Perceptions of the two-phase pharmacy residency match process.

PURPOSE: To evaluate residency applicant (RA) and residency program director (RPD) perceptions of Phase II of the Match process since its inception in 2016. METHODS: An online survey was issued to all Match-registered RAs and RPDs for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 Match periods. Study participant demographics, participant designation (RA or RPD), the year(s) and Phase(s) of the Match participated in were measured using categorical ranges, and overall perceptions of the Match process since Phase II of the Match was implemented were captured with 5-point Likert scales. RESULTS: A total of 2,599 individuals (RA and RPD) completed the survey for an overall survey response rate of 12.6%. The majority of RAs were female (73.2%), under the age of 30 (87.4%), Caucasian (67.4%), and recently graduated (90.9% graduated between 2016 and 2018). Most RAs participated in the 2018 Match period (61%), and overall 82% successfully matched to a residency position. RA perceptions relating to process cost-effectiveness and perceived fairness to all applicants differed significantly from RPD perceptions (2.23 versus 3.71 and 2.80 versus 3.67, respectively; p < 0.001 for each). There were no differences between RA and RPD perceptions related to the submission/review process. CONCLUSION: The Phase II of the Match process has demonstrated improved organization and satisfaction from the RPD perspective compared to the previous process. RAs have identified several areas for improvement in the process. It is imperative that efforts are made to continue expanding program and position offerings as much as possible.

National survey of pharmacy residents nearing completion of the 2014-15 residency year.

PURPOSE: The results of a national survey targeting postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) resident's perceptions of their residency programs and postresidency job prospects are presented. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to PGY1 and PGY2 residents identified through the ASHP membership database. The survey asked basic demographic questions, questions related to the residency experience (satisfaction, hours spent on various general activities such as patient care, research, and staffing), and various questions related to residents' job search and future career plans (search methods, outcomes, and satisfaction with the process). RESULTS: A total of 529 responses were received from the 2,766 surveys that were distributed, yielding a response rate of 19%. Most respondents reported having a favorable opinion of their residency. At the time of the survey, 71% of residents reported having found a full-time job; 17% of residents were still looking for a position. Eighty-five percent of PGY2 residents reported accepting a position in their specialty area and accepted clinical specialist roles in larger numbers than did PGY1 residents. Geographic location, practice/specialty area, and shift/schedule were the 3 areas of compromise most frequently mentioned when accepting a position and were the 3 areas ranked highest in terms of job importance. CONCLUSION: A survey of PGY1 and PGY2 pharmacy residents revealed that about one sixth of respondents entering the job market were having difficulty finding a position before finishing residency training and that most respondents were satisfied with their residency experience.