A careful balancing act.

New practitioners are challenged with transitioning from student and resident roles into those roles of an independent practitioner. Specific challenges include project undertaking and management; establishing an understanding of expected timeframes; incorporating efficiencies in daily workflow; establishing and enforcing personal limitations and asking for assistance. The new practitioner will achieve fulfillment in both his/her professional and personal life by incorporating techniques described to overcome those challenges associated with the demands of residency programs.

Residency application screening tools: A survey of academic medical centers.

PURPOSE: The current use and content of screening tools utilized by ASHP-accredited pharmacy residency programs were assessed. METHODS: A survey consisting of 19 questions assessing residency programs and the screening of pharmacy residency program applicants was e-mailed to residency directors of 362 pharmacy residency programs at 105 University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC)-member institutions. Questions gathered general program demographic information, data related to applicant growth from residency years 2010-11 to 2011-12, and information about the residency screening processes currently used. RESULTS: Responses were received from 73 residency program sites (69.5%) of the 105 UHC-member institutions to whom the e-mail was sent. Many sites used screening tools to calculate applicants' scores and then determined which candidates to invite for an onsite interview based on applicants' scores and group discussion. Seventy-eight percent (n = 57) of the 73 responding institutions reported the use of a screening tool or rubric to select applicants to invite for onsite interviews. The most common method of evaluation was individual applicant review before meeting as a group to discuss candidate selection. The most important factor for determining which residency candidate to interview was the overall impression based on the candidate's curriculum vitae (CV) and letters of recommendation. CONCLUSION: Most residency programs in UHC-member hospitals used a screening tool to determine which applicants to invite for an onsite interview. The most important factor for determining which residency candidate to interview was the overall impression based on the candidate's CV and letters of recommendation.

Value of pharmacy residency training: a survey of the academic medical center perspective.

PURPOSE: The results of a survey assessing the views of pharmacy directors, medical center executives, and pharmacists on the value of residency programs to their institutions are reported. METHODS: In a two-phase survey entailing face-to-face interviews and the use of an electronic questionnaire, representatives of the pharmacy departments and executive staffs of eight academic medical centers were asked to rate the impact of pharmacy residency programs in areas such as educational and research innovation, quality-of-care and cost outcomes, and opportunities for revenue generation. RESULTS: Seven hospital administrators, eight directors of pharmacy, 122 pharmacists serving as residency preceptors, and 91 nonpreceptor pharmacists participated in the survey. The survey responses indicated that hospital administrators view pharmacy residency programs as important contributors to their institutions' prestige, academic success, and capacity for delivering educational programs. All directors of pharmacy surveyed were in agreement that the costs associated with conducting a pharmacy residency program are outweighed by the cost savings achieved through resident contributions to patient care and medication error prevention. A large majority (90%) of preceptor pharmacists agreed or strongly agreed that residents help reduce medication errors by educating prescribers and other activities that promote rational medication use; only about half of nonpreceptor pharmacists shared that view, although 65% of nonpreceptors acknowledged the contributions of residents to overall pharmacy department success. CONCLUSION: All groups of survey respondents viewed residency programs as important assets to their institutions, especially in the areas of institutional prestige, staff recruitment, and professional development and education.