Board Of Pharmacy Specialties Research Articles

Evaluating board certification within international advance pharmacy practice frameworks

Utilizing board certification to advance practice and promote specialization through formal assessment of pharmacists’ knowledge and skills is one way the profession demonstrates its commitment to improving knowledge and competence as well as assuring optimal outcomes for patients. Credentialing and privileging in health care provides an opportunity for self-regulation, peer recognition, and evaluation of a professional's education, training, experience, and competence. Board of Pharmacy Specialties currently recognizes more than 51,500 active pharmacist board certifications in 14 specialties. While oriented primarily to pharmacy practice in the United States, at least one board-certified pharmacist is located in more than 50 countries, including Spain. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the intersections of board certification and international advanced pharmacy practice frameworks.

Encuesta Nacional de la SEFH-2019: cartera de servicios, actividad asistencial, docencia e investigación en los Servicios de Farmacia Hospitalaria en España

ObjectiveTo report on the results obtained from the 2019 SEFH National Survey regarding the service portfolio, care activities, training programs and research work of Spanish hospital pharmacy departments. MethodIn March 2019, SEFH designed and distributed a questionnaire containing 77 questions grouped into 8 domains to its 368 affiliated hospital pharmacy departments. The questionnaire included an additional section on the activities carried out in 2017 and 2018. ResultsThe overall response rate was 54.3%. Sixty-nine percent of hospitals were public and 75% were general hospitals. A total of 88.6% of hospital pharmacy departments provided pharmaceutical care to inpatients, whereas 77.5% and 65% treated outpatients and ambulatory patients, respectively. Sterile formulations were prepared by 70.6% of pharmacy departments, while 12% measured drug levels in bodily fluids; 76.9% of hospitals with more than 1,000 beds prepared pharmacokinetic reports. In 2018, hospital pharmacies provided for a mean of 929 patients a month and 2,680 a year. The amount of formulations (sterile and non-sterile) prepared was 10,394,492, sterile formulations accounting for 62.6%. The average amount of clinical trials managed in hospitals with > 500 and > 1000 beds was of 186.2 and 421.8, respectively. The median of number of undergraduate tuition agreements between pharmacy departments and universities was 1 (IQR: 0-2); 21.5% of pharmacy departments had no agreements with any university. The mean number of undergraduate pharmacy students per hospital pharmacy was 4.12 (SD: 8,26). A total of 290 pharmacists were associate professors at some university. Fifteen percent of pharmacists held a certification from the Board of Pharmacy Specialties, 55.3% of them in the specialty of oncology. Hospital pharmacy departments employed a mean of 1.31(SD: 2,23) PhD holders. From those which reported the impact factor of their publications, 60% had an impact factor of zero while in 19.6% the impact factor was > 10. ConclusionsCare of out-patients and medication compounding are increasingly the main activities performed in Spanish hospital pharmacies, while there is still considerable room for improvement in the area of clinical pharmacokinetics. Pharmacy departments are generally committed to training as a key activity, while scientific output is still limited despite the increase in the number of PhD pharmacist.

Revisiting the relationship between examination pass rate and eligibility pathway among candidates for pharmacist board certification

BackgroundPharmacists with specialized knowledge and skills are able to seek board certification from the Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS). In 2018, BPS conducted research to evaluate the relationship between eligibility pathways (i.e., completion of a postgraduate year 2 [PGY-2] specialty residency, completion of a postgraduate year 1 [PGY-1] residency plus 2 years of practice experience, or 4 years of practice experience) and certification examination pass rate. The study found statistically significant differences in pass rate based on eligibility criteria across all 6 specialties studied. There was a trend for higher pass rates in cohorts of examinees eligible for board certification based on completion of postgraduate residency training. ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare examination pass rates among different eligibility cohorts for board certification in recognized pharmacy practice specialties and compare contemporary findings with previously published findings. DesignThis cross-sectional study was conducted on data retrieved from BPS certification applications and examination administration records. Setting and participantsExaminees in the United States and Canada for 9 BPS certification programs. Outcome measuresA chi-square analysis was used to identify whether there were differences in pass rate among eligibility pathway cohorts. ResultsA total of 14,894 examinees met inclusion criteria; 6312 (42.4%) of the 14,894 examinees analyzed were eligible via practice experience, 5768 (38.7%) were eligible via PGY-1 completion, and 2814 (18.9%) were eligible via PGY-2 completion. A statistically significant difference was found for the relationship between pass rate and eligibility pathway for 8 of 9 BPS certification examinations analyzed (significant: ambulatory care pharmacy, critical care pharmacy, cardiology pharmacy, infectious diseases pharmacy, oncology pharmacy, psychiatric pharmacy, pediatric pharmacy, pharmacotherapy; not significant: solid organ transplantation pharmacy). Post hoc analyses showed that, in most cases, the PGY-2 eligibility cohort outperformed the PGY-1 eligibility cohort, which in turn outperformed the practice experience pathway cohort. ConclusionAnalysis of contemporary BPS certification examination administration data yields statistically significant differences among the pass rates by eligibility pathway, replicating previous findings and expanding the scope of the analysis.

Board-certified pharmacy specialties: Growth from 2008 to 2020 and projections to 2025.

To track and analyze the growth of 12 Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS) specialties from 2008 to 2020 and, subject to criteria, to project specialty numbers through 2025. The analysis considered residency data and Bureau of Labor Statistics projections. BPS data were used to determine numeric growth, growth rates, and trends for 12 BPS specialties from 2008 to 2020. Specialties begun after 2008 were analyzed from their start date. For specialties with more than 2 data points and coefficients of determination greater than 0.80, we calculated projections through 2025. We also estimated the percentage of BPS-certified pharmacists with postgraduate year 1 training. BPS-certified pharmacists grew in number from 3,004 (2008) to 41,802 (2020), an over 13-fold increase. Currently, 4 of the 5 largest specialties (pharmacotherapy, ambulatory care, oncology, and critical care) continue to grow at a fast rate. Pharmacotherapy experienced the largest numeric growth (20,624) despite the ongoing introduction of new specialties. Critical care and infectious diseases had the highest growth rates (both 32%). We were able to make projections for 10 of 12 specialties, with greater than 62,000 certifications projected by 2025. Growth to these projected levels will require more residencies and more certification preparation opportunities. Residency-trained BPS specialists currently constitute slightly less than 50% of the BPS-certified population. Specialization in the pharmacy profession is growing at a rapid pace. As more clinical privileges are approved, the demand for more specialized pharmacists will likely continue to increase. Data from this study document the growth of the pharmacy specialty workforce. The data and analysis can be used to estimate potential pharmacist contributions across the healthcare spectrum in clinical areas where BPS-certified pharmacists practice.

Certificates and certification programmes for clinical excellence: A guide to international pharmacists

Pharmacy practice continues to evolve, and knowledge update is necessary to facilitate better and safer patient care. This article provides information about certificates and certification programmes hosted for international pharmacists to support their scope in advanced pharmacy practices. A pilot online survey to 59 pharmacists revealed preferences towards Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS), American Society of Health-system Pharmacists (ASHP) certificate, Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacy (SIDP) Antimicrobial stewardship certificate programmes, University of Florida pharmacy certificate programmes, and Medication therapy management programme (MTM) for their certification programme. Grey literature and authentic websites of each programme were collected to provide information on each programme. This article serves as a guide for international pharmacists to know further information about certificates and certification programmes available to support them in advancing their practice.

Prevalence of and incentives for board certification among hospital pharmacy departments in California.

Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS) certification is endorsed to distinguish pharmacists for advanced practice areas, yet perceived value to stakeholders remains poorly described. This study characterized how board certification is integrated in hospital pharmacy departments across California. A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in which a survey was administered to all hospital pharmacy directors in California between November 2019 and March 2020. Licensed institutions and corresponding pharmacy directors were identified from the California State Board of Pharmacy. The survey queried for institution and pharmacy director characteristics and if/how board certification was integrated. Multivariable logistic models identified predictors of institutions with at least 25% full-time board certified pharmacists and those that reward board certification. Surveys were completed by 29% of institutions. Most of these institutions were urban (81%) and nonteaching (57%), with fewer than 325 hospital beds (71%), and with fewer than 50 full-time pharmacist positions (86%). The majority reported that less than 25% of their pharmacists were board certified. Currently, 47% consider board certification during hiring and 38% reward board certified employees. Predictors of institutions with 25% or more board certified pharmacists included being a teaching institution (odds ratio [OR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-7.06), having 325 or more beds (OR, 7.17; 95% CI, 2.86-17.97), and having a pharmacy director who was previously or currently board certified (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.46-9.35). Hospitals with 100 or more pharmacist positions predicted institutions that reward board certification (OR, 16.69; 95% CI, 1.78-156.86). Board certification was an employment preference for almost half of the hospital survey respondents in California. Institutions more likely to reward board certified pharmacists are larger, urban, and teaching hospitals and have pharmacy directors who have been board certified.

Factors influencing performance on the Board Certified Psychiatric Pharmacist Examination: Passing rates and domain-level scores.

The Board Certified Psychiatric Pharmacist (BCPP) specialty certification was launched by the Board of Pharmacy Specialties in 1994. Candidates for the BCPP can qualify for the examination through 3 possible pathways: practice experience (4 years) in the specialty, completion of a PGY-1 residency plus an additional 2 years of practice experience, or completion of a PGY-2 specialty residency in psychiatric pharmacy. Recent fluctuations in the passing rate raised questions as to explanatory factors. This article represents the first published comprehensive study of candidate performance on the BCPP Examination. It describes a retrospective, observational study presenting (a) statistical trends of examination passing rates for biannual cohorts over the past 5 years, as well as (b) score distributions on the 3 performance domains of the certification. Pass-rate trend analyses suggest that variation in the proportion of eligibility pathway cohorts in the respective testing samples explains some of the fluctuation in passing rates. An analysis of variance of domain-level scores, using groups defined by eligibility pathway, yielded significant differences for nearly all group comparisons. Evaluation of the effect sizes suggest that the most disparate performance was observed on the core clinical domain, Patient-Centered Care. The results of this study are consistent with previously published research and will inform the upcoming role delineation study for the Psychiatric Pharmacy Certification.

A national standard that will influence global efforts to protect antibiotics

Though the infectious diseases (ID) pharmacy specialty has been in existence for many years, recent issues have raised the profile of ID pharmacists within the healthcare system. First, antimicrobial resistance rates have reached a crisis point and gained the attention of international organisations.1 Second, and in large part due to antimicrobial resistance, recognition of the suboptimal use of antimicrobial agents has led to the rapid expansion of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in many parts of the world.2-4 Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of leadership that understands that practical aspects of antimicrobial pharmacotherapy can rapidly synthesise emerging literature and gain consensus through collaboration to produce local standards. All of these require expertise in antimicrobial therapies, and consequently the need for ID pharmacists has grown. The SHPA Standard of Practice (SOP) in Infectious Diseases for Pharmacy Services sets important national expectations and guidance for pharmacist practitioners wishing to practice ID. We believe that this document espouses the mission of the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP), which is to advance infectious diseases pharmacotherapy and lead antimicrobial stewardship to optimise the care of patients with infections. Both of us have served as President of SIDP and we see parallels between this SOP and the mission of SIDP. The SOP highlights the important contributions (in both depth and breadth) to direct patient care by ID pharmacists in varied practice settings including inpatient hospital care, people living with HIV, antimicrobial stewardship, rural and regional health services, community-based parenteral antibiotic therapy and emerging practices in primary care and aged care facilities. The standard also emphasises essential components of ID pharmacy practice beyond front-line patient care and operations: education quality and safety improvement, policy and protocol development, and research. This includes the importance of regional, national, and international collaborations to advance the science and to act as a mechanism that shares knowledge and best practices. The latter is especially pertinent for pharmacists practicing in settings without the benefit of colleagues in the specialty, including ID physicians. Perhaps more important is that this SOP also sets a standard for ID practice to include pharmacist practitioners in key clinical and administrative roles. The latter is not a standalone section but rather woven into all aspects of ID pharmacy practice. The standard also highlights the collaborative nature of infectious diseases practice and specifically mentions the important role of microbiology and infection prevention working together with the ID team to achieve optimal patient care. Highlighting the role of ID pharmacists in hospital leadership throughout the antimicrobial use process is key. Although written for Australia, this SOP has the potential for international impact. Pharmacy practice in other countries may come to mirror best practices described in documents such as this one. At the invitation of the authors, the two of us reviewed and provided input on a draft of this standard with this in mind. They are congruent with positions on pharmacist roles in the leadership of ASPs taken by the Board of Pharmacy Specialties and by SIDP.5-7 The SOP takes a big step forward and sets a standard that acts as a set of goals for pharmacists practicing in ID. These goals will likely change as practices evolve and ID pharmacists find new and innovative ways to improve the care of patients. With these standards as the starting point, ID pharmacists can further the vision of ensuring safe and effective antibiotics for now and the future. The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Role delineation for pharmacotherapy specialists: Re‐evaluating the clinical relevance of a patient‐centered credential

AbstractThis article presents results of the 2019 Role Delineation Study (RDS) for pharmacotherapy specialty certification, conducted by the Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS). This RDS used both qualitative (ie, focus group) and quantitative (ie, survey) methodologies to shape and empirically validate the knowledge, skills, and abilities characterized by the practice performance domain of the pharmacotherapy certification content outline. Over 1100 survey responses were collected from board‐certified pharmacotherapy specialists and then analyzed and reviewed by a representative panel of subject matter experts in pharmacotherapy and psychometric analyses. Using statistical summaries of rating scale data, the panelists recommended revisions to the certification content outline and examination blueprint. Descriptions of how the survey results were used to develop test specifications are also provided. This analysis provides validity evidence for the content scope for pharmacotherapy specialist certification and for the specifications (ie, domain weight percentages) of the high‐stakes examination. In particular, the study reaffirmed the pharmacotherapy specialist certification as a clinically relevant, patient‐focused credential, consistent with the mission of the BPS.

Expanding the pharmacist's scope of practice at the state level: Support for board certification within the credentialing process

AbstractThe practice of pharmacy continues to evolve as more pharmacists complete the education, training, and credentialing necessary to provide direct patient care. Ongoing advocacy of legal and regulatory changes at the state level is essential to support an expanded scope of practice for these qualified pharmacists. Determining the eligibility requirements for pharmacists in advanced practice roles is an important component of this advocacy. Board certification through the Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS) is an appropriate qualifying credential. This commentary will overview board certification through BPS, differentiate board certification from a certificate program, and provide examples of state pharmacy practice act language that includes board certification as a qualifying credential. The commentary will include a recommendation and rationale for board certification to be included in state pharmacy practice acts as the credential required for pharmacists to practice in direct patient care roles. This commentary will serve as a resource for advocates working at the state level to revise pharmacy practice acts.

Postgraduate year two pharmacy residents' perceptions of pursuing board certification during residency training

AbstractIntroductionThe Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS) offers pharmacists an opportunity to obtain post‐licensure certification in various specialty pharmacy practice areas. Each BPS specialty has specific eligibility requirements. The Pharmacotherapy specialty is unique in that it does not require candidates who have completed a postgraduate year one (PGY1) residency program to demonstrate additional practice experience or training to pursue this board certification. Thus, all postgraduate year two (PGY2) pharmacy residents would be eligible to sit for the Board Certified Pharmacotherapy Specialist (BCPS) examination during their PGY2 training.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to identify PGY2 pharmacy residents' perceptions of pursuing board certification during residency training.MethodsAn electronic survey was developed, pilot tested, and sent to PGY2 pharmacy residents completing PGY2 training from 2015 to 2019 at 12 pharmacy residency programs across the United States.ResultsA total of 116 responses were obtained (estimated response rate 16%, n = 116 of 706). Among respondents, 38% pursued BCPS certification during PGY2 training and all achieved a passing examination score. The majority of these individuals (93%) were satisfied with their decision to obtain BCPS designation. Of the 72 respondents who did not pursue BCPS designation during PGY2 training, 96% were satisfied with their decision to not take the examination as a PGY2 resident.ConclusionAmong a cohort of current and former PGY2 pharmacy residents, over a third were successful in pursuing and obtaining BCPS designation during their PGY2 residency year. This indicates that board certification may be feasible during PGY2 training. Nearly all respondents were satisfied with their decision to pursue or not pursue BCPS designation as a PGY2 resident.

Integration and compensation of pharmacists into primary care medical groups

ObjectiveTo demonstrate the expansion of an outpatient pharmacy program within a health system via annual wellness visits (AWVs) and disease state management patient encounters at outpatient medical groups. SettingA referral-based pharmacist-managed ambulatory care center, a department of a hospital, and 4 primary care medical groups of a community practice hospital health system in Savannah and Pooler, Georgia, and Bluffton, South Carolina. Practice descriptionSt. Joseph’s/Candler is a 714 bed, 2 hospital community practice heath care system located in Savannah, Georgia. The St. Joseph’s/Candler Center for Medication Management (CMM) is a pharmacist-managed ambulatory care clinic that provides referral-based ambulatory care services in anticoagulation, diabetes, heart failure, tobacco cessation, transitional care, vaccinations, and wellness contracts for self-insured organizations, and has 147 referring physicians. Nurse Practitioners and Pharmacists evaluate and manage patients under their scope of practice and supervising medical director for the CMM. Pharmacists and Nurse Practitioners educate patients and collaborate with referring physicians for disease state management but do not carry prescriptive authority at CMM. CMM bills for services as a provider-based department of the hospital. CMM is recognized as an Anticoagulation Center of Excellence by the Anticoagulation Forum and is interventional with ambulatory care quality initiatives of the health system. Pharmacists in CMM are board-certified in ambulatory care provided by Board of Pharmacy Specialties and have completed a minimum of a 1-year post-graduate training program accredited by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. CMM has 4 off-campus satellite locations providing ambulatory care referral-based services. Since 2007, the CMM has primarily provided anticoagulation services via laboratory monitoring and management of warfarin. Practice innovationPharmacists transitioned from provider-based departments of a hospital to outpatient primary care medical groups. This transition changed their job description and the model for reimbursement of the pharmacists’ salaries. Four pharmacists were present 60 hours per week from January 2018 to August 2018, and 80 hours per week (2 full-time clinical pharmacist positions) from September 2018 to December 2018, to conduct AWVs and disease state management patient encounters. These pharmacists divided their time between a department of a hospital and a traditional medical group of the same health system. EvaluationFor calendar year 2018, 1770 AWVs and 468 disease state management patient care visits were provided exclusively by pharmacists to patients of the 4 primary care medical groups of this community practice health system. Patient visits for disease state management included diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, anticoagulation, and tobacco cessation. ResultsFor the calendar year 2018, 1770 AWVs and 468 disease state management patient visits were provided exclusively by pharmacists, under the direct supervision of physician, to patients of primary care medical groups. ConclusionThis is an example of expanding direct patient care pharmacy services, within a health system, to primary care medical groups, without direct grant or university funding.

Exploring the relationship between examination pass rates and eligibility pathways among pharmacist candidates for initial board certification

ObjectivesTo compare examination pass rates among different eligibility cohorts for initial board certification in 6 recognized pharmacy practice specialties. DesignRetrospective observational cohort study. Setting and participantsPracticing U.S. pharmacists who were approved candidates for initial board certification examinations in the following Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS)–recognized specialties: ambulatory care pharmacy, critical care pharmacy, oncology pharmacy, pediatric pharmacy, pharmacotherapy, and psychiatric pharmacy. Outcome measuresThe number and percentage of BPS-approved candidates that pass initial board certification examinations differentiated by specialty and eligibility pathway (i.e., completion of postgraduate residency training or demonstration of postlicensure specialized practice experience). ResultsInitial board certification examination outcome (i.e., pass or fail) was assessed for a total of 15,171 candidates from Fall 2015 to Fall 2018. Pass rates for that period based on eligibility pathway (e.g., completion of a PGY-2 specialty residency, completion of a PGY-1 residency plus 1–2 years of postlicensure specialized practice experience, or 3–4 years of postlicensure specialized practice experience) were, respectively as follows: ambulatory care pharmacy (n = 2081): 94%, 84%, and 55% (P < 0.0001); critical care pharmacy (n = 2111): 99%, 94%, and 79% (P < 0.0001); oncology pharmacy (n = 1195) 93%, 75%, and 50% (P < 0.0001); pediatric pharmacy (n = 1119): 87%, 73%, and 57%; (P < 0.0001); pharmacotherapy (n = 8368): 88%, 59% (P < 0.0001); and psychiatric pharmacy (n = 477): 93%, 72%, 49% (P < 0.0001). ConclusionFrom 2015 to 2018, the percentage of BPS-approved candidates that passed initial board certification examinations in ambulatory care pharmacy, critical care pharmacy, oncology pharmacy, pediatric pharmacy, pharmacotherapy, and psychiatric pharmacy was significantly higher for cohorts deemed to be board eligible based on completion of postgraduate residency training.

Legacies begun, legacies continued

Legacies begun, legacies continued

AIHP Welcomes Board of Pharmacy Specialties as New National Pharmacy Association Sponsor

AIHP Welcomes Board of Pharmacy Specialties as New National Pharmacy Association Sponsor

Creation of a certification requirement for pharmacists in direct patient care roles.

Steps taken by a large health system to require certification for all pharmacists in direct patient care roles are detailed. Major supply chain changes and rising payer expectations are reshaping pharmacy practice, resulting in expanded responsibilities for pharmacists and a heightened need for certification in specialized practice areas. In response, the pharmacy leadership team at UW Health, the integrated health system of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, used an iterative process and a "rolling" FAQ format to develop and implement a certification requirement. Key decisions during the process included decisions to accept only rigorous certifications (mainly those offered by the Board of Pharmacy Specialties), to provide institutional support for continuing education-based recertification, and to use an accepted definition of direct patient care in determining which pharmacists need to be certified. The team obtained the support of the UW Health human relations department by drafting a policy and rewriting all pharmacist position descriptions to incorporate the certification requirement. An all-pharmacist forum was held to build staff commitment. As a result of the requirement, 73 pharmacists were required to obtain certification by 2018 at a total cost to UW Health of $44,000; ongoing support of certification maintenance will cost an estimated $40,000 per year. Health systems can be successful in establishing uniform certification expectations for pharmacists in direct patient care roles, even across diverse practice settings, by aligning expectations with organizational goals.

Board specialty certifications for pharmacists in Arab Countries: Current needs and recommendations

For more than three decades, the American Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS) has provided specialty-level certification programs for pharmacists – both nationally and internationally. This qualification certificate has been established to “Improve patient care through recognition and promotion of specialized training, knowledge, and skills in pharmacy practice and through board certification of pharmacists.”[1] Since its inception, about 25,227 pharmacists have been certified. Statistics showed that the vast majority of the certified pharmacists (n = 23,184, 92%) were from the USA, whereas the rest (n = 2043, 8%) were pharmacists from other countries. A list of the first seven countries in terms of the number of certified pharmacists is shown in [Table 1]. It is noticeable that three of these countries are Arab countries (ACs). The rest of countries have <100 of certified pharmacists.[2]

Priming the Preceptor Pipeline: Collaboration, Resources, and Recognition

Special Acknowledgments: * Jeffrey Ekoma, Policy and Professional Affairs Manager, AACP: for serving as a note-taker for the Professional Affairs Committee focus groups held during the 2016 American Pharmacists Association; * Stephanie Fouch, Senior Consultant Outreach and Communications, AACP: for serving as the moderator for the Professional Affairs Committee focus groups held during the 2016 American Pharmacists Association; * The participants of the two Professional Affairs Committee focus groups (preceptors and pharmacy employers) held during the 2016 American Pharmacists Association: for their attendance, engagement, and passion for precepting future pharmacists; and * The following national pharmacy organizations that responded to the 2016 Professional Affairs Committee request for information regarding their efforts regarding preceptor training and development: American College of Apothecaries (ACA), American Society for Pharmacy Law (ASPL), Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS), College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists (CPNP), Hematology-Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA), and two state pharmacy member associations (New Mexico and Pennsylvania) from the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations (NASPA). Background and Charges According to the Bylaws of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the Professional Affairs Committee is to study issues associated with the professional practice as they relate to pharmaceutical education, and to establish and improve working relationships with all other organizations in the field of health affairs. The Committee is also encouraged to address related agenda items relevant to its Bylaws charge and to identify issues for consideration by subsequent committees, task forces, commissions, or other groups. President Cynthia Boyle established the theme of Capitalizing on Foundations of Citizenship for the 2015-2016 standing committees. (1) According to President Boyle, as the academy prepares our nation's future pharmacists and scholars, the academy is leveraging all of the stakeholders who invest in academic pharmacy. (1) A key group of stakeholders in our academy are pharmacy preceptors. Our preceptors are one group of citizens that bears responsibility for a significant portion of the preparation of practice-ready graduates. Estimated to be approximately 30,000 pharmacists strong, most accept responsibility for precepting Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences (APPE) [and often Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experience (IPPEs) as well] with little or no direct compensation. The 2015-16 Professional Affairs Committee is charged to: (1) Study the current relationship between the colleges/schools of pharmacy, our volunteer preceptors, and the organizations that employ them. The focus will be defining the needs of this population of practitioners for continuing professional development, recognition and support to assure that they are prepared to assume increasing responsibility for assuring that Doctor of Pharmacy graduates are both practice--and team-ready; and (2) Assess the unique demands of precepting in an interprofessional care environment. Members of the 2016 PAC include faculty representing multiple disciplines from various schools/colleges of pharmacy and professional staff representation from the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) and the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS). Prior to any in-person meetings of the committee, pertinent background information and resource materials were distributed. The professional staff representatives met on September 21, 2015 to discuss their programs, initiatives and services involving preceptors and their development, as well as the role(s) that national pharmacy organizations can have with preceptors and their employers. …

Recommendations for Aligning PGY2 Pharmacy Residency Training and Pharmacy Specialist Board Certification.

With the increased focus and anticipated growth in specialty training and certification within the profession of pharmacy, it is important for the profession to step back and evaluate the manner in which its adopted education and certification systems interface. As a result of specialty practice development, significant growth is occurring in both postgraduate year two (PGY2) pharmacy residency programs and individuals seeking certification by the Board of Pharmacy Specialties. As the profession continues to evolve its specialty training and credentialing systems, it is important to consider the inherent relationship between these systems. This paper considers the current landscape of specialty training and certification, including issues related to the quality of PGY2 training, consistent application of standards across and within PGY2 programs, credentialing of preceptors and program directors, and alignment of training with specialty certification examination content domains. We outline recommendations across three areas: (1) creating consistency between specialty training and certification, (2) aligning qualifications of PGY2 residency program directors and preceptors with the designated specialty area, and (3) assessing program quality in the context of the expectations of specialists established by the profession. The goal of this paper is to stimulate professional dialogue on these issues. Establishing both formal and informal connections between specialty training and certification can serve as the foundation for a rational approach to professional development and the credentialing that will be recognized by stakeholders outside the pharmacy profession. Establishing these connections will also support and advance the profession's mission of meeting the medication needs of patients.

APhA2016; Advanced Preceptor Training; APhA member spotlight; BPS specialty certification

APhA2016; Advanced Preceptor Training; APhA member spotlight; BPS specialty certification