ACCP has written a position statement a
few years back that promotes mandatory residency training for all
pharmacists involved in direct patient care. After reviewing the paper,
consider these questions:
Do you agree with the tone of
the article in that residency training should be mandatory for all
pharmacists involved in direct patient care?
What is considered direct patient care? Should it apply to all community and hospital pharmacists?
What
should the expectations be for a new graduate from a doctor of pharmacy
program? Should they be ready to practice as independent clinical
pharmacists (eliminating need for mandatory residency training)?
If
residency programs were required for you to be a community pharmacist
or a staff pharmacist in a hospital, would you have still chosen to come
to pharmacy school?
55 comments:
For many of us, we just want to complete our classes and get our Pharmacy degree as soon as possible so we can go back home and work to pay our bills. Higher education is wonderful and great, but that should not be made mandatory. Being a specialist is not for everyone so giving folks choice in this matter is imperative.
Also, by the time when I receive my degree, I would have completed 15 and a half years of higher education. So one more year of school would definately be that last straw.
ACCP's proposal is too wishy washy for many of us to obey and should not be implemented.
Here is the residency I was talking about in class that I am most interested in. Although this is a PGY2 residency it puts in to perspective that not all residencies will be as demanding! Also this pays $48,000!
http://childrenshospital.org/healthprofessionals/Site1392/mainpageS1392P116.html
Another similar residency I found for John's Hopkins..
"Residents may choose to cover additional pharmacist shifts and will be compensated at the standard pharmacist rate, including shift differential."
Attached is the link to benefits and compensation.. another with $48,000 pay!
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/pharmacy/residents/benefits/index.html
According to the position statement, direct patient care involves the
pharmacist’s observation of the patient and contributions to the selection, modification, and monitoring of patient-specific drug therapy. I think this mainly applies to hospital pharmacists, because observing a patient is more difficult in a retail setting. In a hospital setting it is easier to monitor and constantly observe your patients conditions, and by being able to see the their improvement, history, and health conditions in person it makes it easier to give specific drug therapy. As for a new graduate from a doctor of pharmacy program, I think that the residency should remain optional, or as we talked about it in class as being shortened in length. I think the thought behind them is good. Residency's help the future pharmacists gain experience and form a specialty, which can even help the pharmacist determine if the hospital they work at is a good fit. I also think that by forcing pharmacy students to do a residency, and having limited residency slots, more pharmacists will go toward retail or other settings which could potentially lower the amount of pharmacists in the hospital. In the end I believe pharmacists will gain the knowledge and experience by just working at the hospital daily and exposed to all sorts of situations, and not require that year of residency to gain the same insights.
Lora Steffner
According to the article and in my opinion, I believe that pharmacy as a profession will have drastically changed by 2020. By then, I think that technology advances are going to free up pharmacists more. From my experiences in community pharmacy, I think that the "tech work" required will diminish over time as robots will be able to do everything a technicians can do. My observations at the retail pharmacy that I currently work at show me that pharmacists focus more on "dispensing medications" and get preoccupied in watching over technicians. I think that over time as machines are invented to do these tasks without any errors, pharmacists are going to have more one on one time with patients. Although mandatory residencies would benefit hospital pharmacists more, I think it could hold a great value to even community pharmacists. I think that as the profession expands, patients are going to expect more from their pharmacists. With residency training in "direct patient care" pharmacists including ones in the community will better the quality of care given to patients and in result build more personal relationships.
Joining professional organizations can be very beneficial not only for a student Pharmacist’s professional career but for the student’s personal life as well. Professional organizations provide excellent networking opportunities, keep you informed about current issues and information, offer a platform for leadership opportunities, provide scholarships, etc. Professional organizations extend many opportunities to volunteer as well; sometimes volunteering in areas completely unrelated to the field of pharmacy. Habitat for Humanity was one example given in class. Organizations also provide time to meet and spend time with members of other pharmacy classes. Professional organizations are a great professional resource and also a great personal outlet.
Caleb Burns
In my opinion, I do not think that residencies should be required for direct patient care careers in the pharmacy. This is due to many reasons. The first reason is that after four years in pharmacy school, we will already have about 300 hours of experiential training under our belt. With some of the last year rotations being electives, those who want pursue a career in the clinical aspects of pharmacy can choose rotations in that field to gain skills necessary to practice after school. With this amount of experience, I feel it is unnecessary to complete a residency because the new graduates are very capable of entering this work setting right away.
Another thing that I think should be taken into consideration is the monetary aspect. The majority of people are using student loans to fund their schooling and are graduating with upwards of $150,000 in debt. These loans start accruing interest immediately and are piling up as the student progresses school. The pay for a residency is roughly one third of a normal pharmacist salary. This makes it hard for the new graduate to start repaying loans and finance any personal properties that they may need. This may be enough to drive people away from pharmacy as a career, should residencies become mandatory for all pharmacists in patient care.
-Christian Davis
I personally don't believe that residencies should be required for all pharmacy students. The majority of pharmacy graduates do wind up in retail and community pharmacy. There is direct patient contact there, but not to the extent that a pharmacist in a clinical setting would be. I am almost one hundred percent certain that I want to do retail when I graduate from pharmacy school, so me completing a residency would be good practice and would teach me a lot more, but I don't think it would particularly help in the retail setting. Granted, if it was a requirement for the Pharm.D. program, I would complete it because I do know for sure that I want to do pharmacy. Having the residency under my belt wouldn't necessarily make me a better pharmacist in that setting. For someone wanting to do the clinical side of pharmacy, this would be a great addition. For someone wanting to go right into academia, it probably wouldn't be needed either. I think it should be optional depending on the profession one chooses.
-Aaron Shaver
The ACCP's goal to enforce a mandatory residency by the year 2020, would change how many people view the pharmacy profession. An additional year of hands-on experience for all pharmacists would obviously have benefits, such as more respect and trust in the pharmacy profession by physicians and patients. But, as we discussed in class, pharmacy students already accumulate enough debt upon graduation, and a one year residency at low pay will further increase that debt and the time it takes to pay it off. So, there would most likely be an expectation of monetary compensation, and I have spoken with some pharmacists that already feel that they do not get paid enough for the patient services that they provide. But how would this affect healthcare costs for the patient?
Tami Harty
If residency programs were required to be a community pharmacist or a staff pharmacist in a hospital my choice wouldn't have changed because I want to do residencies but I do believe that a lot of people's choices would have changed. I don't think residencies should be required for community pharmacists, however I do believe they should be required for hospital pharmacists. I think to get the sufficient training and experience in the hospital setting a residency is helpful, but for community pharmacy I don't think it would be beneficial. Residencies can be a nuisance because of the low pay and strenuous hours but it will give insight into what you are getting into.
I brought up in class today the fact that I don't think residencies should last as long for pharmacists, maybe just a 6 month residency as opposed to the normal year or two years that is required. I was wondering if anyone felt the same way on this subject? I took this stand based purely on an economic basis. A pharmacy graduate will usually incur a debt of 100-150k to complete a four year program. The average salary of a pharmacy intern is then 40k. So I assume that it would be very difficult for someone to live with that much debt while only generating that income for a two year span, especially one with a family to support. Is there anything anyone can add as to why they see this "shortened" residency beneficial? I was also wondering if any mentors have completed a residency and what their thoughts and feelings on the subject are?
-Nick Scaturo
While I have no real desire to partake in a residency myself, I understand there can be several benefits to the mandatory residencies. Mandatory residencies can in can beneficial to how the public, specifically many other healthcare professionals view us. Physicians in particular are more likely to view us more a their equals, smoothing out the conflict we discussed earlier about the ACP. Of course the residence will provide further experience to our practice, which may give pharmacist ever more power to expand scope. However, for every reason I support mandatory residences, I have two that are against it. Currently pharmacy students spend at least 6 years in college, and that number is rapidly increasing to 8, adding on to this would mean that almost a decade will be spent in school, not to mention, the cost of student loans after 8+ years. Also the number of residencies available is limited, and as Dr. Haltom stated, a quantum leap in that number would be necessary to keep accommodate all the pharmacist. I also believe the fourth year of a Pharm D if nothing else is a rapid residence that really does not need to be expanded on. I lastley believe that pharmacist would defiantly deserve a higher salary once residency is completed.
I think that it is good that a residency might become required due to the fact that this will allow the field of pharmacy to grow. I think that this will be a way to expand the pharmacy scope of practice. However if they are going to require it, then there should be some kind of compensation. Also, I think that the length of residency could play a factor. To me, direct patient care is considered any contact that you have with a patient. This would include most pharmacists. One of the best things about being a pharmacist is that you are so available to the patient. I think that a new graduate should be able to do a residency if desired but this will require more residencies to become available. I think that if someone decides to do a residency that their salary should reflect that. If a residency was required in order for me to become a community pharmacist I would have still chosen pharmacy because this is something that I truly want to do and am passionate about.
I do not think that a Pharmacy Residency should be required of all PharmD graduates. Especially because quite a few areas of Pharmacy do not require the knowledge of a specialist. I think that research, academia, and some hospital positions should require at least a PGY1 residency. Personally, I would still have gone to Pharmacy School even if it was required. Firstly, I don't care whether you get a bigger or smaller paycheck for it. To me, the education is invaluable. Furthermore, at the moment I would like to head towards pharmaceutical research, completing PGY1 and PGY2 residencies.
I think that if residencies were to become mandatory, pharmacists would be given more respect in the healthcare field. However, there would have to be an increase in the number of residencies available for mandatory residencies to be possible.
Sherry Robles
Before coming to pharmacy school, I was aware that many areas of pharmacy require residency training. I also figured that eventually, all areas of pharmacy would require a residency. I would assume that most pharmacy students do not actually WANT to do a residency, and they would only complete one because it is a requirement of the field in which they're interested. While I can't say a residency requirement for pharmacists involved in direct patient care is necessarily a bad idea, I also think it shouldn't necessarily be required for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. I'm sure there are certain areas or specialties that require so much training and specialized knowledge that a residency is pretty much mandatory. However, I would assume that any pharmacist who gets a job after pharmacy school would be given adequate training upon starting their job. Is it really necessary for some clinical pharmacists to complete a year-long residency program, or would a 3 or 6 month on-the-job training program be sufficient?
Like many of my fellow students, I do not think residency training should be mandatory. When I had my interview at Wingate, I remember being shown a slideshow presentation about a survey that compared Wingate students to other Pharmacy school students. According to the survey, 100% of Wingate students said they were comfortable and ready to work in a pharmacy after graduation. This is because Wingate requires students to gain over 300 hours of practice experience in different pharmaceutical settings. Do we really need more hours?
While I understand the reasoning behind the ACCP statement I do not think pharmacy is yet at a place where residencies should be considered mandatory. The big issue for me is the definition of "direct patient care". Pharmacists are involved in such a variety of roles now that impact patient care in some capacity. Are they all "direct patient care?" In my own experience many Clinical Pharmacist positions do post the job with a "residency preferred" or similar requirement for experience. This is mostly to be sure that a candidate has sufficient experience and confidence making therapy decisions which is not necessary for all positions.
In summary, I do support the fact that a residency provides additional experience that will increase a pharmacist’s confidence in making clinical decisions. I do not believe that this is necessary for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care.
I do not think that a postgraduate residency should be required for those who want to do community practice. It should only be required for those who want to be in a clinical setting. The article defined Direct Patient Care as something that "involves the pharmacist's observation of the patient and contributions to the selection, modification and monitoring of patient-specific drug therapy." This to me is something a pharmacist does in the clinical setting, not in the community setting or at least not to the same extent. Although we are required to do so many IPPE hours and our final year is all in-practice experience, I believe a PharmD coming out of school with the hopes of going into the hospital setting should be required to do one year of residency. If that PharmD graduate wants to then specialize in a particular area of the hospital (ICU, pediatrics, etc.) they should then obtain a two year residency. It says in the article that "pharmacists will be recognized by payers as health care providers and will be compensated for direct patient care services, in both community and institutional practice settings." This to me means that if pharmacists put in more years of education, they will be recognized for it and paid accordingly. It makes sense that if pharmacist want to be held to that higher standard in the medical profession and not looked down upon from MD's, that a postgraduate residency program is what needs to be required. With that being said, I think it should still be the choice of a pharmacist pursuing community practice whether they obtain a residency. If residencies become required, my decision to come to pharmacy school does not change since it is my intent on obtaining one anyways.
According to this ACCP article, "Formal, postgraduate residency training will become mandatory before one can enter practice.” I do not disagree that post doctoral education be necessary for certain specialized fields; however, I do believe that if further education is achieved, those pharmacists should be compensated both financially and with a recognized increase in their scope of practice. As of now, specialized pharmacists actually earn less money than retail pharmacists despite their extended education. In addition, although these specialized pharmacists may have more duties, they are not recognized, in fact they are challenged every step of the way by medical doctors. I think if ACCP is going to require a residency for all clinical pharmacists they need to provide more residencies, as well as compensation to those pharmacists for completing more years of education.
-Katelyn Palmer
According ACCP's article, "Formal, postgraduate residency training will become mandatory before one can enter practice.” I am not opposed to requiring post doctoral education for specialized fields in pharmacy; however I do believe that those specialized pharmacists should be compensated both financially and in their scope of practice. In addition, these pharmacists should be properly recognized and respected by medical doctors and the public for their increased duties. As of now, specialized pharmacists go through more school, yet make less money; and despite their increased duties, they are challenged every step of the way by medical doctors who do not feel as though they are qualified to carry out their increased duties. If a post doctoral residency is required, there should be more residencies available, and specialized pharmacists should make more money and be recognized for their increased knowledge, education, and practice experience.
- Katelyn Palmer
I do not think residency should be required for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. As our profession grows so does the area of direct patient care, which is a wonderful thing as most areas are moving towards this. However, obtaining a residency is already difficult for the small percentage that participate in them now-adding a residency requirement will eventually mean for the most part everyone in the profession would have to complete one. I think it would be difficult to establish that many residencies. Adding a residency requirement would require a change in pay I feel as well because it is adding schooling to our already empty bank accounts as students. I think that residency should be a requirement if you choose to specialize within the profession in something such as pediatrics, neuro, etc. As far as the "average" community or hospital pharmacist if the profession is worried about their training than maybe all schools should add another rotation specifically for those areas. If residency programs were required for all direct care patient areas now I would like to think I would have still chosen pharmacy because I enjoy being here and am glad to here, but to be honest it would really depend because it does limit the career in a different way.
I don't think it is feasible to make it mandatory for all pharmacists to be required to have residency training. If they are wanting clinical/clinical specialist then yes I think it is good idea to have a residency.
Could the 4th year rotations be enough to fill this need to further educate the student? What if APhA could come up with some guidelines for experience requirements (length/hours) during a 4th year rotation? I think the student should be responsible for setting up their required rotations in order to meet experience requirements. I do think it is important to have experience with direct patient care, but believe that experience can come from 4th year requirements. However, if residencies do become a requirement I do not think the APhA can require pharmacists that have completed school to participate in a residency as a requirement to work in a field that involves direct patient care. Additionally, students probably gain more experience in a community pharmacy during school, so I don't see a need require a residency for students that will be employed in a community pharmacy.
Much like the authors from the "scope of practice" article a few weeks ago, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy has some inherent bias. Requiring mandatory residence training would be a major win for their part of the profession, as it would bring us that much closer to primary care status and other more hands on clinical roles. The problem however is that the public, business sectors, and even most pharmacists still see the majority of the profession as a primary dispensing role. Bottom line the ACCP is trying to morph the profession to fit a niche that the majority of pharmacists are not currently needed to fill.
-Jabon Efird
I do not think that a residency should be mandatory for Pharmacy students. Pharmacists go through enough school and training as it is. I also think that mandatory residencies for everyone are not feasible. Residencies are hard enough to get know. If you increase the amount of applicants, residencies would have to drastically increase. I do not see this happening anytime soon.
-Curtis Austin
Just from the beginning, it seems that the ACCP is making a lot of assumptions about pharmacists in general. It would almost make more sense if they restricted mandatory residencies to a more specific sector of pharmacists. In our Pharm Care class, we've been discussing Medication Therapy Management and the implementation of this policy by 2013. With demands like MTM reaching out to pharmacists, it does look like many will need special education about counseling and patient interaction (which can all be included in direct patient care). Don't get me wrong, I do not like that mandatory residencies are being proposed, but the ACCP may know what they are talking about. There are some kinks to be worked out, however. If the residencies were made more desirable, I don't think there would be as much of a debate over whether they should be mandatory or not. From what we've seen, salaries aren't great, the hours aren't that great either, and these residencies just seem to be another hoop to jump through just to get to where we want to be. That being said, with increased medication management being pushed into the health care system, pharmacists need to know how to handle direct patient care. If increased direct patient care was taught in pharmacy school, that may eliminate much of the need for mandatory residencies after graduation. Seeing as how I would like to directly interact with patients and I do eventually want to do a residency, making residencies mandatory would not have steered me away from pharmacy school.
I think the ACCP's vision to achieve direct patient care practice by 2020 through mandatory residency training is realistic but there may be some barriers and the mission might not be achieved by 2020 but maybe couple years later after that. The vision will definitely change the pharmacy profession and how many of us will practice in the near future.
- Tam Pham
I agreed with mandatory residency training because right now the pharmacy profession is constantly changing in the way we expand the scope of our practice and how it is going toward patient-centered care. To be able to go through a residency program, I think it will help tremendously on how we can provide better health care to many patients. Also we are bringing the pharmacy profession to the next level to show that we are not only standing behind the counter dispensing medications, but there are much more we can offer to our patients regardless of any setting we practice in. Also, if this vision is carried out in the future, I think there will be more residency programs available including clinical and community to compensate for many pharmacy students in inquiry a residency program.
In conclusion, I think going through a mandatory residency program will not do any harm, but only benefit and give us the flexibility in practicing under any setting, helps evolve our profession, and overall we are able to provide better care to our patient and that should be our main goal.
I agree with most of my peers that there should be an option for both participating and not participating in a residency – depending on which field of pharmacy you are interested in. I am sure that many students now would have reconsidered pharmacy school if 2-year residency programs were mandatory after graduation. I personally am not sure how it would have affected my desire to attend pharmacy school. I’ve always been interested in residency after school; however, with the post-graduate debt that I will have racked up, it is comforting to know that other options that are more financially responsible exist for me.
I have a hard time believing that enough pharmacy residencies will be available for all newly graduated pharmDs. With this being the case, would only some graduates be able to start work immediately? What about the rest? I think if the accreditation standards for residency programs were expanded to accommodate more settings and if the financial incentives were made more reasonable (either through increasing the resident’s salary or compensating the resident’s tuition debt), this idea of mandatory residencies would be a lot more amiable.
It does make sense, with today’s progressive health care reforms, that some day, residencies will be required for all pharmacists. In a few years, retail pharmacy may reform and look more like clinical pharmacy practice. With increasing popularity in collaborative practice agreements and the introduction of a permanent CPT codes, some pharmacists are able to bill for their MTM services. What will differentiate practicing pharmacists from non-clinical pharmacists? What is stopping patients from going the cheaper route and consulting their local independent pharmacy for free instead of going to the hospital to get billed for seeing the CPP there and obtaining untrained (in the sense of residency-trained) patient care counseling? There needs to be a way to standarize the system, whether that includes mandating residencies or not.
I personally don't think that residency should be mandatory for all pharmacy student. Firstly, not all pharmacy career needs residency experience. For community pharmacists working in retails setting, they have to attend training and with their doctoral degree, they are well prepared for the profession. I know for clinical practice, residency is great. However, not all pharmacy students will end up in clinical settings. Secondly, if residency is required, with the current limited residency opportunity, many pharmacy
students cannot complete their requirements to work. Finally, although residency is a great experience for pharmacy student, making residency mandatory will add a big burden on the pharmacy students.
Diep Phan
For me, residency is an important option for new pharmacists to have, but requiring it of all students is unnecessary. If we consider our services as a pharmacist as a product, which it is, then the laws of economics will shape the type of product we offer. It’s all about supply and demand. If the demand for pharmacist is retail settings remains high, then there is no need for a residency, because those without residencies will find jobs just like those with them. However, if demand falls or the supply of pharmacists exceeds demand, then those with community residencies will be more marketable. In this way, the requirement for residency is self-modulating.
This perhaps rings even more true to clinical settings. Whether residencies are required or not, it seems that many clinical employers require a residency for certain occupations. Having a federally required residency to work in a setting where the employer requires a residency is redundant. Although these residency requirements for clinical occupations are not legislation, is sure feels like a real requirement if I can’t get the job without one.
I do agree that there is a need for great expansion in residency availability though, because acquiring specialized skills will help to further the profession and will prove invaluable if pharmacists ever achieve provider status. I can also see provider pharmacists being required to do a 2 year residency, but I think that’s another blog.
In my opinion, I do not believe residency training should be mandatory for all pharmacists. Not all pharmacists require even more additional training in fields that aren’t relevant to them, i.e. community, hospital, independent, compounding, mail order, etc. At most, I can see residency a little more helpful to clinical or ambulatory care because they work more closely as physicians than other positions.
While the ACCP does report some positive outcomes, I can’t say this proposal is for everyone. With the rate of 8000 graduates /year and only 1700 residency positions available, I highly doubt there will be enough residency positions available by the time this becomes mandatory. This will undoubtedly lead to a decrease in pharmacy positions filled due to a stagnated rate of having graduates go through residency before they are even able to practice in the field.
Yes, I do agree with the article’s tone for residency training being mandatory for pharmacists involved in direct patient care, however that is most likely not possible by the year 2020, unless a lot of change were to happen on the side of hospitals and clinical settings to offer numerous more residency programs so that there is no shortage of residencies for graduating pharmacists, and also currently practicing pharmacists interested in redirecting their focus toward a more direct patient care type setting. What is considered as direct patient care, is also something that is important in how to address this issue. Typically I believe it refers mainly to hospitals, private practices, and long term care facilities. With the change coming about in other areas of pharmacy such as more direct patient care situations being integrated into community/retail pharmacies, such as MTM and immunizations, I think the term direct patient care could apply to these pharmacists as well. If that is the case, however I believe the residency program should not be made mandatory for the relatively broad term “direct patient care.” I think it should instead be more specifically mandatory for areas of pharmacy that focus entirely on more in depth levels of direct patient care, such as a clinical pharmacist practitioner or a hospital staff pharmacist.
Along with this mandate, however I think those areas of pharmacy requiring a completed residency should raise their standards of salary compensation for those pharmacists to surpass those of community retail pharmacists and be more appropriately matched with the level of expertise they are offering in their services. I think those pharmacists going into the retail setting, should not be required to complete a residency. I think pharmacy school adequately prepares pharmacists for all of the duties of a community pharmacist, and experience gained in the field is the best thing they can get to further that knowledge and expertise. If residency were required to be a community pharmacist(and that were my intention), I might have reconsidered the profession. I have planned on a residency, to begin with, since my intention is to become a clinical pharmacist, so mandatory or not, I plan on completing 1 or 2 residencies in order to gain all the clinical expertise I need to fit into whatever clinical setting I finally decide on.
Evan Palmieri
Much like the authors from the "scope of practice" article a few weeks ago, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy has some inherent bias. Requiring mandatory residence training would be a major win for their part of the profession, as it would bring us that much closer to primary care status and other more hands on clinical roles. The problem however is that the public, business sectors, and even most pharmacists still see the majority of the profession as a primary dispensing role. Bottom line the ACCP is trying to morph the profession to fit a niche that the majority of pharmacists are not currently needed to fill.
-Jabon Efird
I believe that it would not only be very difficult for this to be a requirement due to the number of residencies available, but it is also not very realistic or practical for all graduating pharmacists. I believe, especially with the Wingate curriculum, that we are gaining enough hands on experience in the "real world" of pharmacy. I don't believe that everyone should be required to do a residency because our 6+ years of pharmacy training should be sufficient. Residencies are great for those who want to specialize but not practical for those going into community settings.
There would be many benefits that would result from mandatory residencies, including improved patient care and specialty skills. Because the role of pharmacists keeps being redefined, it makes sense that further training could only ensure better care. However, there are also many issues that would need to be resolved before this requirement could be implemented. For instance, there are not enough schools to meet the demand of residencies for all PharmD candidates, especially by the ACCP's projected date of 2020. The issue of compensation for increased education and scope of practice would also complicate issues. Although mandatory residencies seem like a good idea in theory, until there is a definite answer to some of these issues, it doesn't seem realistic.
I do not believe that ACCP's stance on residency includes retail pharmacist. It would appear that the only practice of pharmacy that it pertains too is hospital and clinical pharmacy. This is just simply my interpretation of reading between the lines. I have nothing against the implementation of a required residency. Obviously, for those of us that wish to become clinical pharmacist, we should have at least a 1 year residency to gain experience and expertise before we are allowed to effect any positive outcomes for our patients. Hospital pharmacist need not have a 1 year commitment, but tailor the needs for their requirements to a shorter span, for example 2-3 months.
Now, as far as retail is concerned, they should be required to complete additional CE in their first year that pertains solely to interaction with patients. As we discussed today in IPPE, CE requirements for retail is currently only 15 hours/year. Lets add another 10 (1st year only) that is completely centered on patient monitoring, and modification of drug therapy.
I think that residencies can be a great opportuntity for people, but it certainly should not be mandatory. It is not needed for every area of pharmacy and trying to define what direct patient care/ contact is can be confusing. In the future, we may see more people getting residencies and it becoming required due to the amount of people desiring to become competetive and specialized. However, with the battle of the PharmD degree won the mandatory residency might be far off due to the fact that people may feel the educational requirments have already just been elevated and defined.
I personally believe that we should not be required to have residency training. We have 3 years of in-class training and a year of training on rotations. I believe that we should be prepared by that training because not everyone wants to specialize.
I sometimes feel as if I'm an odd duck because I want to work retail. In a community pharmacy residency, I don't see how it could be much different than actually working in a pharmacy as an employee. I do not feel as if I would gain as much more from the experience than I would actually working and earning a normal salary. A community pharmacist does, according to the article, constitute as direct care so if it were required, community pharmacists would be required to have a residency.
I can easily see how it could be required for being a clinical pharmacist or for someone specializing but it should not be required for everyone.
-Brittany Logston
I like the fact that residencies are not mandatory for all pharmacy jobs. Some fields of pharmacy should require a residency since the fields are specialized and need a specific knowledge base in order to be effective. However, in settings like in retail pharmacy which is a more generalized practice, I don't think that a residency should be mandatory.
I don't think mandatory residency is too bad because in the end it will make us feel more comfortable in our practice no matter what settings you are working in. Having said that I will propose that the length of residency should be adjusted depending on the area of pharmacy being pursued. In addition to that, students should not be made to find their own institutions but they must be made available for them.
-Vida Ohene Agyeman.
I don't believe we should make residencies mandatory, but we should push them as much as possible. Many people come here to be a major part of healthcare without the invasiveness of being a "doctor." If you force residencies you will lose some great pharmacists potentially in the future. It will also push some great minds away from pharmacy and probably toward medical school instead.
I for one love the pharmacy field and will be pursuing a residency, but would not like it if it were being forced. The 2-year undergrad, and 4-year grad school should be plenty for any pharmacist to work with. Beyond that education should be an option available to us, not forced upon us. I especially feel that residency is not necessarily needed if you are looking to go into a retail setting. It should be considered for a more clinical setting.
I don’t believe that every pharmacist should have to do a residency because of the salary problems that have already been brought up, but also that it might make pharmacists less competitive. If every pharmacist does a residency, potential employers would have to scrutinize a lot more over their resumes and easy picks for the job might not stand out as much.
-Jessica Osteen
Since coming to pharmacy school, the concept of residencies has reoccurred again and again. I have been told that it was very important for pharmacists to complete residencies, yet at the same time I am being told that there are not a large number of available residencies. In some cases I believe they are a great option for students. However, I do not believe that they should be required, especially because of the low number available. I feel like with the increasing number of pharmacy students emerging into the pharmacy world, it is just another way to make you more competitive. However, if everyone does a residence, then what will be used to make you more competitive? The need to make yourself stand out among others is driving everyone to complete more and more work before they enter into our careers as pharmacists.
-Brittany Rector
According to the ACCP's position statement, their definition of direct patient care seems to be more directed towards hospital pharmacists. I do not necessarily think that residencies should be made mandatory for every pharmacist. However, I do believe that they could be beneficial to hospital as well as community pharmacists. Not everyone has the desire to work in a hospital setting or to specialize in a particular area. Therefore, I do not think residencies should be mandatory for all pharmacists, but a residency should be something we all give careful consideration to.
I feel like the Mandatory Residency Training is not a feasable concept in today's world of pharmacy. Due to the lack of positions available it is just not probable that every pharmacy student will be able to find a spot in a residency program. I also feel that a residency is not going to serve everyone in their field of pharmacy. I am not sure how a hospital residency would benefit someone going into academia. In addition, I think that a residency training would defer people from pursuing pharmacy instead of a MD because it would take the same amount of time and Phamacists are compensated much less than a physician.
We reiterated in class today that residencies shouldn’t be mandatory for pharmacy school students upon graduation. Since there isn’t sufficient capacity for all of the new graduates, it would be difficult to require one or two years of residency practice. Also, residents are paid a small percentage of an average first-year salary. It makes residencies unappealing due to the amount of financial debt incurred during four years of pharmacy school.
We also talked about funding. Would the government fund these residencies or would private companies be required to implement residency programs?
It appears barriers to this situation outnumber the benefits of requiring pharmacy graduates to specialize.
Mandatory Residence Training
Having mandatory residence training would be a good thing for the field of pharmacy. It would not only sharpen pharmacist’s medical knowledge as a whole, but also help pharmacists relate to other clinical health professionals and vice versus. This opportunity would also help the pharmacy industry to grab a firmer and bigger foot hold in the world of medicine. Mandatory residency is a good move, a smart move, and, after watching video about a machine dispensing medication, a much needed move. If pharmacists don’t push for more responsibility in the world medicine, they may find themselves looking for new career paths.
When looking at the definition of direct patient care, it seems the vast majority of pharmacists work in a direct care role. I don't think compulsory residencies are a good idea for a variety of reasons, but primarily because they would detract from recent graduates who are actively engaged in earning a residency post-graduation. These residencies are a source of differentiation and/or specialization for the doctors participating, and those sacrificing a certain amount of immediate financial compensation should be noted as unique. While I'm not saying I have ruled out a residency, I would certainly not have entered a doctor of pharmacy program if it was compulsory that all of my peers complete a residency.
As a pharmacy student, I think residency training for direct patient care career is mandatory. we, of course, do get trained during four years of pharmacy program by professionals, however, i think one extra year of residency training would help them to get trained in specific area that they are willing to work at. After graduate of pharmacy program, i should be expected to perform as a professional pharmacist.
Though residencies offer tremendous benefits for new pharmacy school graduates, I don't believe that they should be made mandatory. It is one thing to encourage a student to pursue a residency, but to make them mandatory almost defeats the purpose of having them in the first place (other than an extended period of practical experience where one can gain more knowledge of pharmacy on the job). Employers, especially those at hospitals and clinical settings, try to look for graduates who stand out from the rest. Should residencies be required, it will be much harder to become competitive and gain an edge above the rest of the other new graduates who are applying for the same spot that you are. As we discussed in class, residencies are already somewhat difficult to come by. To make residencies mandatory would mean having to make residencies readily available, which would take a tremendous amout of time, money, and effort.
This week I agree with the majority of the class in that most, if not all, graduating pharmacy students should be very well capable and proficient in a broad range of pharmacy skills without the inclusion of mandatory residency in the general curriculum. Upon graduation, all students should be able to successfully carry through a defined standard set of responsibilities despite the branch of pharmacy they choose to participate in. However, should a student opt to specialize in a more specific facet of the profession, residency then -- and only then -- should be deemed mandatory.
-James Agtuca
Post a Comment