Pharmacist responsiveness and readiness for oral antivirals for COVID-19: A rebuttal to the AMA statement regarding the Biden administration's test-to-treat plan.

On March 4, 2022, the American Medical Association (AMA) released a statement in response to the Biden administration's plan of a test-to-treat plan allowing pharmacists to serve as locations to test and provide prescriptions for oral antiviral therapies for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after a positive test result. The statement by AMA contradicts and underrepresents the impact pharmacists have on clinical practice. Pharmacists have been a crucial part of many efforts including mass vaccination efforts and furnishing of prescriptions for other complex disease states (e.g., pre-exposure prophylaxis and postexposure prophylaxis therapy). Furthermore, health systems have proven that novel approaches to mitigate operational and clinical barriers to COVID-19 therapies may offset the increased demand needed by communities. Herein, this commentary will discuss a viewpoint and counterpoint to the statement put out by AMA, with a focus on pharmacists.

Brighter horizons: The necessity of concentrated sponsorship targeted toward minoritized student pharmacists.

Due to the effects of structural racism, disproportionately lower numbers of Black, Hispanic or LatinX, American Indian, and Alaska Native students pursue a career in pharmacy and successfully matriculate into the profession. Despite these disparities being present for many years, little progress has been achieved in diversifying the pharmacy profession, resulting in a persistent lack of diversity within pharmacy leadership across employers and pharmacy organizations. Consistent with recent recommendations for improving diversity in pharmacy, the PharmGradWishlist (PGWL) initiative was created as a way for practicing pharmacists and organizations to provide direct financial sponsorship to racially and ethnically minoritized trainees to offset costs incurred during training and during the transition from student to practicing pharmacist. Many of these costs, such as residency and fellowship application fees, job interview travel costs, board exam and licensing fees, and moving expenses, are not typically subsidized by federal student funding. Offsetting these costs is an important way to reduce barriers to entering the profession and postgraduate training, the latter of which may be particularly important in trainees' pursuit of academic and leadership positions in pharmacy. The initial development and advertisement of the initiative occurred through social media and the grassroots efforts of the PGWL team, a group of 10 volunteer pharmacists from across the country, and resulted in generous donations from a small proportion of practicing pharmacists nationwide. It is now time for the profession as a whole to embrace the role of direct sponsorship in improving diversity in the profession. We call upon pharmacists and pharmacy organizations to advocate for and participate in financial sponsorship of racially and ethnically minoritized trainees and pharmacists as a way to increase diversity and promote health equity.

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.

Successful Implementation of an Automated Sedation Vacation Process in Intensive Care Units.

This quality improvement initiative sought to develop a sedation vacation (SV) protocol to increase SV performance and ensure sustainability. A standardized, nurse-driven SV protocol within the electronic medical record was implemented in adult intensive care units (ICUs) at Boston Medical Center. For 6 months, data were collected on the number of assessments performed, SV completion, SV eligibility, and reason for exclusion. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay (LOS) and ventilator LOS. Of 1730 patient-days during this 6-month period, SV assessments were performed 70% (n = 1211) of the time. SVs were conducted on 60.0% (n = 726) during days in which an assessment occurred. There was no significant change in ICU LOS or ventilator LOS during the study period. This SV protocol attained a 70% adherence rate, which was sustained over the 6-month period. There were no significant changes in secondary outcomes.