Search

Background: Pharmacy technician scope of practice has expanded in recent years to attempt to alleviate the responsibility burden placed on pharmacists in some states. However, little research has examined the ways in which pharmacists attempt to persuade technicians to take on additional roles. Management literature has identified the importance of understanding employee values in crafting persuasive role expansion messaging. Objectives: Identify the occupational values which pharmacists believe are the most important to pharmacy technicians when attempting to craft messages aimed at increasing technician involvement in advanced roles., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists across multiple practice settings to identify how important they believe nine selected occupational values are to pharmacy technicians. Average scores for each of the nine values were calculated and examined to identify potential differences between the two overarching types of occupational values: intrinsic and extrinsic., Results: Pharmacists indicated that they believed that technicians are more extrinsically motivated than intrinsically motivated. Pharmacists believed that technicians had higher levels of extrinsic occupational values as opposed to intrinsic occupational values (3.920 vs. 3.113). The most important values to technicians as perceived by pharmacists were the income of the job and the hours of the jobs (average score of 4.85 and 4.75, respectively). The chance to be helpful to others and society was the only intrinsic value with an average score >3.5. Additionally, pharmacists indicated that technicians were not properly compensated for their work, which furthered illustrated the perceived importance of extrinsic motivators. Finally, when it came to crafting messaging around role expansion, pharmacists believed it was important to tailor their messaging to the technician they were speaking to., Conclusion: Pharmacists looking to craft role expansion messaging to their technicians are more likely to utilize extrinsic occupational values as motivators instead of using intrinsic values., Competing Interests: None., (© 2023 The Authors.)

The expansion of pharmacy technician scope of practice in recent years, though remaining somewhat contentious, has afforded multiple opportunities for pharmacy technicians to provide additional assistance within the pharmacy. However, much of the research examining this growth has focused on specific tasks, which were determined by either the researchers themselves or the respective state boards of pharmacy. This study aimed to gain a better understanding of what expanded tasks pharmacists believe technicians should have an increased role in performing. A consensus-building research methodology was used to survey practicing pharmacists to determine which tasks those pharmacists believed technicians should take an increased role in performing. This study used modified Delphi techniques to build consensus among panels of both hospital and community pharmacists regarding 20 setting-specific technician tasks. Results of our study indicated that both hospital and community pharmacists believed technicians should have an increased involvement in performing tasks which are more related to the operations of the pharmacy rather than tasks which are more clinical in nature. This finding illustrates a belief among a segment of pharmacists that expanded roles for technicians should do more to alleviate the managerial and operational burden placed on pharmacists, potentially allowing pharmacists to take on increased clinical roles.

Background: Vaccinations are successful, cost-effective tools to prevent the spread of certain infectious diseases. Many colleges conduct vaccination campaigns on their campuses for various vaccine-preventable diseases, including measles, mumps, influenza, HPV, and most recently, for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. Implementing these campaigns requires substantial effort and understanding their effectiveness is an important factor in justifying these programs., Aim: This scoping review aims to identify, review, and summarize existing evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses in order to provide evaluation guidance for institutions planning future vaccination campaigns., Methods: Publications that focused on vaccination campaigns on college campuses for students and/or faculty and staff and described their evaluation methods were included in our analysis. A systematic search of the literature identified 2,101 articles. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and references searched, 43 articles were identified for full-text review. Sixteen articles provided evaluation information and were systematically reviewed., Results: Interventions targeted a variety of vaccine-preventable diseases, with the majority either aiming to increase HPV vaccine uptake or vaccinate against meningococcal serogroups. Most studies reported on campaigns that included both educational activities and provided vaccinations. Evaluation methods varied widely. Some studies measured vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes. Vaccine uptake was most commonly measured as a simple count of doses administered., Conclusions: College campus vaccination campaigns are evaluated in multiple ways, with little consistency in how the effectiveness of campaigns are measured. There is a need to develop clear evaluation methods for college vaccination programs, especially how to calculate vaccination rates associated with these efforts., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Marie Barnard reports financial support was provided by Indiana Immunization Coalition., (© 2022 The Authors.)

After the emergency use authorization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations in the United States, existing pharmacy infrastructure was leveraged to disseminate vaccines. However, the national uptake of COVID-19 vaccines remains poor. This survey study of Mississippi pharmacists aimed to identify barriers to providing COVID-19 vaccination among pharmacists in practice settings that provided other vaccines. A thematic analysis was used to analyze open-ended survey responses. This study found that the greatest identified barrier to COVID-19 vaccination for pharmacists was patient willingness. The thematic analysis revealed logistical barriers, vaccine hesitancy, and rural pharmacy distribution concerns. These findings suggest that pharmacists require further training in overcoming vaccine hesitancy, and potentially indicate a need for the distribution of vaccination responsibilities to additional pharmacy staff members.

Background: Pharmacists have struggled to find time to spend on clinical tasks. As such, regulatory steps have been taken by some states to expand the scope of practice for community pharmacy technicians., Objective: The objective of this study was to determine what settings and characteristics predict pharmacists' comfort levels with technicians giving or receiving verbal prescriptions, performing nonclinical medication therapy management tasks, administering vaccinations, and verifying prescriptions., Methods: This study employed a national Internet-based survey of community pharmacists using a health care marketing research panel. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a theoretical basis for inquiry, particularly the CFIR domains of "outer setting," "inner setting," and "individual characteristics." As the outcome variable of this study, the respondents were asked to report their comfort levels with technicians performing the 4 advanced tasks. Four multivariable linear regression models identified statistically significant predictors of pharmacists' comfort with each task. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the pharmacists' comfort levels among tasks., Results: For all 4 tasks, pharmacists who believed that technicians had the ability to complete each task were more comfortable with technicians completing those tasks. In addition, pharmacists with perceptions of stronger technician interest in advanced tasks were found to be more comfortable with technicians taking on more responsibility for all tasks except vaccine administration. Repeated measures ANOVA found that pharmacists' comfort levels differed on all 4 tasks., Conclusion: This study found that the CFIR domains of inner setting (pharmacy location) and individual characteristics (perceptions of technicians and pharmacist education) affect pharmacists' level of comfort with technicians taking on additional responsibilities, but outer setting variables such as regulations do not. This suggests that pharmacist characteristics may affect the expansion of technician task responsibilities, no matter what state regulations allow., (Copyright © 2021 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Many professional development programs aim to improve student outcomes by enhancing teacher competencies. Effective evaluation of these programs requires a clear delineation of the competencies to be gained. A competency model was developed to evaluate the impact of a teacher professional program that aimed to improve teachers' ability to effectively implement technologically engaged modules in a flipped classroom setting. Competencies were identified via participatory evaluation techniques and assessments were aligned to the competencies. The competency of teachers in the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for creation and delivery of effective flipped lessons can be tracked using a radar graph to guide tailored professional development., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Marie Barnard: The author declares no conflict of interest. Erin Dehon: The author declares no conflict of interest. Caroline Compretta: The author declares no conflict of interest. Andrew Notebaert: The author declares no conflict of interest. Wesley Sparkmon: The author declares no conflict of interest. Edgar Meyer: The author declares no conflict of interest. Stephan Stray: The author declares no conflict of interest. Juanyce Taylor: The author declares no conflict of interest. Donna Sullivan: The author declares no conflict of interest. Robin Rockhold: The author declares no conflict of interest.