LABORATORY

7/21/2019 LABORATORY

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/laboratory-56d8e2fb9621e 1/7

Need to Enhance Computer Skills of Pharmacy Students

Ashish Chandra and Gary A. Holt School of Pharmacy, Northeast Louisiana University, Monroe LA 71209

The introduction of computers in the work place is promoted as a means for increasing efficiency andproductivity. In pharmacy, the computer is commonly incorporated to assist in a variety of service functionsand it is clear that the utilitarian potential of the computer continues to evolve. From an educationalperspective, it is helpful to assess the computer skills which pharmacy students bring to their professionaltraining programs. Their cognitive, affective and psychomotor capacities and orientations impact theirwillingness to accept the computer in their life environments, as well as their competencies relative toemerging computer-based demands. The present study surveyed the computer orientations and skills of 240pharmacy students of which 222 responded. The results indicate that the students have an introductoryorientation to computers and are not intimidated by their use. Even so, their computer experiences areprimarily based upon home and school exposures. Thus, while most are familiar with word processingprograms, progressively less are familiar with database, spreadsheet, statistical, drug information retrievalor other specialized programs. The results suggest that pharmacy programs may want to consider thedevelopment of computer course work to better prepare students for the computer applications which theyare likely to encounter in their future practice environments.

INTRODUCTION

Computer technology has been growing at an amazing rate, particularly over the past decade. At the same time the prices of computers have been declining, making it afford-able not only to businesses but also to individuals. Theintroduction of computers in the work place has vastlyincreased the efficiency and productivity in most businesses.The health care industry has joined the computer revolutionand it has been estimated that computerization can reduce both health care costs and labor efforts (e.g ., paperwork) (1,2). The introduction of computers in pharmacies has also been beneficial to pharmacists in a variety of service func-tions (e.g ., label preparation, access to patient data, detec-tion of drug interactions and other clinical information,facilitation of drug utilization reviews (DURs) and patientassessments, and provision of a means for documentation of

professional activities and services) (3-12). If the pharmacyhas access to a system like DRUGLINE, a full-text ques-tion-answer database offering drug information, then thenew information received by the pharmacist about the patient and the new medications prescribed to the patien

can be added to the database to screen for possible adversedrug reactions(13). Some pharmacies also provide cognitiveservices which might include home visits. Laptop and hand-held computer devices have been developed which can betransported from one place to another very easily(14, 15)These devices can help pharmacists gather patient informa-tion and monitor patient drug therapy at whatever site the patient/pharmacist interactions occur.

Computers have now become an integral part of educa-tion and the use of computer-aided instructional techniqueshas evolved vastly over the past few decades (e.g., pharmacol

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Vol. 60, Fall 1996 297



Table I. Age of the respondents

Age of the respondents Professionalyear Mean SD Range

First 23.0 4.76 18-50 Second 22.9 1.67 20-26 Third 24.6 4.71 20-40 Overall 23.4 4.51 18-50

ogy laboratories, practice training, parenteral compoundingand therapy, dispensing laboratories) (16-20). Computer as-sisted teaching modules have shown potential as an effectivealternative to printed exercises for problem solving instructionin pharmacy education(21). Faculty members at various schoolsof pharmacy have taken an initiative in helping students toacquire helpful computer skills and in the evaluation of studentconfidence in using computers(22,23).

The rapid evolution of computer technology demandscontinuing education in an effort to remain competitive andmaximize the provision of professional services. So, the phar-macy students of today will likely be required to make vitaldecisions regarding system upgrading in their future practicescenarios(24). Without an adequate knowledge of current pharmacy computer technology, it is quite possible that phar-macists may become caught in an informational web knit bycomputer sales personnel, and thus, unnecessarily encum- bered by inadequate computer systems(25).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the computerskills and knowledge of pharmacy students. This informa-tion can serve as a guide for computer courses and otherefforts in which computer assisted learning or informationretrieval is desired.

METHODOLOGY:

A 65-item questionnaire was initially developed for the purpose of the study. Ten undergraduate pharmacy and twograduate students participated in the pretest of the surveyAfter the necessary revisions were made, a 44-item question-naire was finalized for the purpose of this study. Section 1contained seven items and was designed to determine whetherthe students have taken any computer course and whetherthey could distinguish between the different types of comput-ers (e.g ., IBM-compatible and Apple Macintosh computers)

Section 2 was designed to assess student expertise and fre-quency of use of various software applications (e.g ., word processing, spreadsheet, database management, statistical and bibliographic/information retrieval databases). Also in thissection the type of computer owned by the student and the primary place of using computers was determined. Section 3focused on the views of pharmacy students about computersand computer skills. Section 4 focused on those students whowere working in a pharmacy and what they liked and dislikedabout the computers in the pharmacy.

A convenience sample of 240 students enrolled in thecollege of pharmacy at a southern university were selected forthe purpose of this study. The survey was given to the studentsin various classes with prior permission from the instructor

Out of these 240 responses, 18 were unusable because therespondent failed to provide appropriate demographic information. A total of 222 usable responses (92.5) were availablefor analysis. The demographic information about the respondents is listed in Tables I and II. STATISTIX® (version 4.0was utilized for the statistical analysis (26).

RESULTS and DISCUSSION:

Section I: Computer Background and Knowledge. Responses to this section (Table III) indicated that most

of the respondents (69 of males and 78.3 of females) had

Table II. Gender of the respondents

Male Female Totalsa

Professional year n1 Percent n2 Percent N=(n1+n2) Percent

First 56 25.2 80 36.0 136 61.3

Second 6 2.7 23 10.4 29 13.1

Third 22 9.9 35 15.8 57 25.7

Total 84 37.8 138 62.2 222 100.0

aTotal of percentage values may not be equal to 100.0 due to rounding.

Table III. Computer skills training of the respondents

Male Female Totalsa

Yes No Yes No Yes No

58 26 108 30 166 56Taken computer course(s)

in High School (69.0) b (31.0) (78.3) (21.7) (74.8) (25.2)

36 48 61 77 97 125Taken computer course(s)in college (42.9) (57.1) (44.2) (55.8) (43.7) (56.3)

63 19 114 24 177 43Have worked on an IBM-

compatible computer (76.8) (23.2) (82.6) (17.4) (80.5) (19.5)

Have worked on an Apple 58 24 115 20 173 44

Macintosh computer (70.7) (29.3) (85.2) (14.8) (79.3) (20.3)

Have worked on a Main 12 63 115 105 35 168

Frame computer terminal (16.0) (84.0) (18.0) (82.0) (17.2) (82.8)

aTotal of percentage values may not be equal to 100.0 due to rounding. bPercent of total.

298 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Vol. 60, Fall 1996



Table IV. Type of computer respondents preferMale Female Total

a

(n1 = 84) (n2 = 138) (n1+n2 = 222)

41 46 87IBM compatible

only (48.8) b (33.3) (39.2)

9 12 21Apple Macintoshonly (10.7) (8.7) (9.5)

1 1 2Main frame terminal

only (1.2) (0.7) (9.5)15 57 72 No particular

preference (17.9) (41.3) (2.4)

12 15 27

(14.3) (10.9) (12.2)

Apple & IBM

compatible

only6 7 13Don’t like to work

on computers (7.1) (5.1) (5.9)aTotal of percentage values may not be equal to 100.(1 due to rounding. bPercent of total.

Table V. Type of computer owned by the respondent

Male Female Total

IBM compatible 26 36 62

(92.9)a (97.3) (95.4)

Apple Macintosh 1 1 2(3.6) (2.7) (3.1)

Both 1 0 1

(3.6) (1.5)Total 28 37 65/222

(33.3) (26.8) (29.3)

aPercent of total.

taken a computer course in high school. In contrast, only43.7 (42.9 of males and 44.2 of females) of respondentsindicated that they had taken a computer course in college.Computer courses are very much in keeping with the prepa-ratory nature of high school (e.g., for college, work environ-ments in which a college degree is not requisite, or for

providing a basic educational foundation for students whoare not pursuing a college degree). Regarding the type ofcomputer with which the respondents were familiar, 80.5stated that they have worked on an IBM-compatible computer and 79.7 stated that they have worked on an Applecomputer; only 17.2 indicated that they have ever worked ona Main-Frame computer terminal. This is not particularlysurprising, since mainframes are cost-prohibitive for most public school systems. Personal computers are more cost-effective and are in keeping with typical college and career preparation needs.

Regarding the type of computer which the respondents prefer (Table IV), 39.2 stated that they would prefer to workon an IBM-compatible computer, 9.5 indicated a preference

for Apple systems, and 32.4 indicated no particular preferredcomputer type. Interestingly, only 5.9 indicated that they donot like to work on computers, which was very encouragingrelative to future trends in pharmacy. Because computers arenow commonly found in both educational programs and homeenvironments, it is reasonable to anticipate that students aremore oriented to their potential applications at earlier agesthan has been true for previous generations. A one-way analy-sis of variance gave a P value of 0.07. indicating that there is nosignificant difference among males and females regardingtheir computer preferences.

Table VI. Type of computer considered as a personacomputer (PC)

Male Female Total

5 1 6IBM compatibleonly (6.0)a (0.7) (2.7)

4 4 8Apple Macintosh

only (4.8) (2.9) (3.6)

2 2Main frame terminal

only

0

(1.5) (0.9)All three of them 10 8 18

(12.0) (5.8) (8.2)

42 74 116Apple & IBMcompatible

only

(50.6) (54.0) (52.7)

Don’t know 22 48 70

(26.5) (35.0) (31.8)aPercent of total. Total percent may not equal to 100 due to rounding.

Table VII. Primary place of working on a computer

Male Female Total

Home 18 29 47

(22.5)a (21.6) (22.0)

School 24 44 68(30.0) (32.8) (31.8)

13 16 29Both home and

at school (16.3) (11.9) (13.6)

Work 11 28 39(13.8) (20.9) (18.2)

14 17 31Don’t work on

computers (17.5) (12.7) (14.5)Total 80 134 214aPercent of total. Total of percentage values may not be equal to 100.0 due

to rounding. Total of use at school = 68 (31.8) + 29 (13.6) + 97 (45.3).

Total of use at home = 47 (22.0) + 29 (13.6) + 76 (35.5). Surprisingly, only 29.4 (33.3 males and 26.8 females) of

the respondents in this study own a personal computer(Table V). Of these, IBM compatible computers seem to bethe preferred type (95.4 indicated that it is the type ofcomputer they wn). These results are difficult to interpretsince it may reflect purchase preference of parents (e.g ., ithe parent purchased the computer system for their chil-dren). Also. IBM-compatible systems have historically hadmore games available, which is a significant attraction formany young computer users.

In a related question, the respondents were asked toidentify which type of a computer they considered as beinga PC (Personal Computer). Only 52.7 of the respondentswere able to correctly identify an IBM-compatible computer and an Apple computer as a PC (Table VI). Among

the respondents who were not able to correctly identifycomputers by type, 15.4 (2.7 + 3.6 + 0.9 + 8.2) gave a wronganswer regarding whether or not an IBM-compatible, AppleMacintosh. Main Frame terminal, or all three were a PCwhile 31.8 indicated that they did not know which one ofthese is considered to be a PC. A one-way analysis ofvariance ( P=0.011) indicated that there is a significant dif-ference between males and females regarding their ability to properly identify a PC. Technically, the term personal com puter is generic in nature and basically refers to any of thecompact systems (non-main frame) which people commonly




Table VIII. Application software skills of the respondents

Level of knowledge(A) (B) (C) (D) Percentage total of

Applicationsoftware

Proficientknowledge

Workableknowledge

Very Littleknowledge

No knowledge

A + B C + D

Word processor 29 (13.1)a 103 (46.4) 49 (22.1) 41 (18.5) 132 90M=7(8.3) M=40(47.6) M=20(23.8) M=17(20.2) (59.5) (40.5)F=22(15.9) F=63(45.7) F=29(21.0) F=24(17.4)

Spreadsheet 11 (5.0) 55 (24.9) 53 (24.0) 102 (46.2) 66 155

M=5(6) M=22(26.2) M=20(23.8) M=37(44) (29.9) (70.1)F=6(4.4) F=33(24.1) F=33(24.1) F=65(47.4)

Database management 5 (2.3) 32 (14.5) 29 (13.1) 155 (70.1) 37 184M=5(6) M=11(13.3) M=12(14.5) M=55(66.3) (16.7) (83.3)F=0 F=21(15.2) F=17(12.3) F=100(72.5)

Statistical software 2 (0.9) 7 (3.2) 16 (7.3) 193 (88.5) 9 209M=2(2.4) M=5(6.1) M=9(11) M=66(80.5) (4.1) (95.9)F=0 F=2(1.5) F=7(5.1) F=127(93.4)

Biographical retreival/informational database

Medline® 6 (2.7) 104 (47.3) 64(29.1) 46 (20.9) 110 110

M=3(3.6) M=47(56) M=17(20.2) M=17(20.2) (50.0) (50.0)F=3(2.2) F=57(41.9) F=47(34.6) F=29(21.3)Infotrac® 12.5(5.5) 70(32.0) 51(23.3) 86(39.3) 82 137

M=4(4.9) M=30(36.6) M=17(20.7) M=31(37.8) (37.4) (62.6)F=8(5.80 F=40(29.2) F=34(24.80 F=55(40.1)

M - male; F- female. aPercent to total. Total of percetage values mau not be 100.0 due to rounding.

Table IX. Frequency of use of various application software by respondents

Frequency of use

Applicationsoftware

Everyday

Everyother day

6-10 timesper month

1-5 timesper month Never

Noresponse

Word processor 7 (3.2)a 6(2.7) 18 (8.2) 76 (34.5) 113 (51.4)M=2(2.4) M=0 M5(6.0) M=27(32.1) M=50(59.5)F=5(3.7) F=6(4.4) F=13(9.6) F=49(36.0) F=63(46.3) 2

Spreadsheet 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 2 (0.9) 28(12.7) 188 (85.5)M=1(1.2) M=0 M=0 M=10(11.9) M=73(86.9)F=0 F=1(0.7) F=2(1.5) F=18(13.2) F=115(84.6) 2

Database management 0 0 2 (0.9) 10 (4.6) 207 (94.5)M=1(1.2) M=4(4.8) M=79(94)F=1(0.7) F=6(4.4) F=128(94.8) 3

Statistical software 0 0 1 (0.5) 3 (1.4) 217 (98.2)M=1(1.2) M=3(3.6) M=80(95.2)F=0 F=0 F=137(100) 1

Bibliographic retrieval/Informational database

Medline® 0 0 6 (2.7) 74 (33.5) 141 (63.8)M=3(3.6) M=37(44) M=44(52.4)F=3(2.2) F=37(27) F=97(70.8) 1

Infotrac® 0 0 5(2.3) 55(25.2) 158(72.5)M=2(2.4) M=25(30.1) M=56(67.5)F=3(2.2) F=30(22.2) F=102(75.6) 4

M - male; F- female. aPercent of total. Total percentage values may not equal 100.0 due to rounding.




Table X. Attitude of the respondents towards the following statements

Male Female Total

Yes No Yes NoMissingresponses Yes No

I hate computers 6 67 4 123 22 10 190(8.2)a (91.8) (3.1) (96.9) (5) b (95)

5 68 1 126 22 6 194I would not like to work on acomputer even in a pharmacy (6.8) (93.2) (0.8) (99.2) (3) (97)

8 65 4 122 23 12 187I would not like to printlabel(s) in the pharmacy (11.0) (89.0) (3.2) (96.8) (6) (94)

32 46 37 92 15 69 138The pharmacy technician/clerk should print the label (41.0) (59.0) 28.7) (71.3) (33.3) (66.7)aPercent of total. Total of percentage values may not be equal to 100.0 due to rounding.

Table XI. Views of the respondents towards the following statements

Statement Stronglyagree Agree No opinion Disagree

Stronglydisagree P

65 (29.3)a 128(57.7) 23 (10.4) 6 (2.7) 0 0.0141M=19(22.6) M=49(58.3) M=12(14.3) M=4(4.8)

Pharmacists should haveworkable knowledge of aword processing software. F=46 (33.3) F=79(57.2) F= 11(8.0) F=2(1.4)

38 (17.1) 114 (51.4) 59 (26.6) 11(5.0) 0 0.5065M=9(10.7) M=51(60.7) M=19(22.6) M=5(6.0)Pharmacists should haveworkable knowledge ofa spreadsheet software. F=29(21.0) F=63(45.7) F=40(29.0) F=6(4.3)

47 (21.3) 120 (54.3) 49 (22.2) 5 (2.3) 0 0.2186M=16(19.0) M=45(53.6) M=19(22.6) M=4(4.8)

Pharmacists should haveworkable knowledge ofa database software. F=31(22.6) F=75(54.7) F=30(21.9) F=1(0.7)

113 (51.1) 82 (37.1) 20 (9.0) 6 (2.7) 0 0.0000Pharmacists shouldhave typing skills. M=29(34.5) M=38(45.2) M=13(15.5) M=4(4.8)

F=84(61.3) F=44(32.1) F=7(5.1) F=2(1.5)

160 (72.4) 51 (23.1) 8 (3.6) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 0.1037M=56(67.5) M=22(26.5) M=3(3.6) M=1(1.2) M=1(1.2)

Computers are going to play a crucial role infuture in pharmacies. F=104(75.4) F=29(21.0) F=5(3.6) F=0 F=0

95 (42.8) 81 (36.5) 35 (15.8) 9 (4.1) 2 (0.9) 0.0002M=26(31.0) M=33(39.3) M=16(19.0) M=7(8.3) M=2(2.4)

Computer course should be a required part ofPrepharmacy. F=69(50.0) F=48(34.8) F=19(13.8) F=2(1.4) F=0

59 (26.8) 76 (34.5) 54 (24.5) 28 (12.7) 3 (1.4) 0.0.1776M=19(22.6) M=30(35.7) M=20(23.8) M=13(15.5) M=2(2.4)

Computer courses should be apart of the BS inPharmacy. F=40(29.4) F=46(33.8) F=34(25.0) F=15(11.0) F=1(0.7)

9(4.1) 17 (7.7) 27 (12.2) 123 (55.7) 45 (20.4) 0.0053M=5(6.0) M=8(9.5) M=16(19.0) M=44(53.6) M=11(13.1)

Computers in a pharmacywill increase workloadon the pharmacist 4 (2.9) F=9(6.6) F=11(8.0) F==79(57.7) F=34(24.8)

10 (4.5) 23 (10.4) 32 (14.4) 114 (51.6) 42(19.0) 0.0330M=5(6.0) M=12(14.3) M=12(14.3) M=45(53.6) M=10(11.9)

Computers are tooand not easy to learn

F=5(3.6) F= 11(8.0) F=20(14.6) F=69(50.4) F=32(23.4)M= male; F= female. aPercent of total. Total of percentage values may not equal 100.0 due to rounding.

purchase for individual use. Thus it was of interest to explorethe orientation of students relative to this term. The differ-ences observed are likely a reflection of marketing trends,since ‘PC’ has frequently been associated with the promo-tion of IBM-compatible products.

The respondents were also asked to state the primary place of where they work on a computer (Table VII). School

seems to be the primary place of working on a computer bythe respondents possibly due to the availability of extensivecollection of useful software, information retrieval pro-grams at no or very little charge, and educational emphasison computer skills. The surprising part was that 14.5 orespondents indicated that they do not work on a computer




Section II: Software Knowledge and Frequency of Use This section was divided into two subdivisions—one to

determine the level of knowledge of the respondents re-garding different application software and the second todetermine the frequency of use of these software. Bothsections included software applications for word processor(examples given were: WordPerfect®, Microsoft Word®),spreadsheet (examples given were: Lotus 1-2-3®, QuattroPro®), database management (examples given were: dBASE-IV®, Paradox®), statistical analysis software (examples given

were: SAS

®

, SPSS

®

) and bibliographic retrieval/informa-tional database (examples given were: Medline®, Infotrac®). Not surprisingly, student proficiency lends to decrease

as the functional specificity of the program increases. Basedon the results, the majority of respondents had at least someknowledge of word- processing programs, while only 18.5indicated no knowledge (Table VIII). In contrast, 88.5indicated no knowledge of statistical software. This is con-gruent with the nature of student exposures to computers inthe environments where they are most likely to be encoun-tered (e.g ., home and school). The influences of both homeand school tend to involve more general applications, ratherthan the specific applications for which spreadsheets, databases and statistical packages have been designed. Even

when parents and teachers have these programs available,few incentives normally exists for students to use themrelative to their youthful interests. Students are encouraged by professional programs to become proficient with infor-mation retrieval systems, so that this outcome in the surveyis likely related to college demands.

Word-processing seems to be a more favorable applica-tion software, even though 51.4 of the respondents indicatedthat they never use a word processor (Table IX). The resultsalso indicate that Medline® is a more frequently used biblio-graphic database than Infotrac®.

Section III: Views of Respondents Towards Computers This section was divided into two subdivisions. The first

sub-section was designed to determine the attitude of stu-dents towards computers (Table X). The responses to thisquestion were quite encouraging (95 respondents statedthat they did not hate computers). Also, 97 of the respon-dents stated hat they would not mind working on a computerin the pharmacy. For cohorts in which computer exposureshave become commonplace, these results are hardly surpris-ing. A majority of the respondents (66.7) agreed that a pharmacy technician or a clerk should not print the prescrip-tion label.

In the second sub-section, respondent views regardingcertain statements were assessed. A summary of the re-sponses to each of the statements is listed in Table XI. Therewas a significant difference ( P < 0.05) between male andfemale respondents for following statements: (1) Pharmacists should have workable knowledge of a word

processing software; 80.9 males while 90.5 females agreedor strongly agreed with this statement ( P =0.0141).

(2) Pharmacists should have typing skills; 79.7 males com- pared with 93.4 females agreed or strongly agreed withthis statement ( P =0.0000).

(3) A computer course should be a required part of the pre- pharmacy curriculum; 70.3 males and 84.8 females agreedor strongly agreed with this statement ( P =0.0002).

(4) Computers in the pharmacy will increase the workloadon the pharmacist; 65.5 males and 82.5 females dis-

agreed or strongly disagreed with this statement ( P=0.0053).

(5) Computers are too technical and not easy to learn; 65.5males and 73.8 females disagreed or strongly disagreedwith this statement ( P =0.0330).

Section IV: Respondents Who Work in a Pharmacy This section specifically focused on those students who

were working in a pharmacy as an intern. Only 114 out of 219(52.1) indicated that they were currently working in a phar-

macy; 39 (34.2) were males and 75 (65.8) were femalesEighty-seven percent of these respondents indicated thathey work on the computer in the pharmacy. The thingsmost disliked by (he respondents about the computers in the pharmacy were: (i) slow speed (e.g ., old computer system)(ii) difficult to make corrections due to software limitationsand (iii) different pharmacies having different softwarewhich causes more problems (e.g ., variations in key commands).

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents wereasked two inquiring questions: (i) whether they would beinterested in gaining more computer knowledge (83.6 gavean affirmative response); and (ii), whether they understoodthe meaning of the term “information superhighway” (70.8

of all respondents, 55.1 of males and 80.2 of females, did notknow what it means).

CONCLUSIONS

This study seems to indicate that students are oriented tocomputers and willing to learn more. And certainly, com-munication between health care professionals and otherinformation resources is already evolving and spreadingrapidly (27). Even so, student knowledge with specific application programs may be lacking, so that college computercourses would be beneficial for preparing them for real lifedemands. As pharmacy moves increasingly towards cognitive services orientations, access to electronic databases(e.g ., Medline® and Infotrac®) will likely become increas-

ingly important. It is also likely that familiarity with internet/online services (e.g ., America Online@) will continue togrow in popularity and accessibility. So, these too are ratio-nal points of focus for computer courses.

It is clear that the computer is becoming as common asthe hand calculator in most home, school and work environ-ments. Pharmacy has already grown to depend heavily uponcomputerized systems for tracking both the professionaand business aspects of pharmacy practice. It is a tool whichdemands training, and therefore, is a valid target for profes-sional course-work. This is particularly true to the extentthat pharmacy programs may be able to better prepare pharmacists to provide professional services in an era orapid health information expansion.

The results of this study would seem to indicate thatstudents are presently utilizing computer skills primarilygained at home, high school and work, but not collegeWhile this may suffice for general computer applicationsstudents have limited discovery experiences relative to specialized health information retrieval systems that could benefit professional pharmacy activities.

Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 60, 297-303( 1996); received 2/13/96, accepted 5/17/96.

References(1) Boyd, R.S., “Health-care industry joins computer revolution,” J. of

Commerce and Commercial, 396, 8A (23 April 1993).




(2) Scachner, M., “Software cracks miscoded claims.” Business Insurance,26, 21 (11 May 1992).

(3) Cataldo, R.,”OBRA ‘90 and your pharmacy computer system.” Am. Pharm., NS32, 895-897(1992)

(4) Baker, K.R.,”Why pharmacists should document their actions.” ibid ., NS31, 878-881 (1991).

(5) Armstrong, E.P.,”DUE software highlights therapeutic issues,” ibid ., NS32, 806-810 (1992).

(6) Strand, L.M., Cipolle, R.J. and Morley, P.C.,”Documenting the clini-cal pharmacist’s activities: Back to basics.” Drug Intell. and Clin.

Pharm., 22,63-66(1988).(7) Rupp, M.T.,”Evaluation of prescribing errors and pharmacist inter-

ventions in community practice: An estimate of “value added’.” Am. Pharm.,NS28, 766-770(1988).(8) Cotter, P.M. and Gumtow, R.H.,”A computer program for the man-

agement of prescription-based problems,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 55, 134-138(1991).

(9) Grasela, T.H., Walawander, C.A., Kennedy, D.L. and Jolson,H.M.,”Capability of hospital computer systems in performing drug-use evaluations and adverse drug event monitoring,” Am. J. Hosp.

Pharm., 50, 1889-1895 (1993).(10) Morrell, R., Wasilauskas, B. and Winslow, R.,”Personal computer-

based expert system for quality assurance of antimicrobial therapy,”ibid .,50, 2067-2073 (1993).

(11) Tootelian, D.,”Computer applications for marketing services, moni-toring patients,” Am. Pharm., NS32, 913-921 (1992).

(12) Jewesson, P.J.,”Facilitating drug-use evaluation with database andother software,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm., 46, 1549 (1989).

(13) Ohman, B., Lyrvall, H., and Alvan, G.”Use of DRUGLINE-A Ques-

tion- And-Answer Database,” Ann. Pharmacother .,27, 278-284(1993).(14) Muirhead, G.,”Hand-held device could help pharmacists make home

visits.” Drug Top., 138, 74-76 (1994). (15) Winkler, C.,”Is it laptop time?” Am. Drug ., 208, 23 (1993).(16) Xakellis, G.C. and Gjerde, C.,”Evaluation by second-year medica

students of their computer-aided instruction.” Acad. Med ., 65, 2326(1990).

(17) Vance, M.A. and Hageboeck, T.L.,”MicroMouse: computer simulation of quantal dose-response experiments for undergraduate pharmacology laboratories.” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 57, 122-126 (1993).

(18) Hayton, W.L. and Collins, P.L.,”STELLA: Simulation software forthe pharmacokinetics classroom,” ibid ., 55, 131-134 (1991).

(19) Riffee, W.H.,”Computer technology can enhance presentation o pharmacological principles,” ibid ., 55, 148-152 (1991).

(20) Clem, J.R., Murry, D.J., Perry, P.J., Alexander, B. and HolmanT.L.,”Performance in a clinical pharmacy clerkship: computer-aidedinstruction versus traditional lectures,” ibid ., 56, 259-263 (1992).

(21) Newton, G.D.,Popovich,N.G., and Lehman, J.D.,”Development andevaluation of computer-assisted guided design problem solving instruction in self-care pharmacy practice,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 55301-310(1991).

(22) Speedie, S.M.,”A computer literacy course for pharmacy students,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 44, 158-160 (1980).

(23) Ortiz, M.S. and Hunter, T.S., “Development of a scale to measure pharmacy student confidence using personal computers,” ibid ., 57130-134(1993).

(24) Winkler, C.,”Moving to the Next Generation.” Am. Drug ., 20429(1991).

(25) Winkler, C.,”Bells and whistles,” ibid ., 206, 60-61 (1992).(26) Statistix

® Version 4.0 User’s Manual, Analytical Software, St. Pau

MN (1992).

(27) “E-mail helps improve health care,” Communication News, 27, 27(1990).


LABORATORY

Documents

Transcript of LABORATORY