Anion gap physiology and faults of the correction formula.

PURPOSE: The anion gap is a calculated fundamental laboratory parameter used to identify and monitor acid-base disturbances. A recently popularized correction formula transforms the resulting integer to compensate for hypoalbuminemia and improve diagnostic yield. Clinical pharmacists should be aware of the underlying biochemistry, interpretation, and limitations of this formula to discern drug- and disease-related etiologies. SUMMARY: The anion gap is utilized in most care settings, ranging from outpatient monitoring to inpatient intensive care units. Supported by decades of experience, the original anion gap derives its value from its simplicity. Applying the anion gap in metabolic acidosis can help narrow differential diagnosis and detect concomitant acid-base disorders. To account for hypoalbuminemia and potential missed diagnoses, a correction formula was developed to improve sensitivity. Yet, the law of electroneutrality ensures that hypoalbuminemia is already accounted for in the original anion gap, and the proposed correction formula was derived from samples unrepresentative of human physiology. Evidence from clinical trials shows no benefit from applying the correction formula. CONCLUSION: There is no advantage to correcting the anion gap, and such correction may increase the risk of misinterpretation or error. Clinicians should understand these limitations when diagnosing or trending acid-base disturbances.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on training of pharmacy residents and fellows: Results from a national survey of postgraduate pharmacy trainees.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the activities of healthcare workers, including postgraduate pharmacy trainees. Quality training experiences must be maintained to produce competent pharmacy practitioners and maintain program standards. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of postgraduate pharmacy trainees in the United States was conducted to evaluate training experience changes and assess perceived impacts on residents and fellows following the COVID-19 pandemic's onset. RESULTS: From June 4 through June 22, 2020, 511 pharmacy trainees in 46 states completed the survey. Participants' median age was 26 (interquartile range [IQR], 25-28) years, with included responses from postgraduate year 1 residents (54% of sample), postgraduate year 2 residents (40%), and postgraduate fellows (6%). Compared to experiences prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, fewer trainees conducted direct patient care (38.5% vs 91.4%, P < 0.001), more worked from home (31.7% vs 1.6%, P < 0.001), and less time was spent with preceptors per day (2 [IQR, 2-6] hours vs 4 [IQR, 1-4] hours, P < 0.001). Sixty-five percent of respondents reported experiencing changes in their training program, 39% reported being asked to work in areas outside of their routine training experience, and 89% stated their training shifted to focus on COVID-19 to some degree. Most respondents perceived either major (9.6%) or minor (52.0%) worsening in quality of experience, with major and minor improvement in quality of experience reported by 5.5% and 8.4% of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy resident/fellow experiences were perceived to have been extensively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in varying ways. Our findings describe shifts in postgraduate training and may aid in the development of best practices for optimizing trainee experiences in future crises.

Impact of PhORCAS references on overall application score for postgraduate year 1 pharmacy residency candidates.

PURPOSE: The disparity between the number of applicants for postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy residency positions and the number of available residency positions increases the need to optimize how applicants are evaluated. The purpose of the study described here was to evaluate the correlation of ratings of residency candidate characteristics by academic and professional references listed on residency applications with overall application score, applicant ranking, and the likelihood of candidates receiving an invitation to interview. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the correlation of reference writers' ratings of 13 candidate characteristics and their overall recommendations with program-determined outcomes (eg, final application score, applicant ranking, and invitation to interview) through analysis of PGY1 applications submitted through the Pharmacy Online Residency Centralized Application System (PhORCAS) from 2015 through 2018. Keywords and themes within the open-ended section of letters of reference were also analyzed for correlation with overall application score. RESULTS: A total of 5,923 references listed on 1,867 applications to 4 PGY1 pharmacy residency programs processed by PhORCAS were included in the analysis. For the majority of applicant characteristic ratings (ie, 74% of 56,872 ratings overall), reference writers rated candidates as exceeding expectations, and applicants were "highly recommended" by these evaluators in 91% of cases. References' average characteristic ratings and overall recommendations were poorly correlated with final application score (R2 = 0.12 [P < 0.0001] and R2 = 0.08 [P < 0.0001], respectively), final ranking (R2 = 0.02 [P < 0.0001] and R2 = 0.03 [P < 0.0001], respectively), and invitation to interview (R2 = 0.07 [P < 0.0001] and R2 = 0.04 [P < 0.0001], respectively). For the themes evaluated, references' use of teaching words best correlated with normalized final application score, although the correlation was poor (R2 = 0.007, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Reference writers' ratings of PGY1 residency candidate characteristics in PhORCAS are poorly correlated with application score, applicant ranking, and invitation to interview. The results of this study suggest that the existing PhORCAS standardized form for submitting references is of limited utility in its current state.