Development and Evaluation of a Workplace-Based Preceptor Training Course for Pharmacy Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been limited research about preceptor training programs that include coaching, experiential practice or development of preceptor coaching capacity. We describe the development and evaluation of a workplace preceptor training course for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians within a large regional health authority. METHODS: The instructional format was self-study readings and interactive seminars followed by structured practical experience plus feedback from a preceptor coach. During the structured practical experience, each participant served as a preceptor for a student or new staff member. Course evaluations and qualitative interviews were used to evaluate utility and perceived value among participants. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative description and themes were aggregated; illustrative quotes are presented. RESULTS: Since 2006, a total of 40 pharmacists and technicians have participated in the course and interviews were conducted with 14 of these participants. Aspects of the course that interview participants found to be particularly useful included receiving feedback from a coach, implementing a lesson plan and identifying and using different learning and teaching styles. Some participants described changes in attitudes or behaviours toward new employees or students, the use of new learning styles and changes in focus and approach to being a preceptor. DISCUSSION: This unique course could be applied in other workplaces where pharmacy staff members help to deliver experiential education programs. The delivery format was appropriate for a mixed group of pharmacist and technician participants. CONCLUSION: A preceptor training course of readings, seminars and structured practical experience with feedback from a coach resulted in satisfaction with learning experiences and evidence of attitudinal and behavioural change up to 3 years after the course.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".