No abstract

Disclaimer In 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. Purpose To describe the implementation of a pharmacy residency resiliency program (PRRP) for postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) pharmacy residents, including program structure, strengths and weaknesses/limitations, resident perceptions as captured by a postprogram survey, generalizability to other institutions, and opportunities for future directions. Summary Pharmacy residents face significant pressure, workload, and stressors that put them at risk for burnout and depression. While resiliency has been a major area of focus to help combat these risks for healthcare professionals, little has been published regarding formal, structured resiliency training in pharmacy, especially in pharmacy residency programs. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) residency standards recommend that programs consider education related to burnout prevention and that mitigation strategies be provided to residents and other pharmacy personnel, but no formal pharmacy-specific programs or strategies have been established. We implemented a 12-month PRRP for PGY1 and PGY2 pharmacy residents and conducted a postprogram survey to assess resident perceptions and to identify areas for growth. Conclusion Implementation of a PRRP was feasible and could be replicated at other institutions. Residents in our program reported a high level of satisfaction, skills gained, and positive attributes of the addition of the PRRP. Some notable factors contributing to success included the program’s longitudinal nature, use of a nonpharmacy facilitator, and impactful content from an established resiliency skills curriculum.

C ancer patients and survivors often experience high symptom burden well addressed by integrative oncology (IO) and palliative medicine (PM). IO is ''evidence-based cancer care that utilizes mind and body practices, natural products, and/or lifestyle modifications alongside conventional cancer treatments to optimize health, quality of life, and clinical outcomes.'' 1 IO is distinct from alternative medicine that is used instead of conventional treatments. 2 PM ''improves quality of life for patients and families during lifethreatening illness through prevention and relief of pain and other physical, psychosocial, and spiritual problems.'' 3 These definitions reveal common philosophies among both fields, which emphasize interdisciplinary person-centered care to enhance quality of life and reduce suffering. 4 Cancer and its treatments are often associated with fatigue, pain, neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, appetite changes, sleep disorders, hot flashes, shortness of breath, sexual and fertility issues, anxiety, and depression among other symptoms.

The problem of opioid diversion and its contribution to the opioid epidemic are well known nationally, existing even within hospice care. Proper disposal of opioids may be a critical factor in reducing diversion. In 2014, Ohio implemented legislation requiring a hospice employee to destroy or witness disposal of all unused opioids within a patient’s plan of care. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of Ohio Revised Code 3712.062 on hospice programs’ policies and procedures to prevent opioid diversion in the home. Directors of Ohio-licensed hospices were surveyed to assess the percentage of programs with a written policy in place for disposal of opioids and to calculate a compliance score based on responses to survey questions assessing compliance with legislation components. Fifty-two surveys were completed (39.4%). All survey respondents reported having a written policy in place. A 95.5% average compliance score was calculated, with the largest disparity occurring with timing of opioid disposal. While Ohio Revised Code 3712.062 requires opioid disposal at the time of patient’s death or when no longer needed by the patient, only 84% of respondents report disposing opioids upon discontinuation. Overall, a high compliance rate was seen among hospice programs indicating such regulation is manageable to meet.