Comparing three methods to assess learning outcomes for a suicide prevention training program for pharmacy staff

PEC innovation Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100348

Grace Marley , Jill E. Lavigne , Wendi Cross , Abigail Gamble , Zhuying Zhang , Delesha M. Carpenter

{"title":"Comparing three methods to assess learning outcomes for a suicide prevention training program for pharmacy staff","authors":"Grace Marley , Jill E. Lavigne , Wendi Cross , Abigail Gamble , Zhuying Zhang , Delesha M. Carpenter","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To examine whether pharmacists and pharmacy staff who complete a suicide prevention gatekeeper training program (Pharm-SAVES) react similarly to a written patient case, a live simulated patient (SP), and a prerecorded SP case.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>After completing the 30-min Pharm-SAVES training, participants completed a written patient case via survey and then, 1 month later, completed a prerecorded SP and live SP interaction via Zoom. For each assessment type, we documented whether the participant asked about suicide and referred the patient to the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (988).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants (<em>n</em> = 12) asked about suicide in 8 (67 %) written patient cases, 9 (75 %) prerecorded SP cases, and 8 (67 %) live SP cases. Participants referred patients to 988 in 8 (67 %) written patient cases, 5 (42 %) prerecorded SP cases, and 10 (83 %) live SP cases.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The number of participants who asked about suicide was similar regardless of assessment type; however, referrals to the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline happened less often with the prerecorded SP cases.</div></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><div>This is the first study to compare key learning outcomes of pharmacy suicide prevention gatekeeper training across written, live, and prerecorded SP encounters.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100348"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To examine whether pharmacists and pharmacy staff who complete a suicide prevention gatekeeper training program (Pharm-SAVES) react similarly to a written patient case, a live simulated patient (SP), and a prerecorded SP case.

Methods

After completing the 30-min Pharm-SAVES training, participants completed a written patient case via survey and then, 1 month later, completed a prerecorded SP and live SP interaction via Zoom. For each assessment type, we documented whether the participant asked about suicide and referred the patient to the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (988).

Results

Participants (n = 12) asked about suicide in 8 (67 %) written patient cases, 9 (75 %) prerecorded SP cases, and 8 (67 %) live SP cases. Participants referred patients to 988 in 8 (67 %) written patient cases, 5 (42 %) prerecorded SP cases, and 10 (83 %) live SP cases.

Conclusion

The number of participants who asked about suicide was similar regardless of assessment type; however, referrals to the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline happened less often with the prerecorded SP cases.

Innovation

This is the first study to compare key learning outcomes of pharmacy suicide prevention gatekeeper training across written, live, and prerecorded SP encounters.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

比较三种评估药房员工自杀预防培训项目学习成果的方法

目的研究完成自杀预防把关人培训项目（Pharm-SAVES）的药剂师和药房员工对书面患者案例、现场模拟患者（SP）和预先录制的 SP 案例的反应是否相似。方法在完成 30 分钟的 Pharm-SAVES 培训后，参与者通过调查完成书面患者案例，然后在 1 个月后通过 Zoom 完成预先录制的 SP 和现场 SP 互动。对于每种评估类型，我们都记录了参与者是否询问过自杀问题以及是否将患者转介至自杀与危机生命热线（988）。结果参与者（n = 12）在 8 个（67%）书面患者案例、9 个（75%）预录 SP 案例和 8 个（67%）现场 SP 案例中询问过自杀问题。在 8 个（67 %）书面患者案例、5 个（42 %）预先录制的 SP 案例和 10 个（83 %）现场 SP 案例中，参与者向 988 转介了患者。结论无论评估类型如何，询问自杀问题的参与者人数相似；但是，在预先录制的 SP 案例中，向自杀& 危机生命热线转介的情况较少。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊