Background : Few instruments measuring health professions trainees' perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) have undergone rigorous psychometric validation in U.S. populations. Existing instruments were not designed to capture an interprofessional perspective and neglect the multidimensional impact of AI on clinical practice, education, and research domains. To address this gap, we developed and validated the Artificial Intelligence in Competence and Preparedness Evaluation Resource (AICPER). Methods : A cross-sectional online survey of students enrolled in nursing, pharmacy, and public health programs was administered at a U.S. university to evaluate the psychometric properties of AICPER. Content validity was assessed by subject-matter experts using a four-point relevance scale. Item Content Validity Index, Scale Content Validity Index (I-CVI, S-CVI), and modified kappa were calculated to quantify item relevance and expert agreement beyond chance. Internal consistency reliability was estimated using Cronbach's alpha, ordinal alpha, and McDonald's omega. Structural validity was examined via Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (EFA and CFA), supplemented by a method-effects model for reverse-scored items, configural-vs-metric measurement invariance across programs, bootstrap 95% confidence intervals on factor loadings, and listwise-deletion sensitivity analysis. Results : Seven instrument experts and 193 students completed the survey. The 20-item scale demonstrated acceptable content validity. EFA recovered a three-factor structure: Functional Benefits, Ethics and Trust, and Educational Engagement. Item and factor analysis resulted in an 18-item instrument which demonstrated good internal consistency at the total-scale level (α=0.86). Metric invariance was supported across programs (ΔCFI = -0.001). All 18 standardized loadings had bootstrap 95% CIs excluding zero. Method effects are present and account for a non-trivial share of variance in reverse-coded items, but the substantive three-factor structure persists when these effects are modeled. Conclusions : AICPER provides health-professions educators and researchers with a rigorously validated, multidimensional instrument measuring trainee perceptions across functional, ethical, and engagement domains. Its three-domain structure supports targeted curriculum needs assessment, intervention evaluation, and cross-disciplinary benchmarking.

Professional identify formation (PIF), with an emerging focus on self-constructed, internal adoption of professional norms, is increasingly viewed as critically important for the education of future health professionals. PIF strengthens skills and attitudes to successfully address professional challenges with passion and personal commitment. In pharmacy, PIF builds on and enhances the profession's longstanding commitment to student professional development. The Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy PharmD program has been redesigned to promote PIF across the curriculum.

Health professional education and post-graduate training programs, including residencies, fellowships, and other post-graduate training experiences, may encourage or require trainee participation in continuing education (CE) activity planning and development. Providers of CE should ensure appropriate mentorship and faculty guidance during development of the activity and provide direction on the expectations of adult learning principles (e.g. identification of an educational gap; development of measurable learning objectives; inclusion of independent, balanced, and evidenced-based content; use of active learning techniques; and incorporation of learning assessment methods). Nonetheless, there is no established best practice or approach for how CE providers should ensure trainees are prepared to serve as CE activity faculty. New practitioners provided with an opportunity to participate may be unsure of where to begin and may be hesitant to engage in this new activity. In this manuscript, authors delineate key principles to incorporate when introducing trainees to CE activity development and share outcomes associated with a comparison of trainee- vs. faculty-developed and delivered CE.

Background: Patients use mail delivery as a convenient alternative to acquiring medications in person. Federal laws require nonspecialty oral medications to be stored at controlled room temperature during distribution; however, no laws or regulations govern temperature requirements for medication transport among patients, which may expose medications to harmful temperature excursions. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate temperature excursions during mail transit based on the shipment method, carrier, and season. Methods: This prospective study monitored temperature fluctuations during simulated mail transit between New Jersey, California, and Tennessee over winter (December 2019-February 2020) and summer (August-September 2020) time frames. Packages with data-logging thermometers were shipped to 3 U.S. destinations via 3 common mail carriers and 2 popular shipping methods. Three packages were mailed for each combination of season, carrier, and shipping method, representing 36 individual packages. The primary end point was percent of transit time out of range (OOR) based on the United States Pharmacopeia < 659 > recommended range, 68 degrees F to 77 degrees F. Additional end points include package transit durations and extreme temperatures. Results: Evaluated packages spent an average of 68.3% of transit time OOR. In winter, 3-day and next business day packages spent similar time OOR (80.1% vs. 78%). In summer, 3-day packages spent more time OOR compared with next business day shipping (43.1% vs. 13.6%). Mean transit time was statistically significantly longer for 3-day packages (406.6 hours vs. 303.1 hours; P < 0.0001). Mean winter transit time was statistically significantly longer than summer (475.7 hours vs. 233.9 hours; P < 0.001) regardless of the shipping method. The minimum and maximum temperatures recorded were 5.1 degrees F and 102.3 degrees F, respectively. Conclusion: Package temperatures were outside of the recommended range for most of the transit time regardless of the shipping method, carrier, or season. (c) 2023 American Pharmacists Association (R). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

OBJECTIVETo benchmark opioid abuse risk among student pharmacists attending three northeast pharmacy schools utilizing the opioid risk tool (ORT).DESIGNA cross-sectional, anonymous risk assessment questionnaire.SETTINGThree pharmacy schools in the northeast United States.PARTICIPANTSProfessional year 1 (P1) through professional year 3 (P3) student pharmacists.METHODSORT was collected and scored by investigators and inputted into an electronic format for analysis. Students voluntarily participated, and 812 surveys were completed during one course meeting time and day at each school.RESULTSThe majority of students were in the low-risk category (n = 581, 71.6 percent). Additionally, 137 (16.9 percent) patients were categorized as moderate risk and 94 (11.6 percent) as high risk. No statistically significant differences existed when comparing risk groups across the first through third professional year student pharmacist cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of risk groups among the three pharmacy cohorts between low-risk versus the high-risk groups. When comparing risk groups by gender, males were found to have a statistically significant higher proportion of being classified as moderate or high risk.CONCLUSIONSThe results of this study demonstrate that there may be some student pharmacists with an increased risk for opioid abuse potential. There is potential need for education regarding opioid risk awareness and abuse prevention, which may serve as a call to action for professional school students and practitioners to understand baseline opioid abuse risk if they require chronic pain therapy.

The aim of this study was to investigate the level of misunderstanding of medication information in Korean adults after stratifying by level of health literacy and to identify the factors influencing the misunderstanding of medication information and reading amounts of information on OTC drug labels. A cross-sectional survey was performed with 375 adult participants using the survey instrument. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors which influence misunderstanding of medication information. Participants misunderstood 20% of words on OTC drug labels, 9% of prescription drug instructions, and 9% of pictograms. Participants on average read 59% of the overall contents of the OTC drug labels. As prescription drugs’ dosing regimens became more complicated, the level of misunderstanding instructions increased. The level of misunderstanding words on OTC drug labels significantly decreased as participants had adequate health literacy (β = −18.11, p < 0.001) and higher education levels (β = −6.83, p < 0.001), after adjusting for the study variables. The level of misunderstanding instructions for prescription drugs increased as participants became older (β = 8.81, p < 0.001) and had lower education levels (β = −5.05, p < 0.001), after adjusting for the study variables. The level of misunderstanding pictograms was similar to that of misunderstanding instructions for prescription drug labels. The amount of reading information on OTC drug labels significantly increased as respondents had adequate health literacy (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), were older (β = 12.49, p < 0.001), or had chronic diseases (β = 7.49, p = 0.007). Individuals’ health literacy level, reading behaviors, and complexity of medication instructions are associated with misunderstanding of medication information. Appropriate word choices in drug labels and an improved format of medication instructions could increase understanding of medication information and prevent adverse drug reactions.

BACKGROUND:Pharmacists play a vital role in recommending and providing vaccines to improve public health and are on the front line of mass immunization efforts.AIM:The objective of this study is to evaluate pharmacists' perceptions on COVID-19 vaccines prior to emergency use authorization (EUA) amid a global pandemic.METHODS:A voluntary, anonymous, cross-sectional survey was conducted between September and November 2020. Survey respondents included a convenience sample of licensed pharmacists in the United States. The primary outcomes were pharmacists' willingness to receive and recommend hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines. Covariates assessed in the survey included COVID-19 exposure or personal experience, primary pharmacy practice setting, background in training, geographic region, and prioritization of clinical data. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.RESULTS:This study surveyed 763 pharmacists and results from 632 participants were included in final analysis. Overall, 67.1% of the pharmacists were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and 63.4% of the pharmacists were willing to recommend a COVID-19 vaccine at ≤1 year from the time of vaccine approval. At >1 year after vaccine approval, 78% of the pharmacists were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and 81.2% of the pharmacists were willing to recommend a COVID-19 vaccine.CONCLUSIONS:Survey findings suggest that, while a majority of pharmacists surveyed indicate acceptance of hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines, there remains to be hesitancy among pharmacists to receive or recommend vaccination.

Biological disasters can be natural, accidental, or intentional. Biological threats have made a lasting impact on civilization. This review focuses on agents of clinical significance, bioterrorism, and national security, specifically Category A agents (anthrax, botulism, plague, tularemia, and smallpox), as well as briefly discusses other naturally emerging infections of public health significance, Ebola virus (also a Category A agent) and Zika virus. The role of pharmacists in disaster preparedness and disaster response is multifaceted and important. Their expertise includes clinical knowledge, which can aid in drug information consultation, patient-specific treatment decision making, and development of local treatment plans. To fulfill this role, pharmacists must have a comprehensive understanding of medical countermeasures for these significant biological threats across all health care settings. New and reemerging infectious disease threats will continue to challenge the world. Pharmacists will be at the forefront of preparedness and response, sharing knowledge and clinical expertise with responders, official decision makers, and the general public.

Background The FDA’s Presenting Risk Information draft guidance from May 2009 states that the time of risk versus benefit is a factor taken into consideration when evaluating audio and video direct-to-consumer (DTC) broadcasts. The objective of the study is to evaluate the proportion of risk narration on television (TV) advertisements in comparison to the actual proportion of serious adverse effects findings across select therapeutic areas. Methods The study reviews prescription drug TV advertisements between the years 2010 and 2015 separated by therapeutic class. Indicators to assess risk versus benefit are as follows: total benefit time, total risk time, total ad time, percentage proportion of risk, and number of serious adverse effects (SAEs) listed in the package insert. The objective is establishing proportion of risk-to-benefit narration across therapeutic areas and the proportion of risk narration compared to the number of SAEs in the package insert. These outcomes will reflect whether TV advertisements abide by the “fair balance” rule and if the time spent on risk narrations is proportional to the number of SAEs across therapeutic areas. Results An analysis of risk versus benefit showed that there was a vast range of percentage differences in risk versus benefit narration across the products selected. The majority of the products narrated showed a 40% to 60% risk-to-benefit ratio. Six out of the 10 products evaluated communicated applicable black box warnings. There was variability among the SAE percentages presented between products. Conclusion Lack of consistency exists between risks versus benefit proportions among different drug products.

The first dual-degree program combining both the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) and the doctor of medicine (MD) degrees was designed and launched by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, in academic year 2013–2014. This joint effort was led by the Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy (EMSOP) and the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) to combine expertise in both diagnostic and treatment facets of health care and to prepare graduates for leadership roles in providing and managing comprehensive patient care in a variety of settings. One area of potential value of these skill sets is the drug development industry. A survey was conducted among pharmaceutical executive stakeholders associated with a postdoctoral training program to assess the perceived value of this new dual-degree skill set and to identify particular functions where the combined training has its best fit. Results indicate that the combined nature of this training is highly valued in this setting, especially in the areas of clinical pharmacology, drug safety and pharmacovigilance, medical affairs/strategy, and medical science liaisons. Future monitoring of graduates will further define the value of this dual degree in this and other health care settings.

BACKGROUND:Although full costs (including direct and indirect costs) that incurred during the process of chemotherapy administration should be measured, many studies estimate only direct labor and medication costs associated with various chemotherapy delivery systems. OBJECTIVES:To estimate the total costs for dispensing and administration of fluorouracil when administered with leucovorin, by intravenous infusion or bolus, using a microcosting approach from the perspective of a provider or health system. METHODS:A time-and-motion study was used to measure the time spent by (1) pharmacy staff in the handling, admixture, and dispensing of fluorouracil and (2) patients in the clinic. The study was performed at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey for an 8-month period. Costs of dispensing and administering fluorouracil were calculated per patient visit on the basis of resources used in the processing of fluorouracil and time spent by pharmacy staff and patient. All costs were standardized to 2005 dollars. RESULTS:A total of 275 observations were made, and 74 (26.9%) of these were associated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Pharmacy staff spent an average of 11 minutes for bolus fluorouracil with leucovorin infusion (fluorouracil/LCV-IV) and 8 minutes for bolus fluorouracil with bolus leucovorin (fluorouracil/LCV-B). Patients who received fluorouracil/LCV-IV spent an average of 203 minutes in the clinic, whereas patients who received fluorouracil/LCV-B spent 110 minutes. The average cost of administering fluorouracil/LCV-IV was $933, which comprised drug costs ($279), dispensing costs ($189), and administration costs ($465). The average cost of fluorouracil/LCV-B was $474, which comprised drug costs ($65), dispensing costs ($141), and administration costs ($268). CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to formally demonstrate the high cost of administering the injectable form of fluorouracil chemotherapy with leucovorin, despite relatively low drug acquisition cost. Therefore, reimbursement rates for fluorouracil should be calculated in such a way that covers all costs, including overhead costs for the department.

Objectives The objectives of this study were to examine the trends in the prevalence of type 2 diabetic patients with comorbid hypertension and blood pressure (BP) control rates in the United States and determine factors associated with these outcomes. Methods We used data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) III (1988–1994) and NHANES 1999–2004, a cross-sectional sample of the noninstitutionalized US populations. Type 2 diabetic patients were identified as patients at least 30 years of age with physician-diagnosed diabetes who were taking insulin or oral antidiabetic drugs to manage the condition. A diagnosis of hypertension was based on physician diagnosis, treatment with antihypertensive medications, or BP at least 140/90 mmHg. BP control was defined as diabetic patients who maintained BP <130/80 mmHg. Logistic regression was used to estimate risks of high BP, and odds of high BP treatment and control rates, after adjusting for demographic and clinical risk factors. Results The age-adjusted prevalence of diabetic patients and those with hypertension increased significantly from 5.8 to 7.1% and 3.9 to 4.7%, respectively, from NHANES III to NHANES 1999–2004. Among diabetic patients with hypertension, patients who were treated with medication or lifestyle or behavioral modification therapy have increased significantly from 76.5 to 87.8% during the observation period. The proportion of patients who controlled BP increased from 15.9 to 29.6%, but 70% of patients still did not meet the target BP goal. Conclusion Aggressive public health efforts are needed to improve BP control in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension.

Prospective, ongoing faculty development programs are important in the initial orientation and short- and long-term development of faculty in higher education. Pharmacy practice faculty are likely to benefit from a comprehensive faculty development program due to the complex nature of their positions, incomplete training in select areas, and multiple demands on their time. The need for faculty development programs is supported by the increased need for pharmacy practice faculty due to the increased number of colleges and schools of pharmacy, expanding enrollment in existing colleges and schools, and loss of existing senior faculty to retirement or other opportunities within or outside the academy. This White Paper describes a comprehensive faculty development program that is designed to enhance the satisfaction, retention, and productivity of new and existing pharmacy practice faculty. A comprehensive faculty development program will facilitate growth throughout a faculty member's career in pertinent areas. The structure of such a program includes an orientation program to provide an overview of responsibilities and abilities, a mentoring program to provide one-on-one guidance from a mentor, and a sustained faculty development program to provide targeted development based on individual and career needs. The content areas to be covered in each component include the institution (e.g., culture, structure, roles, responsibilities), student-related activities, teaching abilities, scholarship and research abilities, practice abilities and the practice site, and professional abilities (e.g., leadership, career planning, balancing responsibilities). A general framework for a comprehensive pharmacy practice faculty development program is provided to guide each college, school, department, and division in the design and delivery of a program that meets the needs and desires of the institution and its faculty.

Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapyVolume 29, Issue 1 p. 124-126 Free Access Clinical Faculty Development Eric G. Boyce Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Eric G. Boyce Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorJill S. Burkiewicz Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Jill S. Burkiewicz Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorMark R. Haase Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Mark R. Haase Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorEric J. MacLaughlin Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Eric J. MacLaughlin Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorAlissa R. Segal Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Alissa R. Segal Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorEunice P. Chung Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Eunice P. Chung Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorLingtak-Neander Chan Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Lingtak-Neander Chan Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorRaylene M. Rospond Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Raylene M. Rospond Pharm.D., FCCP American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorJoseph A. Barone Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Joseph A. Barone Pharm.D., FCCP American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorStephen W. Durst Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Stephen W. Durst Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorBarbara G. Wells Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Barbara G. Wells Pharm.D., FCCP American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this author Eric G. Boyce Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Eric G. Boyce Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorJill S. Burkiewicz Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Jill S. Burkiewicz Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorMark R. Haase Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Mark R. Haase Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorEric J. MacLaughlin Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Eric J. MacLaughlin Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorAlissa R. Segal Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Alissa R. Segal Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorEunice P. Chung Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Eunice P. Chung Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorLingtak-Neander Chan Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Lingtak-Neander Chan Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorRaylene M. Rospond Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Raylene M. Rospond Pharm.D., FCCP American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorJoseph A. Barone Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Joseph A. Barone Pharm.D., FCCP American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorStephen W. Durst Pharm.D., Corresponding Author Stephen W. Durst Pharm.D. American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this authorBarbara G. Wells Pharm.D., FCCP, Corresponding Author Barbara G. Wells Pharm.D., FCCP American College of Clinical Pharmacy American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 13000 West 87th Street Parkway, Suite 100, Lenexa, KS 66215; e-mail: [email protected], or download from http:www.accp.com.Search for more papers by this author First published: 06 January 2012 https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.29.1.124Citations: 8AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume29, Issue1January 2009Pages 124-126 RelatedInformation

• Working with emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and other health care professionals to develop and monitor medication-use systems that promote safe and effective medication use in the ED, especially for high-risk patients and procedures, • Collaborating with emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and other health care professionals to promote medication use in the ED that is evidence based and aligned with national quality indicators, • Participating in the selection, implementation, and monitoring of technology used in the medication-use process, • Providing direct patient care as part of the interdisciplinary emergency care team, • Participating in or leading emergency-preparedness efforts and quality-improvement initiatives, • Educating patients, caregivers, and health care professionals about safe and effective medication use, and • Conducting or participating in ED-based research.