Comparison of Pharmacy Practice Experience in Pharmacy School between Korea and Canada.
- Author:
Minku KANG
1
Author Information
1. College of Pharmacy, Woosuk University, Jeon-Buk 565-701, South Korea. mkang@woosuk.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
pharmacy practice experience;
IPPE;
APPE;
pharmacy rotation;
co-op
- MeSH:
Canada*;
Curriculum;
Delivery of Health Care;
Humans;
Korea*;
Patient Care;
Pharmacists;
Pharmacy*;
Schools, Pharmacy*
- From:Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
2015;25(2):68-73
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
With the changes in the pharmacy curriculum from a 4 year program to a 6 year program in 2009, a new subject called Pharmacy Practice Experience (PPE) has been launched into the curriculum. The purpose of introducing this subject is to increase the competency of new pharmacy graduates in providing quality healthcare to the community. This study has been done, via comparison among different pharmacy schools in Canada and Korea, to ensure that the competency of future Korean pharmacists can be increased with the introduction of this subject. In general, the Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experience (IPPE) in Korea consists of 60 hours while Canada consists of 320 hours (minimum). Furthermore, the Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) required in Korea is 1340 hours while Canada requires minimum of 960 hours. Specifically, comparing the Korean PPE curriculum to the PPE curriculums of University of Toronto (UT) and University of Waterloo (UW), UT and UW required a minimum of 75% and 89% direct clinical patient care experience respectively, either in hospital or community setting, compared to 45% in Korea; the remaining percentage in any of the universities can be fulfilled by taking other electives that may not require direct patient care experience. Observing these differences, it seems clear that the current PPE experience in Canada takes more of a patient focused approach than in Korea. Thus, with the recent movement in the Korean pharmacy community towards a more patient focused approach rather than a product focused approach, it would be beneficial to learn the differences between the PPE curriculums in Korea and Canada and apply any new understandings to the relatively newly introduced PPE program in Korea to further enhance the value of the new curriculum in helping to deliver quality patient care.
