Introduction Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, most pharmacy residency programs changed to an all‐virtual format for recruitment and interviews for the 2020‐2021 application cycle. There are no data evaluating the experiences and perceptions of these changes from the perspective of pharmacy residency programs and applicants. Methods An electronic cross‐sectional survey was distributed via email to post‐graduate year 1 (PGY1) and post‐graduate year 2 (PGY2) pharmacy residency programs and applicants across the Southeastern United States. Results have been reported according to the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) guidelines (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research [EQUATOR] Network). Results 142 residency applicants and 104 residency programs responded to the survey. Most respondents participated in virtual recruitment and interviews. In 2020‐2021, less residency programs participated in local/regional showcases and personal placement services, but social media engagement increased. Of the applicants who responded, over half felt the need to apply to more programs during this application cycle, and a corresponding increase in applications were seen by residency programs. Residency interviews appeared shorter than previous years, and less programs offered an informal time to get to know the applicants. Overall, applicants and residency programs preferred on‐site interviews, but both parties reported feeling confident creating rank lists after virtual interviews. Conclusion These results highlight the impact of COVID‐19 on residency recruitment and the interview process. Residency programs should implement feedback for improving the virtual experience, as able. The ongoing pandemic may affect the 2022‐2023 application cycle, and pharmacy leadership organizations should consider developing guidance for applicants and residency programs on navigating another year of virtual events. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

No abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if national drug shortages of electrolyte replacement products negatively impact patient care. Methods: This study was a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort of adults admitted to the medical, surgical, or trauma intensive care unit (ICU) that were ordered or would have qualified for the general or continuous renal replacement therapy electrolyte replacement protocol (ERP) between April 2017 and August 2018. In October 2017, ERP use was suspended and enteral replacement was promoted due to inability to maintain consistent inventory of intravenous replacement products. The primary objective was to compare the percentage of patient days that at least 1 critically low value of potassium, magnesium, and/or phosphorus existed between protocolized and nonprotocolized electrolyte replacement. Secondary objectives included characterizing the ratio of enteral replacement to duration of critically low electrolyte values during protocolized and nonprotocolized electrolyte replacement. Results: A total of 288 patients were included. The mean percentage of ICU days with low electrolyte levels in the protocolized period was significantly higher than in the nonprotocolized period (21.4% vs 17.5%, P = .0238). There was a negative relationship between the total electrolyte replacement that was given enterally and the percentage of patient days with critically low values indicating that as enteral replacement increased, percentage of days with low values decreased. The association between percentage of enteral replacement and days with critically low electrolyte values was significantly lower in the protocolized period. Conclusion: Intravenous electrolyte replacement product shortages did not result in an increased incidence of critically low electrolyte values. Enteral replacement was associated with a decreased incidence of low electrolyte values.

No abstract