Premium
Support Needed by Pharmacy Students in Experiential Placements: Stakeholders' Expectations
Author(s) -
Owen Susanne M,
Stupans Ieva,
Ryan Greg,
McKauge Leigh M,
Woulfe Jim
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of pharmacy practice and research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.222
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 2055-2335
pISSN - 1445-937X
DOI - 10.1002/j.2055-2335.2010.tb00514.x
Subject(s) - pharmacy , medicine , medical education , accreditation , stakeholder , competence (human resources) , experiential learning , context (archaeology) , preceptor , internship , graduation (instrument) , nursing , public relations , pedagogy , psychology , political science , social psychology , paleontology , geometry , mathematics , biology
Background From July 2010, Australian state and territory pharmacy registration boards will be replaced by a national body that will register health professionals and also accredit university pharmacy programs. Traditionally, assessment during the pharmacy internship year and national examination provide consistency at the post‐graduation stages, but the endpoints of university programs have been derived within state and territory contexts. Aim To determine the skills needed to gain competence within university pharmacy programs; and to identify the levels of support required by early and late placement students. Method Students, academics and professional/registration/preceptors were involved in state and territory focus groups. 140 participants completed a chart about their expectations regarding levels of supervising preceptor support required by students during experiential placements. Manual collation and comparative analysis was undertaken for early and late placement students. Results Early placement students were consistently viewed by all stakeholder groups as needing assistance or minimal assistance. For late placement students, there were wide variations in responses in regard to levels of support expectations for competency functional areas and within and across state and territory groups, especially among academics from various institutions. Conclusion There is variability across states and territories with respect to competency development in academic programs. This may present challenges within a national accreditation and registration context.