Relationship between publication of a postgraduate year 1 residency research project and subsequent career type at a large academic medical center.

PURPOSE: The study objectives were to (1) quantify the overall incidence of residency publications of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) residency alumni; (2) evaluate annual fluctuations in publications over time; and (3) compare the career types of residency alumni who published their PGY1 residency research projects to those for alumni who did not. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed among individuals who completed a PGY1 acute/ambulatory care residency between 2010 and 2021. A list of residency alumni was obtained along with the corresponding titles of their research projects. Each resident's name was entered into PubMed and Google Scholar to find the corresponding publication. LinkedIn and other publicly available resources were used to determine the career types of residents immediately after residency as well as their current career types. RESULTS: In total, 178 residency alumni completed an acute/ambulatory care PGY1 residency, of whom 16.7% (30/178) published their residency research project. Publication was associated with career type among those who pursued a postgraduate year 2 residency but was not associated with career type immediately after the PGY1 residency or current career type. The presence of an academic preceptor was associated with a higher probability of publishing compared to residents who did not have an academic preceptor (31.5% vs 10.5%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The frequency of publications was within the range reported elsewhere, with fluctuations over time. Presence of an academic preceptor improved the probability of publication.

Perceptions of a virtual interview process for pharmacy residents during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multisite survey of residency candidates, preceptors, and residency program directors.

PURPOSE: To describe the perceptions of residency candidates, residency practitioners (current residents and preceptors), and residency program directors (RPDs) regarding a virtual interview process for pharmacy residency programs across multiple institutions. METHODS: In May 2021, an anonymous web-based questionnaire characterizing perceptions of the virtual interview process used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was distributed to residency candidates, residency practitioners, and RPDs across 13 institutions. Quantitative responses measured on a 5-point Likert scale were summarized with descriptive statistics, and open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic qualitative methods. RESULTS: 236 residency candidates and 253 residency practitioners/RPDs completed the questionnaire, yielding response rates of 27.8% (236 of 848), and 38.1% (253 of 663), respectively. Overall, both groups perceived the virtual interview format positively. When asked whether virtual interviews should replace in-person interviews moving forward, 60.0% (18 of 30) of RPDs indicated they agreed or strongly agreed, whereas only 30.5% (61 of 200) of current preceptors/residents and 28.7% (66 of 230) of residency candidates agreed or strongly agreed. Thematic analysis of qualitative responses revealed that while virtual interviews were easier logistically, the lack of in-person interactions was a common concern for many stakeholders. Lastly, the majority (65.0%) of residency candidates reported greater than $1,000 in savings with virtual interviews. CONCLUSION: Virtual interviews offered logistical and financial benefits. The majority of RPDs were in favor of offering virtual interviews to replace in-person interviews, whereas the majority of residency candidates and practitioners preferred on-site interviews. As restrictions persist with the ongoing pandemic, our results provide insight into best practices for virtual pharmacy residency interviews.

Student Preparation for PGY1 Residency Training by US Colleges of Pharmacy: Survey of the Residency Program Director Perspective.

Purpose: To evaluate current residents' level of preparation by US colleges of pharmacy for postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) residency training from the perspective of residency program directors (RPDs). Methods: RPDs were asked in an electronic survey questionnaire to rate PGY1 pharmacy residents' abilities in 4 domains: communication, clinical knowledge, interpersonal/time-management skills, and professionalism/leadership. Results: One hundred ninety-seven RPDs of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP)-accredited PGY1 programs completed the survey. The majority of RPDs strongly agreed or agreed that residents were prepared as students to effectively communicate both verbally and nonverbally, were able to appropriately respond to drug inquiries using drug resources and literature searches, and consistently displayed professionalism. Respondents were more likely to disagree or give a neutral response when asked about residents' understanding of biostatistics and their ability to provide enteral and parenteral nutritional support for patients. Conclusion: Overall, RPDs agreed that residents were prepared to perform the majority of the tasks of each of the 4 domains assessed in this survey relating to PGY1 training. RPDs may use the results of this survey to provide additional support for their residents in the areas in which residents lack adequate preparation, while colleges of pharmacy may focus on incorporating more time in their curriculum for certain areas to better prepare their students for residency training.

Residency scramble: program directors' experiences with the Pharmacy Online Residency Centralized Application Service.

PURPOSE: Residency program directors' perceptions of the scramble process in 2013 using the Pharmacy Online Residency Centralized Application Service (PhORCAS) were evaluated. METHODS: After the ASHP Resident Matching Program ("Match") results were released in 2013, programs were asked to not extend offers to applicants until the following Monday, allowing a week for programs and applicants to evaluate their options and make the best decisions. A survey consisting of open-ended and structured response questions was sent electronically to 1905 program directors. Adherence to the recommended one-week moratorium before extending an offer to applicants for unmatched positions was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 531 completed surveys were returned (28.2% response rate). Programs with 119 of the 133 unmatched postgraduate year 1 positions were represented in the results. The ma jority of directors were satisfied with the use of PhORCAS overall, rating it easier (60.3%) or at least the same (24.8%) as processes used in the past. Programs with unmatched positions thought using PhORCAS made it easier to fill positions (64.5%). Sixty percent of program directors contacted applicants the week after the Match. Most directors (79%) followed the recommendation of waiting until April 1 or later to make offers; however, 49% thought others did not follow the guidelines. Program directors offered many concerns about the stressful nature of the scramble process and offered several recommendations for improvement. CONCLUSION: Residency program directors found that the use of PhORCAS and guidelines from the ASHP Commission on Credentialing improved the scramble process and facilitated the filling of unmatched residency positions.