Impact of recorded, asynchronous admissions interviews on holistic and academic interview scores.

INTRODUCTION: Applications across colleges of pharmacy have decreased significantly over the last few years. Many applicants turn down an in-person interview due to the cost of travel or time restraints. Offering asynchronous virtual interviews may increase the number of applicants interviewed; however, they may also affect the candidate's interview score. The purpose of this study is to compare the interview scores of candidates who interviewed in the virtual asynchronous platform vs. candidates who interviewed in person on campus. METHODS: Admission candidates participated in either an in-person interview or a virtual asynchronous interview. Virtual interviews were conducted asynchronously through audiovisual capture of interview responses. All interview questions were rated on a scale of one to four. The individual question scores were averaged with applicants receiving an overall academic and an overall holistic interview score. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one interviews were included in the analysis. Of these interviews, 32 (26%) were conducted virtually and 89 (74%) were conducted in person. Students participating in virtual interviews scored significantly lower than their in-person peers for both academic (U = 782 [2.8 vs. 3.3], P < .01) and holistic interviews (U = 1040 [3 vs. 3.3], P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Asynchronous virtual interviews could be a convenient method to offer interviews to candidates who may not be able to interview in person due to travel costs or other contributing barriers. Although this method may be more convenient for the interviewer, it may result in a lower interview score compared to an in-person interview.

Utilization of High-Intensity Statins in Patients at Risk for Cardiovascular Events: A National Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines, which identified four groups of patients at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, departed from the target-based approach to managing cholesterol. The impact of these guidelines on high-intensity statin use across the United States is unclear. STUDY QUESTION: The primary objective was to evaluate the rate of high-intensity potential (HIP) statin use before and after the 2013 guidelines. The secondary objective was to identify predictors of HIP statin use within the study population. STUDY DESIGN: A national cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Office visits involving patients aged 21-75 years where criteria for HIP statin therapy were met were included. Visits involving pregnant patients were excluded. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Prescribing trends of HIP statins were measured from National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data before and after the 2013 guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression identified variables associated with prescribing HIP statins. RESULTS: A total of 48,884 visits were included, representing more than 940 million office visits nationally. HIP statins were listed in 9.5% and 16.5% of visits before and after 2013, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-2.20). The strongest predictors of HIP statin use were antihypertensive use (OR 5.38, 95% CI 4.67-6.20), comorbid hyperlipidemia (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.62-3.29), Black race (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing rates for HIP statins increased after the release of the 2013 guidelines. The prescribing rates were lower than expected, especially in Black and Hispanic patients. These observations signify opportunities to improve the quality of care for patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in the United States.

Prevalence and Predictors of Benzodiazepine Monotherapy in Patients With Depression: A National Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Depression guidelines discourage benzodiazepine monotherapy and limit use to short-term adjunctive therapy with antidepressants; however, patients with depression continue to receive benzodiazepine monotherapy. The prevalence and predictors of this prescribing pattern have not been described previously and are warranted to assist clinicians in identifying patients at highest risk of receiving benzodiazepine monotherapy. METHODS: A national, cross-sectional analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012 to 2015 was performed for adults treated for depression. Depression was identified using a survey item specifically assessing the presence of depression. Office visits involving patients with bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or pregnancy were identified by ICD-9 code or specific survey item and were excluded. The primary endpoint was benzodiazepine monotherapy prescribing rate defined as initiation or continuation of a benzodiazepine in the absence of any antidepressant agent. A multivariate logistic regression model was created to identify variables associated with benzodiazepine monotherapy. RESULTS: In total, 9,426 unweighted visits were eligible for inclusion. Benzodiazepine monotherapy was identified in 9.3% of patients treated for depression (95% CI, 8.2%-10.6%). Predictors of benzodiazepine monotherapy included age of 45-64 years (OR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.91), epilepsy-related office visit (OR = 5.34; 95% CI, 1.39-20.44), anxiety-related office visit (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.23-2.27), underlying pulmonary disease (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87), and concomitant opiate prescribing (OR = 2.86; 95% CI, 2.01-4.06). Psychiatrists were less likely to prescribe benzodiazepine monotherapy than were other providers (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepine monotherapy is utilized in nearly 1 in 10 patients treated for depression. Adults aged 45 to 65 years, patients prescribed opioids, patients seen by primary care providers, and those with underlying anxiety, epilepsy, or pulmonary disorders are at highest risk.