(139) Emergency preparedness and response education among U.S. pharmacy programs

Primary Author(s)

Julie Kalabalik-Hoganson, PharmD, BCPS, BCCCP, MPH

Chair and Professor of Pharmacy Practice
Fairleigh Dickinson University School of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Florham Park, New Jersey, United States

Co-Author(s)

Abby A. Kahaleh, PhD, MS, BPharm, MPH, FAACP

Tenured Faculty of Clinical & Administrative Sciences
Roosevelt University
Schaumburg, Illinois, United States
Rebecca Brynjulson, PharmD, BCACP, BCGP

Director of Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences and Assistant Professor / Pharmacy Practice
North Dakota State University
Fargo, United States
JA

Jeanine P. Abrons, PharmD, MS

Clinical Associate Professor Director of Student Pharmacist International Activities
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA, United States
Georges Adunlin, PhD, MA, MSEd

Assistant Professor Department of Pharmaceutical, Social and Administrative Sciences
Samford University
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
HT

Hoai-An Truong, PharmD, MPH, FAPhA, FNAP

Professor and Director of Public Health
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Derwood, Maryland, United States

Objective : To assess emergency preparedness and response curricula among AACP members in the United States

Methods: The Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR) Committee of the AACP Public Health Special Interest Group identified gaps in the literature regarding EPR content in pharmacy education. The Committee developed a 16-item questionnaire and ensured face validity. The survey was administered through QualtricsXM to all 142 AACP member institutions in the U.S. Responses were collected anonymously and analyzed in an aggregate form to ensure confidentiality. Institutional review board approval was obtained from all institutions.

Results: The overall response rate was 56%. Response rates per question varied. Most respondents represented private institutions (62%) and enrolled class sizes less than 100 (74%). Thirty-five percent of institutions provided EPR education in the required didactic curriculum and only 16% offered experiential opportunities. Most programs embedded EPR content into a required course (70%). Faculty teaching EPR content had master’s degrees or board certification. Eighty percent did not have interprofessional collaborations; those that did more frequently collaborated with nursing programs. Resources needed for future EPR instruction were additional faculty, training sites, and guidance on EPR curricular inclusion. EPR content was assessed with summative (30%) and formative (20%) assessments. Community collaboration frequently included local and state health departments. The most favored advocacy efforts were supporting pharmacists’ roles in EPR on the state level and creating state/national networks of EPR faculty and practitioners.

Conclusions: EPR education is delivered in various formats. Most programs embedded EPR content in required courses. Practice opportunities were limited. Additional resources are needed to deliver effective EPR education. Advocacy efforts should surround local, state, and federal-level pharmacist roles and development of an EPR network.