International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 1091–1098 | Cite as

Participant perspectives from the Indian Health Service Anticoagulation Training Program

  • Ryan R. SchupbachEmail author
  • Nicholas D. Sparrow
  • Michael J. Miller
  • Donald L. Harrison
Research Article


Background The Indian Health Service Anticoagulation Training Program serves to improve patient safety through advanced anticoagulation management training. Although post-program evaluations of program content were conducted at the time of program delivery, little is known about translation of these learned skills into clinical practice. Objective This research sought to describe levels of self-reported participant confidence in anticoagulation management; development, implementation, and performance management of both core and supplemental activities of anticoagulation clinics or services; and current anticoagulation clinical practices subsequent to participating in the Anticoagulation Training Program. Setting A federal Indian Health Service healthcare facility in Oklahoma, USA. Methods A cross-sectional, electronic mail survey was designed, pretested, and administered to 267 eligible Anticoagulation Training Program participants from 1999 to 2009. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and interpreted to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. Main outcome measures Information about confidence in anticoagulation management skills; development, implementation and improvement of both core and supplemental activities of anticoagulation clinics or services; and current anticoagulation clinical practices was collected. Results After training, over 90 % of participants reported agreement/strong agreement with statements about confidence in performing patient-care related anticoagulation activities. A smaller proportion (83.3–85.4 %) reported agreement/strong agreement with confidence in measuring, analyzing and reporting anticoagulation outcomes. Improvement activities were more common than development or implementation activities (65.4, 31.9 and 35.1 %, respectively). Not having well established reimbursement procedures, lack of dedicated clinic space, and lack of dedicated personnel salaries (47.3, 38.3 and 32.6 %, respectively) were reported as the most common barriers to developing, implementing or improving an anticoagulation clinic. Participants indicated that anticoagulation outcomes tracking was the most common supplemental development, implementation and improvement activity (37.9, 37.0 and 43.8 % respectively). Benchmarking was the least commonly reported outcomes-related activity by participants (33.6 %). Although there was only a modest gain in the number of established anticoagulation clinics after attending the Anticoagulation Training Program, approximately 21 % of participants reported using skills learned to establish other disease state management clinics. Conclusion In general, a majority of participants reported high levels of confidence related to direct patient care activities after attending the Anticoagulation Training Program. However there is a need to raise confidence in performance improvement and outcomes management activities to align with current accreditation standards in anticoagulation management as the Anticoagulation Training Program evolves.


Anticoagulation Training Program Anticoagulant education program United States 



The authors wish to express their appreciation to the George F. Archambault Foundation for their education support of the ATP and to Travis Watts and Richard Bertin for their extensive contributions to the ATP.


The Indian Health Service Anticoagulation Training Program received unrestricted educational funding from the George F. Archambault Foundation for this program.

Conflicts of interest

Ryan Schupbach serves as the Program Director of the Indian Health Service Anticoagulation Training Program. Nicholas Sparrow, Michael Miller and Donald Harrison have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Bartholow M. Top 200 drugs of 2010. Pharmacy times web site. 2011. Retrieved from Accessed 19 July 2013.
  2. 2.
    Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E, Jacobson A, Crowther M, Palareti G. Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th edition). Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):160S–98S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holbrook AM, Pereira JA, Labiris R, McDonald H, Douketis JD, Crowther M, et al. Systematic overview of warfarin and its drug and food interactions. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1095–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hsiao C, Cherry DK, Beatty PC, Rechsteiner EA. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2007 summary. 2010. National Health Statistics Reports, number 27. Retrieved from
  5. 5.
    Classen DC, Jaser L, Budnitz DS. Adverse drug events among hospitalized Medicare patients: epidemiology and national estimates from a new approach to surveillance. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(1):12–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes BD, Klein-Schwartz W, Gonzales LF. Causes of therapeutic errors in older adults: evaluation of National Poison Center data. J Am Geri Soc. 2009;57:653–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1897–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The Joint Commission. Accreditation programs: hospitals. 2013 national patient safety goals. Retrieved from
  9. 9.
    Rathbun S. The surgeon general’s call to action to prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2009;119:e480–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley; 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aday L. Designing and conducting health surveys. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996. p. 535.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finley C, Finley R., LLC. Palo Alto, California; 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ackermann AD, Kenny G, Walker C. Simulator programs for new nurses’ orientation: a retention strategy. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2007;23(3):136–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coates V, Andrews J, Davies M, Hart P, Martin S, McUrlean U, et al. An evaluation of multi-professional education in diabetes. J Interprof Care. 2008;22(3):295–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs NJ; 1996:390–409.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol. 1982;37:122–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman Company; 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Babenko-Mould Y, Andrusyszyn M, Goldenberg D. Effects of computer-based clinical conferencing on nursing students’ self-efficacy. J Nurs Educ. 2004;43:149–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lent WR, Schmidt J, Schmidt L. Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. J Vocat Behav. 2006;68:73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan R. Schupbach
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Nicholas D. Sparrow
    • 3
  • Michael J. Miller
    • 2
  • Donald L. Harrison
    • 4
  1. 1.Claremore Comprehensive Health Care FacilityClaremoreUSA
  2. 2.College of PharmacyThe University of OklahomaTulsaUSA
  3. 3.Peach Springs Health CenterPeach SpringsUSA
  4. 4.College of PharmacyThe University of OklahomaOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations