Perceptions of a virtual interview process for pharmacy residents during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multisite survey of residency candidates, preceptors, and residency program directors.

PURPOSE: To 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: 236 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. CONCLUSION: Virtual 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.

Immune-related Adverse Effects Associated with Programmed Death-1 Inhibitor Therapy in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Incidence, Management, and Effect on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors may improve survival outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients but are associated with immune-related adverse effects (IRAEs). Management of IRAEs may include immunosuppression (ie, corticosteroids), but there is concern that this may affect efficacy. This study evaluated the influence of IRAEs and immunosuppression for IRAEs on survival outcomes of NSCLC patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab and nivolumab). METHODS: We retrospectively examined data from Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California members diagnosed with NSCLC who received a PD-1 inhibitor from March 1, 2011 to September 30, 2016. Our primary goal was to evaluate the effects and management of IRAEs on survival with PD-1 inhibitors. Electronic database records were used to identify the occurrence of IRAEs, medication utilization, and death. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate variables for association with increased risk of death. RESULTS: A total of 662 patients were included in the study (median age = 68 years) (interquartile range 61-74). IRAEs were identified in 18% of patients, of which 62% received immunosuppression. Median overall survival was 10 months (interquartile range = 4 months to not reached). Adjusting for covariates, use of immunosuppression during PD-1 inhibitor treatment was not associated with a significantly higher risk of death (hazard ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval = 0.84-1.29), whereas corticosteroid use before initiating PD-1 inhibitor therapy was (hazard ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval = 1.14-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, real-world cohort from an integrated healthcare system, use of corticosteroids prior to PD-1 inhibitors was associated with worse survival outcomes, whereas concomitant treatment was not.

RESPECT-Mil: feasibility of a systems-level collaborative care approach to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in military primary care.

BACKGROUND: U.S. military ground forces report high rates of war-related traumatic stressors, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression following deployment in support of recent armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Affected service members do not receive needed mental health services in most cases, and they frequently report stigma and significant structural barriers to mental health services. Improvements in primary care may help address these issues, and evidence supports the effectiveness of a systems-level collaborative care approach. OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of systems-level collaborative care for PTSD and depression in military primary care. We named our collaborative care model "Re-Engineering Systems of Primary Care for PTSD and Depression in the Military" (RESPECT-Mil). METHODS: Key elements of RESPECT-Mil care include universal primary care screening for PTSD and depression, brief standardized primary care diagnostic assessment for those who screen positive, and use of a nurse "care facilitator" to ensure continuity of care for those with unmet depression and PTSD treatment needs. The care facilitator assists primary care providers with follow-up, symptom monitoring, and treatment adjustment and enhances the primary care interface with specialty mental health services. We report assessments of feasibility of RESPECT-Mil implementation in a busy primary care clinic supporting Army units undergoing frequent Iraq, Afghanistan, and other deployments. RESULTS: Thirty primary care providers (family physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) were trained in the model and in the care of depression and PTSD. The clinic screened 4,159 primary care active duty patient visits: 404 screens (9.7%) were positive for depression, PTSD, or both. Sixty-nine patients participated in collaborative care for 6 weeks or longer, and the majority of these patients experienced clinically important improvement in PTSD and depression. Even although RESPECT-Mil participation was voluntary for providers, only one refused participation. No serious adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care is an evidence-based approach to improving the quality of primary care treatment of anxiety and depression. Our version of collaborative care for PTSD and depression, RESPECT-Mil, is feasible, safe, and acceptable to military primary care providers and patients, and participating patients frequently showed clinical improvements. Efforts to implement and evaluate collaborative care approaches for mental disorders in populations at high risk for psychiatric complications of military service are warranted.