respective institutions and the vast majority of the institutions are small, private universities. This pattern has led several to question the motivation of the institution and has left some speculating that this exponential growth will result in the closing of schools of pharmacy in the decades to come. Some because they are solely maintained by the current demand for pharmacists (newer schools) and some because they refuse to adapt their curricula to the changing needs of the profession (older schools).
I don't think there is anything magical about a specific date or year in the future. The sky will not begin falling at the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2015. But the articles linked above as well as the position papers we mentioned last week do raise some legitimate concerns and make some valid points. Along those lines, I would like you to consider the following:
Should the curriculum prepare you to practice now (i.e. graduate and be ready for any entry level job)?
or
Should it prepare you for what we think the profession will be like in 10-15-20 years?
or
Should the curriculum prepare you to change current practice so that we can realize whatever we define as "ideal" for 10-15-20 years from now.
10 comments:
Do you think that accessory classes (such as leadership, pharm care, and communications) are as important as science based classes? Which do you think benefits the profession in the long run?
What were your pharmacy class's expectations for the future of the profession?
How progressive do you feel pharmacy education should be in terms of integrating courses focused on pharmaceutical care at the expense of basic science courses?
Do you think that Wingate's curriculm and other similar schools are too progressive with wanting to teach more practice of Phamaceutical care in the profession? Do you think the progressive programs are moving in the right direction at this time?
Will continuing education prepare us for the future of pharmacy profession? Should pharmacy school s have a curriculum based on what they “think” the profession will be like in 10-20 years or should they prepare a curriculum based on what they “know” the profession will be like?
Communication is very important when working patients and other health care professionals, but science based classes enable pharmacist to have a deeper understanding of the importance of certain drug therapies for disease states. It would probably be more helpful if our curriculum modeled medical and dental school, by providing only two years of classroom studies and two years of rotations. I definitely learned more during my rotations, because everything was hands on.
At UNC, they prepared us for more interaction with patients and health care professionals in order to better manage patient care. Most of the students that graduated from my class went on to complete pharmacy residencies. I can definitely say that during my residency, I gained about three to five years of experience and it opened up even more doors then would have been opened if I had not completed a residency.
I think that pharmaceutical care should be integrated into the science classes. We had a class that dealt with patient cases.
A group of pharmacy students worked together as a therapeutic team to manage each patient's care. These cases required extensive research on clinical trials and use of information from science classes to determine what the best course of therapy would be for the patient case.
I agree with the progressive programs that are focusing their energy on pharmaceutical care. As was mentioned in the three articles, robots and well trained technicians can take over the licking and sticking while pharmacist focus their energy on working with a clinical team to manage patient's care.
Pharmacy schools should be looking toward the future, because if pharmacists are not prepared to optimize drug therapy outcomes and reduce the occurrence of drug-related problems, then another health care professional will as was stated in the last article listed for this discussion.
You will be astonished how the acessory classes as nicole mentioned will play a role in practice when you get out. In particular the communication and leadership classes. I would say that made up at least 60% of my work day in retail talking to patients and physicians and directing staff during normal operating hours.
However don't get me wrong the science and modules are extremely important. However knowing it is one thing being able to use it effectively in practice is totally different. If you cant express your thoughts correctly, read situations, and adjust correctly you will feel like you are in quicksand.
As for the direction of pharmacy in the future. They are only making predictions of what might happen in 20 years. There are wat to many variables that could change. There are several that are already changing the switch from the count and pour to clinical specializations is a huge one. altough schools may be graduating more students in progressive streamline programs as well as the traditional programs. The clinical areas are requiring more education and expereince. Residency programs for pharmaist are still way below that of graduating numbers. So I am not to worried. This class 10-20 years from now it could be a concern for them. however by then I hope to be retiring and they can have my job.
As a graduate of the so-called "progressive" curriculum I can encouragingly say the benefits of such have been indescribable. I may be biased but I have been in situations time and again where such a program has been invaluable. As the profession moves forward and pharmacists move from behind the counter it becomes increasingly important to understand how to communicate not only with our patients, but with other health care providers as well. The curriculum at Wingate prepared me for all aspects of pharmacy practice which I utilize daily as a resident. The emphasis on pharmaceutical care, while a challenging adjustment at first compared to the strictly science-based prerequisites, is now inherent to my daily practice. Learning communication skills early on, and then perfecting them throughout the curriculum, has given me the ability to communicate effectively with my patients regarding their medications and their disease states. The challenge lies in being able to present similar information to a medical resident or attending one minute, but then have to walk down the hall and present similar information to the nurse, and then again to the patient and their family. These are lessons you learn with practice and it was extremely beneficial to begin this practice in a comfortable environment where I could receive feedback.
While the science based classes will always be essential to our profession, having this knowledge is worthless if it can not be shared with others. On a similar note, as the profession moves forward, some of the more "basic" science classes have become less of a necessity. For example, when pharmacy first began, back in Dr. Nuzum's day ;), the pharmacist prepared medications from scratch. He (and on occasion she) had to have a full understanding of chemistry to be able to develop prescriptions with basic ingredients, thus various classes in chemistry were made a part of the pharmacy school curriculum. Today, for the most part, the products we dispense are commercially available. While an understanding of general science is imperative, our profession has moved towards one of therapy optimization and less of drug preparation. It has become more important to have an understanding of disease states and their pathophysiology so that you can then understand why we use certain medications. As a Wingate alum I have not had a single course in med chem (general and organic chem as an undergrad only) and can honestly say there has never been an instance where I thought, "I really wish I knew the structure of ibuprofen." I have however had moments where I thought, "I am really glad I know how tell the medical intern that vancomycin is not the best choice for this patient's UTI."
I completely agree with Dr. Snider's comments. Although the science-based courses are important to our profession, the knowledge is almost useless if it cannot be communicated in an effective manner to a patient or another healthcare professional. The future of pharmacy remains unknown; however, if you can evolve with the profession becomes, then you will always be successful. Through the development of communication and leadership skills, you are able to transition with the changes in our healthcare system much easier. After you check enough prescriptions or orders for a medication, you quickly learn what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. However, if you cannot effectively communicate that an order is unacceptable or may cause harm to the patient, then what is the use of having the knowledge. These "accessory classes" seem to be much easier for students in the classroom setting rather than in practice. As you begin rotations, you will continuously be exposed to pertinent clinical and drug information. Once in practice many of you may find that you will be better prepared to expand on and retain your drug knowledge if you can manage your practice more efficiently. I realize that when you are taking your tenth communication or leadership course, many of the points seem redundant. My advise is to just stick with them because surprisingly some of the points may actually benefit you in the future.
Post a Comment