Background

In the United States, the National Center for Drug Free Sport manages the drug-testing programs for athletes of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Through its Resource Exchange Center (REC), Drug Free Sport supports athletic staff and athletes with information regarding drugs and dietary supplements.

Purpose

To characterize the types of drug-related and dietary supplement-related inquiries submitted to Drug Free Sport through the REC.

Study design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

All inquiries submitted to the REC for the period of September 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, were reviewed. The data were categorized by the method of inquiry submission; the name of the substance in question; the sex, sport, and NCAA division of the athlete involved; the nature of the inquiry; and the response provided by the REC regarding the NCAA's status of the substance in question.

Results

Pseudoephedrine, acetaminophen/hydrocodone, and albuterol were the most commonly self-searched medications; stimulants accounted for the majority of banned medications. Dietary supplements accounted for 80% of all inquiries submitted to the REC via the Banned Drug Inquiry Form. Among all dietary supplements, creatine was the most commonly inquired. Banned substances accounted for 29% of all inquiries.

Conclusions

There were more than 10 000 inquiries regarding the status of medications, dietary supplements, and other substances for NCAA athletes during the 2005-2006 academic year. It is helpful for athletes to have resources that help them navigate banned-substance lists and so avoid the inadvertent use of banned substances.

Clinical relevance

Educating athletes regarding the stimulant content of various dietary supplements and addressing the lack of clinical trials to support stated claims and safety appear critical.

Background

An internal evaluation of the inpatient pharmacy order entry database (WORx) at a university hospital revealed that the nature of the reaction was documented for only 47% of patients with reported drug allergies/intolerance. Insufficient documentation of drug allergy/intolerance may result in administration of drugs that should not be prescribed. Similarly, valuable agents that should be used may not be prescribed due to an unnecessary fear of adverse drug reaction. More complete description of drug allergy/intolerance may result in more correct prescribing of medications.

Objective

Evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven protocol on the quality of drug allergy/intolerance documentation.

Methods

Four pre-intervention evaluations were conducted every 2 weeks documenting the completeness of drug allergy/intolerance information in the pharmacy order entry database. One week following the implementation of a pharmacist-driven protocol intended to improve the completeness of drug allergy/intolerance information, a series of 4 postintervention evaluations was repeated. Proportional analysis of pre- and postinterventional data was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.

Results

A total of 1,686 allergies from 2,174 patients were reviewed pre and post intervention. The frequency of complete drug allergy/intolerance documentation pre intervention was 52% to 62%. Following implementation of the hospitalwide, pharmacist-driven protocol, this rate increased to 60% to 76%. Pediatric services demonstrated the most substantial improvement, increasing from 53% to 79% to 67% to 93%. Blank reaction fields decreased by 10% in both age groups.

Conclusion

A pharmacy-driven initiative intended to improve the completeness of drug allergy/intolerance documentation was associated with modest success. Other mechanisms, including electronic health record systems with computerized physician order entry and decision support, are needed to improve the completeness of drug allergy/intolerance information.

Introduction

Integrative health care and complementary medicine are widely used by the U.S. population, yet health professions learners are typically inadequately educated to counsel patients on the use of these approaches. This interprofessional standardized patient exercise (ISPE) provides learners the opportunity to discuss various health care professionals' roles in caring for a patient interested in integrative health strategies, and to collaborate on a care plan. Utilizing this ISPE format aligns with the principles of integrative health as it requires interprofessional collaboration to address the multifaceted needs of patients.

Methods

The ISPE is approximately three hours in duration, and required of all UCSF, third-year dentistry, physical therapy, and medical students; second-year nurse practitioner students, and fourth-year pharmacy students. Social work, nutrition, and chaplain trainees also participated. Working in interprofessional teams of 4-5 learners, team members discuss case information, interview the standardized patient (SP) individually, jointly formulate a care plan, and, discuss the plan with the SP. The experience is debriefed with a facilitator.

Results

In 2016-17, 520 learners participated in the ISPE. They agreed that they learned about the roles of other health care professionals (M = 5.24 on a six-point scale, SD = 1.27), and that they would recommend the ISPE to fellow students in their profession (M = 5.25, SD = 1.30).

Discussion

Students appreciated the ability to observe learners from other health professions interacting with the SP, and how different perspectives and expertise were integrated to create a comprehensive care plan. The exercise can be adapted to accommodate local health professions learners.

Objective

To improve the quality of admissions interviews for a doctor of pharmacy program, using a multiple mini-interview (MMI) in place of the standard interview.

Methods

Stakeholders completed an anonymous web-based survey. This study characterized perceptions of the MMI format across 3 major stakeholders (candidates, interviewers, admissions committee members) and included comparative cost estimates.Costs were estimated using human and facility resources from the 2012 cycle (standard format) and the 2013 cycle (MMI format).

Results

Most candidates (65%), interviewers (86%), and admissions committee members (79%) perceived the MMI format as effective for evaluating applicants, and most (59% of candidates, 84% of interviewers, 77% of committee members) agreed that the MMI format should be continued. Cost per candidate interviewed was $136.34 (standard interview) vs $75.30 (MMI).

Conclusion

Perceptions of the MMI process were favorable across stakeholder groups, and this format was less costly per candidate interviewed.