Purpose To describe the development and implementation of Pediatric Emergencies Education for Pharmacists (PEEPs), a rapid-cycle deliberate practice curriculum designed to prepare inpatient pharmacists for medication-related responsibilities during pediatric emergency responses. Summary PEEPs is a two-hour, in-person program delivered to pairs or triads of pharmacists. After a prebrief, orientation, and warm-up scenario, participants complete approximately 15 rapid practice cycles involving septic shock, severe hypoglycemia, status epilepticus, and supraventricular tachycardia. Scenarios use varied patient ages and weights so participants repeatedly identify essential patient information, select and prepare weight-based medications, use institution-specific dosing resources, and communicate medication plans. The simulation environment leverages low-fidelity pediatric models and emphasizes focus on reproduction of the local medication-use workflow, including online ordering platforms and simulated pediatric crash carts that are one for one replicas of the clinically facing tools. Six recurring “always behaviors” reinforce role identification, allergy and weight verification, recognition of the applicable emergency algorithm, anticipation of medication and vascular-access needs, familiarity with cart contents, and closed-loop communication. Scenarios are paused when a critical action is omitted or performed incorrectly; the facilitator provides concise feedback, rewinds the scenario, and allows immediate repetition. PEEPs concludes in a summative debrief which reinforces the key learning objectives and engages the learner to actively reflect on the experience, optimizing knowledge and skill retention. Conclusion PEEPs provides a reproducible, resource-conscious framework for pharmacist-specific pediatric emergency training. Its emphasis on repeated medication preparation, institution-specific workflow, and immediate corrective practice may help health systems develop pharmacist readiness for high-acuity pediatric events; clinical effects require separate evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cram et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: