• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.68-73
• /
• 2015

With the changes in the pharmacy curriculum from a 4 year program to a 6 year program in 2009, a new subject called Pharmacy Practice Experience (PPE) has been launched into the curriculum. The purpose of introducing this subject is to increase the competency of new pharmacy graduates in providing quality healthcare to the community. This study has been done, via comparison among different pharmacy schools in Canada and Korea, to ensure that the competency of future Korean pharmacists can be increased with the introduction of this subject. In general, the Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experience (IPPE) in Korea consists of 60 hours while Canada consists of 320 hours (minimum). Furthermore, the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) required in Korea is 1340 hours while Canada requires minimum of 960 hours. Specifically, comparing the Korean PPE curriculum to the PPE curriculums of University of Toronto (UT) and University of Waterloo (UW), UT and UW required a minimum of 75% and 89% direct clinical patient care experience respectively, either in hospital or community setting, compared to 45% in Korea; the remaining percentage in any of the universities can be fulfilled by taking other electives that may not require direct patient care experience. Observing these differences, it seems clear that the current PPE experience in Canada takes more of a patient focused approach than in Korea. Thus, with the recent movement in the Korean pharmacy community towards a more patient focused approach rather than a product focused approach, it would be beneficial to learn the differences between the PPE curriculums in Korea and Canada and apply any new understandings to the relatively newly introduced PPE program in Korea to further enhance the value of the new curriculum in helping to deliver quality patient care.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.55-62
• /
• 2017

Experiential education is a core curriculum of pharmacy education. In experiential education, formative feedback is an integral component of learning and teaching process. Feedback is defined as information provided by a preceptor regarding student's performance based on direct observation. With effective feedback, students can have opportunities to reinforce or correct behaviors and to acquire knowledge or skills. Students highly value and appreciate feedback. They rank provision of effective feedback as one of the most important qualities of preceptors. Preceptors, however, lack an understanding of feedback or practical skills necessary for providing effective feedback. As a result in reality, the feedback provided to students can be differentially effective in improving students' learning. This article describes a theoretical understanding of feedback including definition and value, as well as types of feedback. In addition, practical aspects in providing feedback, such as contents, timing, techniques, and models, are addressed. By understanding the value of feedback and mastering various feedback skills, preceptors will promote students' learning and enhance educational outcomes of experiential education.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.69-76
• /
• 2017

Objective: This study was conducted to assess the current status of experiential education, by analyzing pharmacy students' satisfaction and evaluation for practice sites and preceptors for 3 years from 2014 through 2016. Methods: Students evaluated the practice sites and preceptors using a 5-point and a 4-point Likert scale, respectively. Analysis was performed based on the types of curriculums and practice sites. In addition, sub-analysis was conducted based on the types of health-system pharmacy and the community pharmacy. Results: Total 203 students responded to the survey questionnaires. The 3-year average score of students' satisfaction with practice sites was 4.25. In the sub-analysis conducted based on the types of health-system pharmacy, the score was higher in the tertiary hospital pharmacies than that of the general hospital pharmacies (4.49 vs. 4.06, P<0.001). For community pharmacy, the difference in the score of the 3-year analysis was not significant, depending on the types (4.51 vs. 4.33, P=0.054). The average score of students' evaluation on the preceptors was 3.37 in the 3-year analysis. The score was significantly higher for the preceptors of tertiary hospital pharmacies than those of general hospital pharmacies (3.61 vs. 3.25, P<0.001). For community pharmacy, no significant differences were found, depending on the types of pharmacy (3.53 vs. 3.43, P=0.309). Conclusion: The students' satisfaction with practice sites and preceptors in pharmacy experiential education was high. However, it varied greatly depending on the types of educational institutions. Mutual effort between university and educational institutions is required, to narrow the gap in the degree of students' satisfaction.