Evolution and Validation of Practice Standards, Training, and Professional Development

patients and families as members of the team, increased

demand for inclusion by patients and families, inclusion

of patient satisfaction scores in pay-for-performance

metrics (including pain control and understanding of

medications), and greater patient awareness and inter-

action in the ICU with changes in sedation goals. It is

anticipated that clinical pharmacists in the ICU will

increasingly be directly involved in patient and fam-

ily discussions and education. Options B, C and D all

represent traditional audiences for clinical pharmacist

educational efforts and are therefore incorrect.

In the context of CPD, episodic opportunities for reflec-

tion refer to spontaneous, unscheduled events that

contribute to the self-assessment of learning and train-

ing needs that can be incorporated into the overall PDP.

Scheduled reflection usually involves a predictable cycle

like performance evaluations, annual self-evaluations,

peer feedback as part of annual assessment, or a deci-

sion to schedule reflection around some set anniversary

(e.g., hire dates, birthdays, end of academic year), and

therefore options A, C and D are incorrect. Examples

of opportunity for episodic reflection may include the

challenges of managing a very difficult case, post-

event debriefings for code responses, experiences with

a difficult student or resident, or a request to develop a

treatment guideline that is outside the clinician’s usual

area of expertise.

A methodological flaw that results in the collection and

reporting of incorrect data would be considered a “fatal

flaw” that no amount of rewriting or reanalysis could

correct. Poor writing can be corrected with revision by

the authors or during copyediting, but if the study is well

conducted and has value, this would not necessarily be

a reason to recommend rejection so option A is incor-

rect. Disagreements concerning statistical analysis are

not uncommon; however, the authors may have a valid

explanation or be able to revise the statistical analysis

if it is not a major departure from the original intent of

the study meaning option C is incorrect. It is also not

uncommon for the abstract to disagree in some way with

the body of the manuscript, and there is an opportu-

nity to correct that during revisions so option D is also

incorrect.