Hospital Pharmacy - July/August 2019 - 249

249

McCleary et al
the full preceptor. This included feedback on patient care discussions, topic discussions, and progress of the overall precepting experience. This allowed for an opportunity for
one-on-one discussion with the PT and facilitating access to
any additional training resources as appropriate, whether that
be an institutional protocol, piece of primary literature, or
other precepting resource.

Successes and Opportunities
Upon evaluation of the coprecepting model, several strengths
were noted. We believe the model succeeded in serving as an
active application of precepting skills, as opposed to passive
learning experiences such as viewing a webinar, listening to
a lecture about precepting, or other nondirect precepting
development activity such as a workshop about precepting.5
This environment allowed for a breadth of exposure to the
different skill levels of residents that rotate through the
MICU practice site. The PT experience was supervised to
some extent, which provided the opportunity for the PT to
receive feedback on their precepting skills from more established preceptors in the area. The learners on rotation, both
residents and students, provided generally positive feedback
on the coprecepting model. In particular, they enjoyed the
accessibility and continuity of the PT as well as the expertise
and different perspective of the full preceptor. Overall, the
full preceptors and PTs felt the coprecepting model was successful in further developing the PTs and moving them forward in the goal of becoming a full preceptor.
One of the possible downsides noted was that the coprecepting model at times provided a safety net in terms of precepting for the PT. Although this is generally a good thing for
the PTs, learners, and patient care, to some extent, we believe
there is great value and growth potential that stems from
ownership of carrying the sole responsibility for patient or
topic discussion.
Similarly, despite intentional attenuation efforts by the
full preceptors, this model struggled not to reinforce a hierarchy among clinical pharmacists. Our pharmacy practice
model does not currently differentiate between levels of clinical pharmacists, and at times, the nature of this model served
to reinforce the perceived hierarchy between the full preceptors and the PTs rather than breaking down the perception of
such. Another recognized challenge was the variation in precepting styles among the different full preceptors and mentors in their interactions with PTs. Although we feel exposure
to various styles is beneficial for overall precepting growth,
we acknowledge this as a limitation given variation in expectations, the balance of participation and observation of the
full preceptor in patient care and topic discussions, and feedback style to the PT. Looking forward, we hope to limit this
variation and also improve our documentation of PT growth

and progression by completing a written, standardized feedback template during each learning experience. This will
also help outline clear milestones for PT progression and
develop a plan for remediation and reevaluation when such
milestones are not met. Finally, the PTs had inconsistent
exposure to contributing to written evaluations of residents
and students. As a final opportunity for future renditions of
this model, the PTs will be given consistent exposure to
providing appropriate written feedback to supplement the
verbal feedback they were providing to resident and student
learners.

Conclusions
Creating and implementing a preceptor development program with a coprecepting component can augment traditional preceptor development plans, allowing for a layered
integration of PTs into the preceptor roles of varying residency programs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
1.

ASHP Accreditation Standard for Postgraduate Year One
(PGY1) Pharmacy Residency Programs; American Society
of Health-System Pharmacists; American Society of HealthSystem Pharmacists Home Page. http://www.ashp.org.
Published 2016. Accessed January 26, 2018.
ASHP Accreditation Standard for Postgraduate Year Two
(PGY2) Pharmacy Residency Programs; American Society
of Health-System Pharmacists; American Society of HealthSystem Pharmacists Home Page. http://www.ashp.org.
Published 2016. Accessed January 26, 2018.
DiPaula BA, Mohammad RA, Ayers P, et al. Residents as
preceptors and educators: what we can learn from a national
survey to improve our residency programs. Curr Pharm Teach
Learn. 2018;10(1):21-27.
Hartzler ML, Ballentine JE, Kauflin MJ. Results of a survey to
assess residency preceptor development methods and precepting challenges. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72(15):13051314.
Phillips H, Holler J, Lepkowsky M, et al. Assessment of current practices for developing "preceptors in training." Am J
Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(10):669-671.
Weitzel KW, Walters EA, Taylor J. Teaching clinical problem
solving: a preceptor's guide. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2012;
69(18):1588-1599.

http://www.ashp.org http://www.ashp.org

Hospital Pharmacy - July/August 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Hospital Pharmacy - July/August 2019