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.

Carvedilol therapy after cocaine-induced myocardial infarction in patients with asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Cocaine-induced myocardial infarction (MI) is well documented. Current literature recommends avoiding beta-blockers in the acute care setting, but after discharge from the hospital, benefits of beta-blocker use may outweigh risks in patients with recent MI resulting from cocaine use. Cardioselective beta-blocker therapy has been demonstrated to be beneficial in post-MI patients with nonsevere asthma. This review article is to compare the risks and benefits of using carvedilol in patients with asthma who have had cocaine-induced MI. METHODS: The authors searched the English literature from 1984 to July 2010 via PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS using the following search terms: "cocaine-induced myocardial infarction AND treatment," "cocaine AND carvedilol," "beta blockers AND asthma," and "carvedilol AND asthma." All studies and case reports related to carvedilol use associated with bronchospasm in patients with asthma and carvedilol use after cocaine-induced MI were included. RESULTS: Carvedilol has theoretical advantages in patients who use cocaine, but there are no controlled studies confirming the superior efficacy of this agent. Reports of carvedilol use in patients with asthma are rare, but findings include increased asthma symptoms and hospitalization in some patients. Fatal asthma has also been reported because of this noncardioselective beta-blocker. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a lack of evidence supporting the theoretical advantages but documented risks associated with its use in patients with asthma, carvedilol should be avoided in asthma patients who have a history of cocaine-induced MI. Cardioselective beta-blockers should be used in post-MI patients with nonsevere asthma.

Inhaled corticosteroids should be initiated before discharge from the emergency department in patients with persistent asthma.

National and International Guidelines concur that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the preferred long-term maintenance drug therapy for mild persistent asthma for all ages. For moderate and severe persistent asthma, ICS are essential to optimal management, often concurrent with other key therapies. Despite strong evidence and consensus guidelines, ICS are still underused. While some patients who are treated in the emergency department (ED) have intermittent asthma, most have persistent asthma and need ICS for optimum outcomes. Failure to initiate ICS at this critical juncture often results in subsequent lack of ICS therapy. Along with a short course of oral corticosteroids, ICS should be initiated before discharge from the ED in patients with persistent asthma. Although the NIH/NAEPP Expert Panel Report 3 suggests considering the prescription of ICS on discharge from the ED, The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2008 guidelines recommend initiation or continuation of ICS before patients are discharged from the ED. The initiation of ICS therapy by ED physicians is also encouraged in the emergency medicine literature over the past decade. Misdiagnosis of intermittent asthma is common; therefore, ICS therapy should be considered for ED patients with this diagnosis with reassessment in follow-up office visits. To help ensure adherence to ICS therapy, patient education regarding both airway inflammation (show airway models/colored pictures) and the strong evidence of efficacy is vital. Teaching ICS inhaler technique, environmental control, and giving a written action plan are essential. Lack of initiation of ICS with appropriate patient education before discharge from the ED in patients with persistent asthma is common but unfortunately associated with continued poor patient outcomes.