Impact of a Layered Learning Practice Model on Delivery of Clinical Pharmacy Key Performance Indicators under a Tertiary Care Centre Oncology Service.

Background: The layered learning practice model (LLPM), within which a pharmacist supervises both a pharmacy resident and a student, mitigates the growing demand for clinical rotations that has accompanied national expansion of Doctor of Pharmacy programs. A Canadian collaborative of hospital pharmacists established consensus on 8 clinical pharmacy key performance indicators (cpKPIs), activities associated with improved patient outcomes. Increased implementation of the LLPM alongside cpKPI measurement offers opportunities to compare the LLPM with standard practice in terms of pharmaceutical care delivery.

Objective: To quantify clinical productivity, as measured by proportions of eligible patients receiving cpKPIs and absolute numbers of completed cpKPIs, across scenarios involving pharmacists working with and without pharmacy learners.

Methods: In this retrospective observational study, pharmacy students, pharmacy residents, and pharmacists recorded completion of 7 cpKPIs for oncology inpatients over a total of 6 months in 2017 and 2018. Clinical productivity was described across the following 3 scenarios: presence of one or more pharmacists with one resident and one or more students (P-R-S); presence of one or more pharmacists with one or more students (P-S); and presence of one or more pharmacists only (P; standard practice).

Results: During the study, there were 685 recorded admissions to the inpatient oncology service. Generally, the proportions of patients who received cpKPIs were similar for scenarios with and without pharmacy learners present. Standardized to 20 pharmacist workdays, the total number of cpKPIs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (255 with P-R-S scenario, 281 with P-S scenario, and 258 with P scenario) and the total number of drug therapy problems resolved (i.e., cpKPI 3; 153 with P-R-S scenario, 180 with P-S scenario, and 149 with P scenario) were similar across the scenarios. Scenario P had fewer admitted patients per pharmacist workday (3.2) than scenarios P-S and P-R-S (3.4 and 3.7, respectively), which may have contributed to a trend toward greater proportions of patients receiving cpKPIs under scenario P.

Conclusions: Compared with standard practice, integration of pharmacy learners within an oncology unit did not appear to impair clinical productivity, as demonstrated by the comparable proportions of patients receiving cpKPIs and the total number of completed cpKPIs.