Krauter, Abby K

ABSTRACT Pharmacy preceptors are central to experiential learning, yet there is a lack of guidance on how to integrate generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into precepting. This paper serves as a practical “how‐to” resource, offering actionable strategies and examples to help preceptors implement GenAI into clinical education. Based on examples from multiple institutions and the best available literature in pharmacy practice and education, we outline step‐by‐step approaches for designing learning activities, adapting assessment methods, and modeling effective artificial intelligence (AI) use, with a focus on optimizing learner engagement, personalizing instruction, cultivating critical thinking, and building AI literacy. Implementation guidance includes creating transparent AI use policies, safeguarding confidentiality, preventing deskilling, and embedding GenAI into feedback and evaluation processes. By incorporating these recommendations, preceptors can augment experiential education into a setting where learners can explore GenAI applications and build the judgment required to use AI responsibly in pharmacy practice.

Background: Underweight patients may be at an increased risk of bleeding while receiving venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. Additional evidence is needed to identify patient-specific factors associated with bleeding. The objective of the study was to describe the incidence and identify risk factors associated with bleeding in low-weight (⩽ 60 kg) adult patients receiving subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (SQH) for VTE prophylaxis. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, nested case–control study of low-weight patients receiving SQH for VTE prophylaxis for ⩾ 48 hours. Cases, patients with clinically relevant bleeding while receiving SQH, and controls, patients without a bleeding event, were matched in a 1:3 ratio for age, sex, primary service (surgical or medical), and time at risk of bleeding on SQH to determine factors associated with bleeding. Results: A total of 3761 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 38 cases of clinically relevant bleeding were identified. The bleeding incidence was 1% at hospital day 6 and 2.8% at hospital day 14. Most patients in this study (69%) received SQH 5000 units three times daily. ICU admission at SQH start was associated with bleeding, OR 2.97 (95% CI 1.21–7.29). Conclusion: Bleeding in low-weight patients on prophylactic SQH was uncommon. Patients admitted to the ICU at time of SQH start may be at a higher risk of bleeding. Further studies are needed to detect additional risk factors associated with bleeding and investigate the effects of reduced dosing in this population.

Introduction Acute kidney injury (AKI) affects nearly 20% of all hospitalised patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Long-term complications can be partially attributed to gaps in kidney-focused care and education during transitions. Building capacity across the healthcare spectrum by engaging a broad network of multidisciplinary providers to facilitate optimal follow-up care represents an important mechanism to address this existing care gap. Key participants include nephrologists and primary care providers and in-depth study of each specialty’s approach to post-AKI care is essential to optimise care processes and healthcare delivery for AKI survivors. Methods and analysis This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study uses survey and interview methodology to assess nephrologist and primary care provider recommendations for post-AKI care, including KAMPS (kidney function assessment, awareness and education, medication review, blood pressure monitoring and sick day education) elements of follow-up, the role of multispecialty collaboration, and views on care process-specific and patient-specific factors influencing healthcare delivery. Nephrologists and primary care providers will be surveyed to assess recommendations and clinical decision-making in the context of post-AKI care. Descriptive statistics and the Pearson’s χ 2 or Fisher’s exact test will be used to compare results between groups. This will be followed by semistructured interviews to gather rich, qualitative data that explains and/or connects results from the quantitative survey. Both deductive analysis and inductive analysis will occur to identify and compare themes. Ethics and dissemination This study has been reviewed and deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board at Mayo Clinic (IRB 20–0 08 793). The study was deemed exempt due to the sole use of survey and interview methodology. Results will be disseminated in presentations and manuscript form through peer-reviewed publication.