Roseman University College of Pharmacy, Henderson, NV, 11 Sunset Way, Henderson, NV 89014, United States.
Purdue University College of Pharmacy, 575 Stadium Mall Drive, RHPH 349, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States.
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021 May;13(5):520-525. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2021.01.012. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
Limited literature exists regarding current practices in teaching and assessment of drug utilization review (DUR) skills in pharmacy schools. This manuscript aimed to: (1) examine how assessment is conducted for DUR activities using survey results and (2) summarize the assessment strategies of DUR activities via analysis of tools in colleges of pharmacy.
A survey was administered to members of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Laboratory Instructors Special Interest Group via Qualtrics. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate survey results and the assessment tools (i.e. rubrics/checklists) collected were analyzed qualitatively to determine common content areas.
Out of the 113 institutions emailed, 48 (42.5%) responses were complete and represented individual colleges. Thirty-four of those 48 both implemented and assessed DUR activities. Fourteen institutions (41%) utilized one DUR assessment tool throughout the entire curriculum. The majority (62%) used the assessment tool in the first professional year, with a paper tool being the most frequently utilized (74%). "Identification of drug-related problems" (97%) and "determination of the pharmacist's action" (85%) were listed as important components of the assessment tool. Faculty noted that the assessment tool was easy to use (55%) and adequately assessed students' knowledge/skills (55%). A validated assessment tool (85%) and inclusion of technology (50%) would improve delivery of student feedback.
Wide variability existed in how schools incorporated and assessed DUR activities. Developing a standardized method of teaching and assessing DUR is important to adequately prepare the next generation of pharmacists.
目前药学教育中关于药物利用审查（DUR）技能教学和评估的文献有限。本文旨在：（1）通过调查结果检查如何进行 DUR 活动的评估；（2）通过对药学专业院校工具的分析，总结 DUR 活动的评估策略。
通过 Qualtrics 向美国药学院实验室教师特别兴趣小组的成员发送了一份调查问卷。使用描述性统计来评估调查结果，对收集到的评估工具（即评分表/检查表）进行定性分析，以确定常见的内容领域。
在发送电子邮件的 113 所院校中，有 48 所（42.5%）院校的回复完整并代表了各自的院校。在这 48 所院校中，有 34 所院校实施并评估了 DUR 活动。有 14 所院校（41%）在整个课程中使用了一种 DUR 评估工具。大多数（62%）在第一专业学年使用评估工具，其中纸质工具最常用（74%）。“识别与药物相关的问题”（97%）和“确定药剂师的行动”（85%）被列为评估工具的重要组成部分。教师指出，评估工具易于使用（55%），并且充分评估了学生的知识/技能（55%）。使用经过验证的评估工具（85%）和纳入技术（50%）将有助于提供学生反馈。
学校在整合和评估 DUR 活动方面存在很大差异。制定标准化的 DUR 教学和评估方法对于充分培养下一代药剂师非常重要。
