St. Louis College of Pharmacy

High rates of turnover among employees (faculty, administrators, and staff) in higher education, exacerbated by workplace stress and burnout, pose significant challenges to institutions. This first narrative review of a 2-part series explores the psychosocial hazards faced by employees and proposes strategies to foster a supportive organizational culture.

Key findings from focus groups with administrators revealed several critical themes: psychological safety and trust, coping mechanisms and support systems, effective communication, personalized approaches to well-being, leadership and resource allocation, and professional development and recognition.

From these themes, 6 psychosocial hazards were explored in detail, through evidence-based definitions, assessments, interventions, monitoring, and additional resources and recommendations for each hazard. Three hazards are explored in each part of this 2-part series. Within each of the 3 primary areas of focus, we provide evidence-based recommendations for schools and colleges of pharmacy to best support their employees. For Job Demands/Task Stressors, employers are encouraged to provide clear workload policies, role clarity, and work-family conflict strategies. For Rewards/Recognition, employers should provide equitable compensation, establish practices to provide personalized recognition, and engage in ongoing monitoring. For Autonomy/Flexibility, we recommend that employers investigate flexible work arrangements and job crafting opportunities and provide organizational support for employees. A proactive and holistic approach that encompasses individual, departmental, and institutional levels to address psychosocial hazards can create a more supportive and healthier environment to improve employee well-being and reduce turnover rates.

The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy's Social and Administrative Sciences Section and the American Pharmacists Association-Academy of Pharmaceutical Research and Science's Economic, Social and Administrative Sciences Section formed a Gender Equity Task Force to determine if there is evidence to suggest that there is gender disparity in pay; responsibilities; treatment by peers/colleagues, students, and administration; leadership opportunities; and rank, tenure status, and career advancement for Section members; and to develop recommendations to address existing disparities.

A Qualtrics survey was emailed in December 2020 to all American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy's Social and Administrative Sciences and American Pharmacists Association-Academy of Pharmaceutical Research and Science's Economic, Social and Administrative Sciences Section members. The questionnaire included items regarding favorability toward men or women in various academic domains (research, teaching, service, recruitment, mentoring, and advancement). Participants were asked if they had experienced gender inequity, and if so, at what type of institution and academic rank. The χ² tests of independence and post hoc comparisons were used to assess item responses according to gender.

Of the respondents, 72% indicated that they had experienced gender inequity. Women and persons of color were more likely to do so. Women commonly reported that men received more favorable treatment in nearly all academic domains, whereas men reported that women and men were treated equally.

Pharmacy faculty specializing in social and administrative sciences reported experiences of gender inequity and perceptions of gender inequity. Perception gaps existed between male and female faculty in numerous academic domains. Colleges and schools of pharmacy should increase awareness of, and strive to self-assess, gender inequity in their institutions.

Diagnosis education is explicitly included in the Draft Accreditation Standards 2025 and should be wholeheartedly supported. To address the staggering number of diagnostic errors in the US, the National Academy of Medicine advocates for diagnosis education for all health professions. Misperceptions of pharmacists' involvement in diagnosis are exacerbated by use of implicit language and euphemisms, and it's long overdue that we provide clarity. Pharmacists are engaged in diagnosis and diagnostic reasoning in everyday practice whether realized or not. Diagnosis education is implicitly included in US pharmacy curricula in the Pharmacists' Patient Care Process, and it is time to give students the language to engage in it responsibly to be practice-ready in all states. The explicit inclusion of diagnosis in the Draft Standards 2025 has positive implications for education, practice, and graduates.