What Makes an Excellent Preceptor? Predictors from Student Pharmacists Evaluations Shardae Young*, Susan Vos**, Matthew Cantrell*, Robert Shaw*

*Iowa City VA Health Care System and The University of Iowa College of Pharmacy

**The University of Iowa College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science

Methods

•Retrospective cohort study of fourth-year pharmacy student preceptor evaluations from May 2009 to May 2012

•Preceptor evaluations included 14 items pertaining to: o Organization of the rotation o Preceptor interest o Overall impression of the rotation o Average time spent with the student

•Also collected: o BPS certification o Terminal degree o Appointment status o Graduation year of the preceptor

•Incomplete evaluations and preceptors with incomplete data were excluded

•Preceptor excellence was defined as 80 percent of the student evaluations rated as “excellent” on a scale of excellent, good, fair, and poor

Background The American College of Pharmaceutical Education (ACPE) requires that colleges of pharmacy provide a minimum of 1440 hours of advanced practice experience(APPE) for their fourth year student pharmacists to be exposed to a variety of patient care opportunities and clinical settings. Preceptors at these sites receive orientation, training, and development, but there are no clear guidelines for training requirements. Identifying predictors of excellence may help guide the training and development of preceptors.

Results •4700 evaluations and 606 preceptors were included

•“Excellent” ratings tended to be given if the preceptor: o Showed an interest in teaching o Related to students as an individual o Encouraged discussion o Were readily available to answer questions o Provided feedback o Acted as a role model o Were well-organized and structured o Spent increased time with the student o (p value range = <0.001 to 0.004) (Table 1)

•Adjunct faculty were 93% of the preceptors (Fig. 1)

•Board certification was held by 11% of the preceptors (Fig.1)

•PharmD was the most common degree (Fig. 1)

•Years as a pharmacist were not significant predictors of excellence (p vale = 0.536) (Table. 2)

•Teaching title, board certification, and terminal degree were not significant measures of preceptor excellence(p values 0.116, 0.642 and 0.449) (Fig. 2)

.

Limitations •Performance evaluations are not the only method of evaluating excellence

•Bias introduced if grade was discussed with student prior to preceptor evaluations being submitted

•Appointment status of preceptor may have changed during the study period

•All preceptors may not have been evaluated if multiple preceptors work with the student

Objectives 1. Identify factors of preceptor excellence as rated by

student pharmacists

2. Assess the correlation between years as a pharmacist and “excellent” ratings

3. Evaluate the percentage of adjunct faculty versus tenured, tenure-track, and clinical-track faculty

Figure 1: Qualifications of Preceptors

Figure 2: Assessment of Excellence Based on Appointment Status, Board Certification, and Terminal Degree

Table 2: Years as a Pharmacist and “Excellent” Rating

Rating # of preceptors (%) Years as Pharmacist

(Mean ± SD)

Excellent rating > 80% of the time

158 (33) 14.2 ± 1 1.9

Good, fair, poor rating

319 (67) 14.9 ± 12.0

p= 0.536

Appointment Status:X2 (1) = 2.5, p = 0.116 Board Certification: X2 (1) = 0.22, p = 0.642 Terminal Degree: X2 (1) = 1.6, p = 0.449

Table 1: Student Evaluation of the Preceptor, “Excellent > 80%” vs. “Good, Fair, Poor” Statement Odds ratio (95% CI) P-value

This preceptor is interested in teaching this rotation 2.3 (1.69-3.20) <0.001

This preceptor related to me as an individual 2.0 (1.53-2.66) <0.001

This preceptor encouraged students to actively participate in discussions and problem-solving exercises 1.9 (1.50-2.62) <0.001

Students were encouraged to use resource materials NS

The preceptor described their approach to thinking about therapeutic problems NS

This preceptor was readily available to answer questions and concerns 1.4 (1.13-1.84) 0.004

Good direction and feedback were provided 1.5 (1.20-1.95) <0.001

The preceptor is knowledgeable in their response to questions or their approach to therapy NS

This preceptor evaluated me at the mid-point and end of the rotation NS

This preceptor evaluated me at the end of the rotation in a manner which was helpful to me NS

This preceptor served as a role model for a pharmacist practicing in this practice setting 3.4 (2.57-4.72) <0.001

The goals and objectives of the rotation were outlined and/or explained at the beginning of the rotation NS

Rotation activities were well organized and structured 1.5 (1.23-1.84) <0.001

The preceptor discussed patient care and/or practice related issues with me an average of (# hours) 1.2 (1.12-1.36) <0.001

NS = non-significant

61% 48% 58% 60% 66% 60% 56%

39% 51% 42% 40% 34% 40% 44%

Adjunct Faculty Tenured, Tenured-track, Clinical-track

Faculty

Board Certification No BoardCertification

BS Pharm PharmD MD, MBA, BSN, PhD

Good, Fair or Poor Rating Excellent Rating >80% of the Time

Terminal Degree

BS Pharm 35%

Board Certification

No 89%

Yes 11%

Teaching Title

Adjunct Faculty 93%

Tenured, Tenured-Track, Clinical-track

Faculty

7%

Pharm D 62%

Other 3%

Conclusion •The results of the study emphasize the role of the preceptor as a role model

•Preceptors without advanced qualifications (i.e. board certification) were rated as excellent at comparable rates to those without board certification

•Evaluating the qualities deemed important by APPE students could help tailor preceptor development

The authors would like to acknowledge Kathryn Draus, PharmD Candidate for her work in formatting the poster.