Previous research in the US Navy demonstrated that cross-training enhances teamwork and interpersonal collaboration. Limited data exists on cross-training effectiveness in medical education. This research aimed to assess whether cross-training would have similar effects on medical teams. A multidisciplinary pair of resident participants—consisting of one physician and one pharmacist—was randomly assigned to cross-training or current training condition. The training experience involved one video-based content module (training a pharmacist’s task of pharmacokinetic dosing and a physician’s task of intubation) and one simulation-based practice scenario (collaborative treatment of an unstable critically ill simulated patient). Interprofessional pairs randomized to cross-training condition participated in both the content module and practice scenario in the alternative professional role whereas pairs randomized to current training condition participated in their own professional role. Pairs also participated in pre- and post- training assessment scenarios in their own professional role. Teamwork and interprofessionalism were measured immediately following assessment scenarios. Knowledge assessments were conducted at the start and end of the scenario sequence. Multidisciplinary pairs experiencing cross-training showed a significant improvement in teamwork (increased by 6.11% vs. 3.24%, p < 0.05). All participants demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge scores (increase of 14% cross-training, p < 0.05, and increase of 13.9% control, p < 0.05). Our project suggests that cross-training can improve teamwork in interprofessional medical teams.

Purpose. The purpose of this project was to compare DDI severity for clinician opinion in the context of the patient’s clinical status to the severity of proprietary databases. Methods. This was a single-center, prospective evaluation of DDIs at a large, tertiary care academic medical center in a 10-bed cardiac intensive care unit (CCU). A pharmacist identified DDIs using two proprietary databases. The physicians and pharmacists caring for the patients evaluated the DDIs for severity while incorporating their clinical knowledge of the patient. Results. A total of 61 patients were included in the evaluation and experienced 769 DDIs. The most common DDIs included: aspirin/clopidogrel, aspirin/insulin, and aspirin/furosemide. Pharmacists ranked the DDIs identically 73.8% of the time, compared to the physicians who agreed 42.2% of the time. Pharmacists agreed with the more severe proprietary database scores for 14.8% of DDIs versus physicians at 7.3%. Overall, clinicians agreed with the proprietary database 20.6% of the time while clinicians ranked the DDIs lower than the database 77.3% of the time. Conclusions. Proprietary DDI databases generally label DDIs with a higher severity rating than bedside clinicians. Developing a DDI knowledgebase for CDSS requires consideration of the severity information source and should include the clinician.

Simulation, an educational, assessment, and research technique used to mimic real‐world situations, is increasingly used in pharmacy education. The most‐used simulation methods include high‐fidelity simulation (HFS), low‐fidelity simulation (LFS), standardized patients, and game‐based simulation. A common element of simulation is its ability to offer learners the chance to practice a skill or acquire knowledge in a safe and accessible space. Simulation methods differ in key aspects, including cost and other resource investment as well as ideal venue for use in education. HFS provides a more realistic simulation environment than LFS but is typically more expensive. Standardized patients offer learners the opportunity to engage with a live person but may elicit greater variability in responses to learners' input than HFS. Computer‐based simulation uses technology to supply a wide variety of learning opportunities; however, it may require the use of proprietary software and devices. Despite widespread use, literature describing learning outcomes of simulation in pharmacy education is limited. Some existing reports with positive findings have focused on learner satisfaction with or perceived benefit of simulation activities. The few existing publications summarizing changes in skills or knowledge demonstrate a positive impact. Simulation is a promising modality for educating pharmacy students and residents; however, more data summarizing the benefit of learning outcomes are needed.

Electronic health record (EHR) technology use in the educational setting to advance pharmacy practice skills with patient simulation has not been described previously in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a virtual EHR on learning efficiency, perceptions of clinical skills, communication, and satisfaction. This was a prospective study conducted in a cardiovascular therapeutics course in the Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum. Students were randomized to use of a virtual EHR with patient simulation or to patient simulation alone (control). The efficiency of learning was assessed by the time to optimal recommendation for each scenario. Surveys (n = 12 questions) were administered electronically to evaluate perceptions of clinical skills, communication, and learning satisfaction. Data were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney U or Wilcoxon signed-rank test as appropriate. Use of the virtual EHR decreased the amount of time needed to provide the optimal treatment recommendations by 25% compared to control. The virtual EHR also significantly improved students’ perceptions of their clinical skills, communication, and satisfaction compared to control. The virtual EHR demonstrated value in learning efficiency while providing students with an engaging means of practicing essential pharmacist functions in a simulated setting.