Relationship between advanced pharmacy practice experience grading schemes and pharmacy residency match rates.

Jane Shtaynberg, Maryann Skrabal, Tina Kanmaz, C Leiana Oswald, Jennifer Prisco, Jennie B Jarrett, Cheryl Clarke, Valerie Ruehter, Eric Gilliam, Angela Clauson, Guogen Shan
{"title":"Relationship between advanced pharmacy practice experience grading schemes and pharmacy residency match rates.","authors":"Jane Shtaynberg,&nbsp;Maryann Skrabal,&nbsp;Tina Kanmaz,&nbsp;C Leiana Oswald,&nbsp;Jennifer Prisco,&nbsp;Jennie B Jarrett,&nbsp;Cheryl Clarke,&nbsp;Valerie Ruehter,&nbsp;Eric Gilliam,&nbsp;Angela Clauson,&nbsp;Guogen Shan","doi":"10.1093/ajhp/zxac254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the relationship of advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) grading schemes and other pharmacy program variables (ie, program age and funding) with pharmacy residency match rates.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>A 12-question survey was disseminated to experiential administrators of pharmacy programs in October 2018. Respondents identified their program's APPE grading scheme (pass/fail, letter grades, or other) and associated pros and cons. Responding programs were categorized by age and funding status. Survey responses were correlated with the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists residency match rates for 2016 through 2018. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models as well as by attributes via thematic analysis. Most pharmacy programs (62%) reported using letter grades for APPEs compared to pass/fail (30%) or other (8%) schemes. Pharmacy programs using pass/fail grading were more likely to have students match to postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) (P < 0.001) and postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) (P = 0.0074) residencies. Older pharmacy programs for each grading scheme were more likely to have higher match rates; however, for PGY1 match rates, older programs utilizing letter grades correlated to lower match rates than those utilizing pass/fail grading (P < 0.0001). Likewise, both public and private pharmacy programs using pass/fail grading had higher PGY1 match rates than those using letter grades (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0014).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pass/fail grading in APPEs does not hinder PGY1 or PGY2 residency placement compared to other grading schemes both overall and in combination with certain pharmacy program variables. Grading scheme strengths and weaknesses should be considered when deciding on optimal assessment strategies for APPEs and when evaluating candidates for residencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":520552,"journal":{"name":"American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists","volume":" ","pages":"2261-2270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxac254","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the relationship of advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) grading schemes and other pharmacy program variables (ie, program age and funding) with pharmacy residency match rates.

Summary: A 12-question survey was disseminated to experiential administrators of pharmacy programs in October 2018. Respondents identified their program's APPE grading scheme (pass/fail, letter grades, or other) and associated pros and cons. Responding programs were categorized by age and funding status. Survey responses were correlated with the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists residency match rates for 2016 through 2018. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models as well as by attributes via thematic analysis. Most pharmacy programs (62%) reported using letter grades for APPEs compared to pass/fail (30%) or other (8%) schemes. Pharmacy programs using pass/fail grading were more likely to have students match to postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) (P < 0.001) and postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) (P = 0.0074) residencies. Older pharmacy programs for each grading scheme were more likely to have higher match rates; however, for PGY1 match rates, older programs utilizing letter grades correlated to lower match rates than those utilizing pass/fail grading (P < 0.0001). Likewise, both public and private pharmacy programs using pass/fail grading had higher PGY1 match rates than those using letter grades (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0014).

Conclusion: Pass/fail grading in APPEs does not hinder PGY1 or PGY2 residency placement compared to other grading schemes both overall and in combination with certain pharmacy program variables. Grading scheme strengths and weaknesses should be considered when deciding on optimal assessment strategies for APPEs and when evaluating candidates for residencies.

高级药学实习经验分级方案与药学实习匹配率的关系。
目的:确定高级药学实践经验(APPE)分级方案和其他药学项目变量(如项目年龄和资助)与药学住院医师匹配率的关系。摘要:2018年10月,一份包含12个问题的调查被分发给药学项目的经验管理人员。受访者确定了他们的项目的APPE评分方案(通过/不及格,字母等级或其他)以及相关的利弊。响应的项目按年龄和资金状况进行分类。调查结果与美国卫生系统药剂师协会2016年至2018年的住院医师匹配率相关。使用描述性统计和逻辑回归模型对数据进行分析,并通过主题分析对属性进行分析。大多数药学专业(62%)报告说,与及格/不及格(30%)或其他(8%)方案相比,APPEs使用字母等级。使用及格/不及格评分的药学专业更有可能让学生与研究生一年级(PGY1) (P < 0.001)和研究生二年级(PGY2) (P = 0.0074)的实习医师相匹配。每个分级方案的老药房项目更有可能有更高的匹配率;然而,对于PGY1匹配率,使用字母等级的旧程序与使用及格/不及格等级的匹配率相关(P < 0.0001)。同样,使用及格/不及格等级的公立和私立药房项目的PGY1匹配率都高于使用字母等级的项目(P = 0.0006和P = 0.0014)。结论:与其他评分方案相比,无论是整体还是结合某些药学项目变量,APPEs的及格/不及格评分并不妨碍PGY1或PGY2住院医师的安置。在决定最佳评估策略和评估住院医师候选人时,应考虑评分方案的优缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信