-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Keliana O’Mara, Stephen J Lemon, O’Mara and Lemon reply, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Volume 79, Issue 19, 1 October 2022, Pages 1624–1625, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxac181
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
The purpose of our descriptive report regarding standardized oral assessments of first-year pharmacy residents was to provide residency training colleagues with a novel method to identify areas where residents may need support.1 While the questions are standardized, follow-up sessions are individualized based on resident responses. There is a risk of bias with individualization, which emulates real-life interactions with preceptors or during rounds. We encourage readers to evaluate Table 1 carefully, which describes the scoring tool components. Coachability and communication were included to assess intangible skills for resident success at our institution. Follow-up questions allow us to find the resident’s knowledge ceiling for fundamental areas, an advantage over standardized test answers. We believe that an equilibrium can be achieved, such that there is not an overreliance on solely objective or subjective assessments of a resident’s abilities.
We agree with Januszka and Jarrett that we need a more transparent and consistent way to identify and ascertain mastery of baseline clinical pharmacist attributes with the transition from pharmacy school to resident training. There are several areas where front-facing resident preceptors experience discrepancies, from student references to resident interviews. Pharmacy Online Residency Centralized Application Service (PhORCAS) reference letters have been demonstrated to only poorly correlate with application scores, applicant ranking, and invitations to interview.2 The clinical performance of pharmacy residents correlates well with residency interviews with multiple clinically focused mini-interview sessions compared to traditional interviews.3 These findings underscore the disconnect between what is assumed to be pertinent at the student level and what is deemed valuable to residency programs. We agree that consistency in expectations would provide stronger candidates with more robust experiences. However, we hesitate to assign the burden to residency programs alone to conform with universities instead of finding a middle ground that aligns with a shared vision for training. We call for a closer relationship among all parties to promote open and sincere communication about learners.
Comments