The planning Task Force created by MSHP began implementing the initiative in Michigan by reviewing the 147 national recommendations and grouping them into related areas of focus. Six areas of focus were identified: acute care, ambulatory care, education and training, financial and organizational affairs, pharmacy technicians, and technology and information systems.
With support from the MSHP Board of Directors, the Task Force contracted William Zellmer, MPH, consultant, writer and speaker on strategic issues in pharmacy practice, to assist the Society. In consultation with Zellmer, the Task Force planned a PPMI2
To prepare for the conference, the Task Force wanted to establish a baseline pharmacy practice model in Michigan. This was accomplished through the use of two surveys. Zellmer obtained permission from ASHP to use their web-based PPMI Hospital Self-Assessment tool, which, at the time, was not available for general use. A link to this self-assessment tool was sent to the pharmacy director at each Michigan hospital. Approximately one-third of the directors in the state completed the survey.
A second, customized survey created by the PPMI2
Planning Task Force was sent to each conference invitee prior to the event to obtain additional information that was not captured in the national survey regarding the use of pharmacy technicians, education and training, and pharmacy technology. The survey served as an assessment tool to review the current status of health-system pharmacy in the state of Michigan, and identify the challenges pharmacy leaders face as they align their practice with patient and institutional needs. Forty-two of the 50 invitees completed the survey prior to the event.
Conference took place in September 2011 at the Michigan Pharmacists Association Headquarters in Lansing. It began with a keynote presentation by Zellmer describing national trends that are affecting health-system pharmacists. Following his presentation, highlights from the two surveys were provided. Next, the participants broke apart into work groups to identify major issues affecting their assigned focus area. All groups then convened to review the findings of each group. Individual work groups were then asked to provide recommendations to solve the issues identified during the morning session. After several hours, the work groups reconvened and presented their recommendations. Each participant was given an electronic voting device and asked to vote on the feasibility and impact of each recommendation. The choices were: low impact/low feasibility, high impact/low feasibility, low impact/high feasibility or high impact/high feasibility. A total of 56 recommendations were made during the conference.