How to phase II: Timelines, perceptions, and suggestions from PGY-1 residency program directors.

BACKGROUND: Phase II was implemented in 2016 to provide structure for applicants and unmatched residency pharmacy programs to interact. Previous literature has provided some approaches for this process; however, clarification on navigating the phase II process to successfully match for applicants and their mentors is still needed. In addition, with phase II occurring for >6 years, there is a need for continual evaluation. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to describe (1) program phase II structure and timelines, (2) program personnel demand, and (3) perceptions of and suggestions for phase II from postgraduate year (PGY)1 residency program directors (RPDs) to provide clarity to applicants, mentors, and residency stakeholders. METHODS: A 31-item survey was developed including 9 demographic items, 13 program-specific timeline-based items, 5 skip-logic items on screening interviews, and 4 qualitative questions on the benefits, drawbacks, and suggested changes to phase II. The survey was disseminated to PGY-1 RPDs participating in phase II with available contact information in June 2021 and May 2022, with 3 weekly reminders. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 180 of the 484 RPDs participating in phase II (37.2% response rate). Programs participating in the survey had an average of 1.4 positions (± 0.7) open in phase II and 31 applicants (± 31) per open position. The timelines for screening applications, contacting applicants, and conducting interviews were variable. For qualitative data, RPDs appreciated the structured process and noted high-quality and geographic diversity of applicants in phase II. However, challenges reported were the quantity of applications, lack of time to fully review applications, and technical issues. Suggested changes included an extended phase II timeline, universal application deadline, and technical improvements. CONCLUSION: The structured approach of phase II was an improvement compared with historical approaches; however, variability exists in timelines for programs. Respondents identified further opportunities to refine phase II to benefit residency stakeholders.

Using the HyFlex model to deliver a capstone seminar course.

INTRODUCTION: The HyFlex course structure allows students to attend class in-person or via synchronous videoconferencing technology. This model has been described, but no data are available in pharmacy curricula. METHODS: Students enrolled in Grand Rounds (GR) were eligible. The GR Engagement Assessment Tool (GREAT) measured engagement three times during the semester. Eighteen statements across four domains were rated using a five-point Likert scale (1 = not true at all and 5 = completely true). Free-text responses were collected for qualitative analysis. The primary outcome was the difference in GR engagement between students attending in-person vs. remotely. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic information. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared Likert-scale responses between in-person and remote attendance. RESULTS: Surveys included 128 responses from 88 unique students. There were no differences between remote and in-person attendance for the boredom and elaboration domains. In-person students reported listening more intently (median 4, IQR [3,4]; P = .03). In-person students felt the material was more practical (median 4, IQR [4,5]) than remote students (median 4, IQR [3,4]; P = .002) and more applicable to other situations (median 3, IQR [3,5]) than remote students (median 3, IQR [2,4]; P = .04). Qualitative analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated five themes for satisfaction: safety, flexibility, convenience, technology, and professionalism. CONCLUSIONS: There were subtle differences in student engagement or satisfaction using the HyFlex model. This study supports the expansion of this methodology to similar courses where remote instruction is needed.

Impact of a Pharmacist-Led Chronic Disease State Management Clinic on Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care.

Background: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) tool measures patient satisfaction with chronic disease care. Objective: A modified PACIC tool (PACIC-RxFM) was used to assess patient satisfaction in a pharmacist-led chronic disease state management clinic. The secondary outcome compared satisfaction with pharmacist-led and physician-led visits. Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed individuals with ≥ 1 chronic disease who saw a pharmacist (pharmacotherapy) or primary care provider (usual care) in the Texas Tech Physicians Family Medicine Clinic. The PACIC-RxFM survey included 15 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (5 = "always satisfied"). Results: A total of 107 patients with no significant differences in demographics or complexity between groups were surveyed. All mean domain scores indicated a high level of satisfaction in the pharmacotherapy group with statements regarding perceptions of care organization and encouragement to go to group classes yielding statistically significantly higher scores than the usual care group. Conclusion: Patients are satisfied with both providers' and pharmacists' involvement in chronic illness care. This involvement leads to significant improvement in patient perception of care organization.

Assessment of clinical inertia in people with diabetes within primary care.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical inertia, defined as a delay in treatment intensification, is prevalent in people with diabetes. Treatment intensification rates are as low as 37.1% in people with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values >7%. Intensification by addition of medication therapy may take 1.6 to more than 7 years. Clinical inertia increases the risk of cardiovascular events. The primary objective was to evaluate rates of clinical inertia in people whose diabetes is managed by both pharmacists and primary care providers (PCPs). Secondary objectives included characterizing types of treatment intensification, HbA1c reduction, and time between treatment intensifications. METHOD: Retrospective chart review of persons with diabetes managed by pharmacists at an academic, safety-net institution. Eligible subjects were referred to a pharmacist-managed cardiovascular risk reduction clinic while continuing to see their PCP between October 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018. All progress notes were evaluated for treatment intensification, HbA1c value, and type of medication intensification. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three eligible patients were identified; baseline HbA1c 9.6% (7.9, 11.6) (median interquartile range [IQR]). One thousand one hundred ninety-two pharmacist and 1739 PCP visits were included in data analysis. Therapy was intensified at 60.5% (n = 721) pharmacist visits and 39.3% (n = 684) PCP visits (P < .001). The median (IQR) time between interventions was 49 (28, 92) days for pharmacists and 105 (38, 182) days for PCPs (P < .001). Pharmacists more frequently intensified treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist involvement in diabetes management may reduce the clinical inertia patients may otherwise experience in the primary care setting.