Dataset Information

Measuring Competency of Pharmacy Residents: A Survey of Residency Programs' Methods for Assessment and Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Canadian Pharmacy Residency Board (CPRB) specifies the competencies that pharmacy residents must attain and the need for assessment and evaluation. Methods of assessment and evaluation are left to the discretion of individual programs. There is a scarcity of published literature compiling and comparing the strategies used by Canadian residency programs.

Objectives

To determine curricular components used for assessment and evaluation; to describe the tools used by programs; to characterize the scheduling, frequency, and repetition of curricular components; and to determine the individuals or groups involved.

Methods

Coordinators of hospital pharmacy residency programs with CPRB accreditation or accreditation pending were surveyed to collect information about the assessment and evaluation of select CPRB standards.

Results

From the 37 eligible residency programs, 20 unique responses (54%) were received. All respondents were general practice programs (100%) in predominantly multicentre organizations (70%). Programs were similar in terms of assessment components used, with all respondents citing care plan review, direct observation of patient care, journal clubs, creation of project timelines, and ethics submission. The predominant evaluation components were within-department presentations (100%), written manuscripts (95%), drug information rotations (85%), and longitudinal evaluations (75%). Standardized forms (70%-100%) defined by Bloom's taxonomy (65%) and the CPRB "levels and ranges" document (60%) were the principle means used. Assessments for patient care and for provision of education were generally carried out immediately (80% and 95%, respectively), whereas project management skills were assessed predominantly at final evaluation (75%). Self-assessment and assessment by pharmacy team members occurred for every competency, whereas patients (0%-10%) and allied health professionals (5%) were less frequently involved.

Conclusions

The assessment and evaluation strategies reported by programs were congruent. The results provide a summary of national practices and will allow existing and developing programs to examine their approach to assessment and evaluation for alignment with national standards.

SUBMITTER: Kary SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6799962 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:DisclaimerIn an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.PurposeTo 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.MethodsIn 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.Results236 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.ConclusionVirtual 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.

Project description:ImportanceGender disparities exist throughout medicine. Recent studies have highlighted an attainment gap between male and female residents in performance evaluations on Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. Because of difficulties in blinding evaluators to gender, it remains unclear whether these observed disparities are because of implicit bias or other causes.ObjectiveTo estimate the magnitude of implicit gender bias in assessments of procedural competency in emergency medicine residents and whether the gender of the evaluator is associated with identified implicit gender bias.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was performed from 2018 to 2020 in which emergency medicine residency faculty assessed procedural competency by evaluating videos of residents performing 3 procedures in a simulated environment. They were blinded to the intent of the study. Proceduralists were filmed performing each procedure from 2 different viewpoints simultaneously by 2 different cameras. One was a gender-blinded (ie, hands-only) view, and the other a wide-angled gender-evident (ie, whole-body) view. The faculty evaluators viewed videos in a random order and assessed procedural competency on a global rating scale with extensive validity evidence for the evaluation of video-recorded procedural performance.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based on gender. The secondary outcome was to determine if there was a difference in the evaluations based on the gender of the evaluator.ResultsFifty-one faculty evaluators enrolled from 19 states, with 22 male participants (43.1%), 29 female participants (56.9%), and a mean (SD) age of 37 (6.4) years. Each evaluator assessed all 60 procedures: 30 gender-blinded (hands-only view) videos and 30 identical gender-evident (wide angle) videos. There were no statistically significant differences in the study evaluators' scores of the proceduralists based on their gender, and the gender of the evaluator was not associated with the difference in mean scores.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, we did not identify a difference in the evaluation of procedural competency based upon the gender of the resident proceduralist or the gender of the faculty evaluator.