Objective. To determine the impact of remote proctoring on student pharmacist academic performance. Methods. This was a retrospective, observational study that compared first- (P1) and second-year (P2) student pharmacist scores on eight composite exams administered in spring 2020 (n=387), the final three of which were proctored remotely, to that of a historical cohort who took the same exams in spring 2019 (n=368). To assess whether remote proctoring affected academic performance, spring 2020 scores for exams 6, 7, and 8 were compared to that of a historical cohort proctored live in spring 2019. Academic performance on exams 1 through 4 was also compared between the two cohorts to evaluate any possible year-to-year variation in academic performance during non-remote circumstances. Mann Whitney tests were used to compare scores between the two cohorts. Results. Median scores were significantly lower in spring 2020 as compared to the historical cohort on the first composite exam administered to P1 students after the implementation of remote proctoring. In contrast, median scores were significantly higher for two of three exams administered to P2 students with remote proctoring. Conclusion. Remote proctoring has a minimal impact on student pharmacist exam performance and may be considered to assure academic honesty and security of testing content in a distance learning environment.

Educational strategies to teach pharmacy students about diabetes are necessary to prepare future pharmacists to manage complex patients. The Choose Your Own Adventure (CYOA) patient case format is an innovative activity that presents a patient case in an engaging way. The objectives of this study were (1) to describe the development of the innovative teaching activity and (2) to assess its effect on student knowledge and confidence in outpatient management of diabetes. The CYOA patient case activity was designed by transforming a traditional paper patient case involving outpatient diabetes management into an interactive format utilizing an online platform. The activity was conducted with 186 second-year pharmacy students in a skills-based course. This activity was administered virtually through a combination of small group work and large group discussion. After completion of the activity, students completed an online self-assessment questionnaire. Of 178 completed questionnaires, there was a statistically significant difference in students’ self-ratings after versus before the activity for all survey items (p < 0.001). The CYOA activity improved self-reported knowledge of outpatient diabetes management and increased self-reported confidence in clinical decision-making skills. This format shows promise as an educational tool that may be adapted for other disease states to enhance clinical decision-making skills.

Objectives: Pharmacists play a vital role in serving patients during the ongoing nationwide opioid epidemic, and so it is also critical to educate the next generation of pharmacists on opioids and opioid use disorder (OUD). The primary objective of this study was to quantitatively characterize student perceptions of opioid use and the stigma associated with OUD. Secondary aims were to determine whether differences in perceptions exist based upon the student’s year in the Doctor of Pharmacy program or employment in a community pharmacy. Methods: First-, second-, third-, and fourth-year student pharmacists voluntarily completed an electronic survey regarding perceptions of opioid use and stigma associated with OUD. Results: Of the 9 survey items, students were most uncomfortable referring patients to community resources for addiction support and/or treatment (25.3% comfortable or very comfortable). Students working in a community pharmacy were significantly more comfortable talking to patients attempting to refill opioids early and providing opioid counseling as compared to their peers not working in community pharmacy. Fourth-year students reported a higher level of comfort talking to a patient attempting to refill an opioid prescription early, counseling a patient on an opioid prescription, and providing information about alternatives to opioids. Third-year students responded most favorably to the items regarding how well the curriculum has prepared them to interact with patients taking opioids and those with OUD. Conclusions: These findings reveal that students are comfortable counseling on opioids and discussing alternative options. Differences in perceptions were observed based upon the student’s year in the program and whether or not they were employed in a community pharmacy setting.

Purpose: This quality improvement initiative aimed to minimize opioid prescribing after oncologic pediatric surgery. Methods: Retrospective surgical data collected at a pediatric cancer hospital from July 2016 to June 2018 included hospitalization details, oral morphine equivalents prescribed, unplanned visits/calls because of pain, and parental/patient satisfaction with pain control. The quality improvement initiative promoted opioid prescription at discharge on the basis of prior inpatient requirements and education regarding nonopioid analgesia. Upon commencing this project in July 2018, we collected data prospectively. Results: The retrospective and the prospective cohorts included 271 and 99 patients, respectively. Mean (SD) oral morphine equivalents (mg/kg) prescribed upon discharge was significantly reduced in the prospective (0.75±1.34) versus retrospective cohorts (5.48±6.94, P<0.001). The unplanned visits/calls regarding pain were 23 (retrospective, 8.5%) and 2 (prospective, 2.0%). In total, 44 patients (44.4%) received an opioid prescription at discharge in the prospective cohort, significantly fewer than retrospective cohort (251, 92.6%, P<0.001), and used a mean of 34.3 of 159.8 (21.5%) doses dispensed. Length of stay was comparable (P=0.88) between cohorts. Prospective satisfaction rate was 96.2%, leaving 3 patients (3.8%) not satisfied with their pain control regimen. Conclusions: Dramatic reduction of opioid prescriptions after oncologic surgery can be achieved without detriment to patient satisfaction or readmissions. Level of Evidence: Level V.