Do We Need More Utility Infielders

The game of baseball has remained pretty much unchanged during its more than 100 years of existence. Vivid memories from my childhood in the 1960s include listening to the Chicago White Sox broadcast on the local AM radio station (yes, as hard as it is to believe, I would sit and listen to an entire game) and gathering around the television with my brothers on Saturday afternoon to watch the one and only baseball game televised each week (it really did not matter who was playing as there was no ESPN, ESPN2, or subscription channel as options). As I recall, it was not uncommon for each team to have a player on the roster referred to as a "utility infielder." Usually, this player rode the bench but possessed exceptionally good defensive skills, was likely a marginal hitter, and could easily play second base, shortstop, third base, and would not gasp if the manager asked him to play an inning at first base or even one of the outfield positions. I am not aware of any utility infielders enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. However, their role on each team was valued and essential when starters were injured or needed a rest when playing a doubleheader on Sunday. Baseball, just like health care, has evolved into a game with more specialists. Today, it is rare to find a current player on a major league roster listed as a utility infielder. Every team has a pitching staff made up of starters, middle-relief specialists, and the essential closer. Some teams even have a set-up player to work the inning between the middle-reliever and the closer (in my youth, they were all just relief pitchers). A team may have one infielder and one outfielder who feel comfortable playing a second position. But, that is about the extent of their capacity. It is only during a prolonged extra-inning game or when key players are injured during a game that managers may long for the days when they could call on their utility infielder to fill a needed role. As the most recent academic year came to a close, our college completed the implementation of the P3 year of our new curriculum. As chairman of our college's curriculum committee and co-chair of the task force that developed the new curriculum, I was pleased that the implementation process, although associated with a few ups and downs, went more smoothly than most had expected. That being said, the focus of the curriculum committee's work shifted from implementation to evaluation. Key questions that surfaced included: What did we get right? What is missing? How does our newly implemented curriculum line up with Standards 2016 released by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) in February of 2015? Do we have the faculty necessary to teach and evaluate the knowledge and skills areas outlined in the new standards? (1) Like most pharmacy educators, my first opportunity to review the draft standards was in February 2014. I found myself highlighting text and writing comments in the margins. I then engaged our curriculum committee in a discussion of the standards and encouraged committee members to identify standards our college would need to make some curricular or programmatic adjustment to satisfy at an exemplary level. After sifting through the committee members' comments and discussing the standards with colleagues from other institutions, it became clear to me our profession has evolved but the background, expertise, and responsibilities of our current faculty members were a reflection of practice and education models developed before the year 2000 when the first set of standards for the PharmD curriculum went into effect. The 2016 ACPE standards describe several content and skill areas (eg, leadership, patient-safety, informatics, communications, innovation, entrepreneurship, patient safety, interprofessional collaboration) that do not align with our faculty members' historical and traditional expertise or training. Our traditional models for recruiting and assigning faculty lines may be outdated and may not support areas of teaching, practice, and assessment required in our evolving curriculum and standards. …