Isaacs Alex N, Buatois Emily M, Karwa Rakhi, Miller Monica L
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2023 Jul-Aug;63(4):1106-1111.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2023.04.028. Epub 2023 May 5.
Phase II was implemented in 2016 to provide structure for applicants and unmatched residency pharmacy programs to interact. Previous literature has provided some approaches for this process; however, clarification on navigating the phase II process to successfully match for applicants and their mentors is still needed. In addition, with phase II occurring for >6 years, there is a need for continual evaluation.
The objectives were to describe (1) program phase II structure and timelines, (2) program personnel demand, and (3) perceptions of and suggestions for phase II from postgraduate year (PGY)1 residency program directors (RPDs) to provide clarity to applicants, mentors, and residency stakeholders.
A 31-item survey was developed including 9 demographic items, 13 program-specific timeline-based items, 5 skip-logic items on screening interviews, and 4 qualitative questions on the benefits, drawbacks, and suggested changes to phase II. The survey was disseminated to PGY-1 RPDs participating in phase II with available contact information in June 2021 and May 2022, with 3 weekly reminders.
The survey was completed by 180 of the 484 RPDs participating in phase II (37.2% response rate). Programs participating in the survey had an average of 1.4 positions (± 0.7) open in phase II and 31 applicants (± 31) per open position. The timelines for screening applications, contacting applicants, and conducting interviews were variable. For qualitative data, RPDs appreciated the structured process and noted high-quality and geographic diversity of applicants in phase II. However, challenges reported were the quantity of applications, lack of time to fully review applications, and technical issues. Suggested changes included an extended phase II timeline, universal application deadline, and technical improvements.
The structured approach of phase II was an improvement compared with historical approaches; however, variability exists in timelines for programs. Respondents identified further opportunities to refine phase II to benefit residency stakeholders.
2016年实施了第二阶段，为申请人和未匹配的住院药房项目提供互动架构。以往文献为此过程提供了一些方法；然而，仍需要为申请人及其导师澄清如何成功匹配的第二阶段流程。此外，第二阶段已进行了6年多，需要持续评估。
目标是描述（1）项目第二阶段的架构和时间安排，（2）项目人员需求，以及（3）研究生一年级（PGY）住院医师项目主任（RPD）对第二阶段的看法和建议，以便为申请人、导师和住院医师项目利益相关者提供清晰信息。
制定了一项包含31个条目的调查问卷，包括9个人口统计学项目、13个基于项目特定时间安排的项目、5个关于筛选面试的跳转逻辑项目，以及4个关于第二阶段的益处、缺点和建议改进的定性问题。该调查问卷于2021年6月和2022年5月分发给参与第二阶段且有可用联系信息的PGY-1 RPD，并每周提醒3次。
参与第二阶段的484名RPD中有180名完成了调查（回复率为37.2%）。参与调查的项目在第二阶段平均有1.4个职位空缺（±0.7），每个空缺职位有31名申请人（±31）。筛选申请、联系申请人和进行面试的时间安排各不相同。对于定性数据，RPD赞赏该结构化流程，并指出第二阶段申请人的质量高且地域多样。然而，报告的挑战包括申请数量、没有时间充分审查申请以及技术问题。建议的改进包括延长第二阶段的时间安排、统一申请截止日期以及技术改进。
与以往方法相比，第二阶段的结构化方法有所改进；然而，各项目的时间安排存在差异。受访者确定了进一步完善第二阶段以造福住院医师项目利益相关者的机会。
