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?
56 comments:
I believe that requiring a residency for all direct patient care pharmacists is a little unreasonable. We go through detailed courses and numerous rotations during our doctorate program. This education and experience should be sufficient to carry out most direct patient care positions. I see the point in residencies for specialization in pediatric, psychiatric, oncologic, etc pharmacy, but not for a community setting or even hospital pharmacists that directly interact with patients.
I also do not see how there could ever be enough residency positions for that many graduates. People are fighting for them as it is. I believe the entry level pharmacy standard should remain as the PharmD without any residencies. Graduates should be able to make the decision for themselves if they would like to pursue something more in depth or not.
The tone of this article seems very biased in requiring residencies for pharmacists involved in direct patient care. The article presents their opinion on this matter very clearly, with the goal of making residencies a pre-requisite for the pharmacy career by 2020. I do not agree with this tone. I feel pharmacy school itself provides each student with a wealth of knowledge and experience through classwork and rotations which will prepare them for their pharmacy careers. As far as more specialized practices, I can see a residency being helpful. I heard a professor recently say one year of a residency is equivalent to 3.5 years of experience.
Direct patient care is when there is no middle man between the patient and the pharmacist. The pharmacist (directly) interacts with the patient. I think it should apply to hospital pharmacists when the pharmacist is specialized in a specific field.
The expectation of a new graduate of a pharmacy program should be that they are well equipped with everything they need to succeed in their pharmacy career. The experience he/she gains as they begin their careers will further their realm of practice. In order to practice as an independent clinical pharmacist, one should need a year of experience as a practicing pharmacist.
If residency programs were required for you to be a community pharmacist or a staff pharmacist in a hospital I would have still chosen pharmacy.
If residencies do become mandatory, the amount of residencies available needs to increase. This would hopefully decrease the competitiveness of residencies. For now, I disagree with the article and think residencies should not be mandatory.
Initially upon reading this topic headline I was in opposition to this idea of “mandatory residency training for all pharmacists”. I was appalled at the fact that our choice to choose to do a residency was taken away and replaced with a requirement. My first thought was geared to the financial aspect, thinking how much more in interest our heavy student loans would accumulate. Then my thoughts went to, the competitiveness that surrounds acquiring a residency position. But after reading the article, it became clear to me that this change that ACCP and APhA are pushing for will be beneficial all the way around.
Since community is moving more towards direct-patient care with MTMs and disease management at the pharmacist-patient level it would be highly beneficial for the patient on the receiving end and also for the pharmacist on the counseling end. The article makes reference to evidence-based studies and surveys that show that the competency of clinical skills of first year students was at 77% within the first three months of residency training. This is phenomenal! The biggest question I ask P4 students is “Do you feel ready to go out on your own and counsel patients and answer questions?”. I want to be that kind of pharmacist, I don’t want to shy away from patients’ questions. This movement would be beneficial for community and hospital pharmacists as well as the profession as a whole.
I do think it is reasonable to require residencies for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. I don’t think this is far-fetched because it is already expected for many positions. Pharmacists that provide direct patient care have an added level of responsibility in caring for patients. It is important that they are competent and confident in their abilities. Especially as the pharmacist’s role is expanding it is necessary to ensure patient safety and increase the public’s trust. Residency training helps develop problem-solving and allow the pharmacist to practice their skills, as well as develop new skills. As community pharmacists and staff pharmacists begin devoting their efforts to providing direct patient care, it may be necessary to require residencies for these positions as well.
Laura Bowers
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
Although there may be a need for residency training to work in certain areas of pharmacy, I do not agree that it should be mandatory. There are many different paths a pharmacist can take, many of them not needing skills developed in residency. In setting up their argument the ACCP makes many assumptions on how the field will unfold. They assume that direct patient care will be handled by all pharmacists by 2020(Pharmacotherapy 1), which seems a stretch and base further assumptions on this.
Further I dislike the feeling I get reading the article that since they believe pharmacists should do residencies, that they are setting it so can be railroaded through. As they mention that "even if state boards do not require residency training as a prerequisite for direct patient care practice, payers and employers can provide powerful incentives to meet this requirement. This could be accomplished by basing pharmacist eligibility for practice privileges and payment on professional credentials that document appropriate education and training."( Pharmacotherapy 2) It seems that they are looking at different was of forcing this on us even if it is not agreed that it is needed.
Their argument why it is necessary seemed lacking. "factors motivating pharmacy students to pursue residency training include a desire to gain additional knowledge, experience, and specialized training"(3), additional knowledge, experience and special training, are not necessary they are extra. "seeking residency training include enhanced marketability"( Pharmacotherapy 3), "enhanced ability to obtain a desirable position"( Pharmacotherapy 4), "enhanced employment opportunities"( Pharmacotherapy 4), If everyone does it, there is no enhancement. "Those who completed residency training were more likely to be active within national pharmacy organizations by maintaining memberships in multiple professional organizations, holding elected offices, and attending and delivering presentations at meetings"( Pharmacotherapy 4), residency is elective and the subset that pursues it is already showing initiative, or desire not necessarily in the rest of the pharmacist population, this purposed relationship is likely circumstantial. The list goes on longer than I have desire nor see need to expound.
Although they may be looking out for the general good of the profession. There are pharmacists filling the residency programs. The programs are at capacity and if more openings were made they would be filled as there are more applicants than positions. Since there are more residency programs now available and likely more will be available in the future the number of pharmacists with this training will continue to increase until it finds equilibrium with need.
Ben Roseberry
Doctor of pharmacy candidate 2017
WUSOP
reference
(Pharmacotherapy 2006;26(5):722–733)
I do not agree that residency training should be mandatory for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. This should still be an option that some people want to do or not.
To me, direct patient care is when a health care provider is much more involved with the patient, making suggestions on drug therapies tailored specifically to the patient, and then monitors their individual results. Community and hospital pharmacists will benefit from residencies, but I don’t think mandating it right now is the right thing to do. If they want everyone to be required to complete a residency, then they should come up with other ways of slowly introducing it as a requirement. I think once you start forcing people to do something they enjoy, it becomes less enjoyable.
I believe the expectations for a new graduate from a doctor of pharmacy program should be ready to practice as independent clinical pharmacists without the need of mandatory residency training. This would be up to the school and the program the student is in. If the program is as wonderful as Wingate’s :) , then the student will graduate and be competent and confidently able to work in any appropriate setting. The program should incorporate skills and experiences that the student pharmacist will deal with after graduation.
Even if residencies were required, I would still have chosen to come to pharmacy school because this is what I want to do. Just because I don’t want something to be mandatory doesn’t mean I wouldn’t pursue my passion.
I believe that residency training should be mandatory for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. The reason I think this, is that in pharmacy school we are not trained to deal in this high stress environment. I understand that we have rotations that sort of show us what it is like to be a clinical pharmacist, but will we be able to think quickly and be able to make decisions that directly affect patients? Clinical pharmacy is something completely different from community pharmacy. Yes, you are dispensing medication in clinical pharmacy, but you are not figuring out how much to dose the patient in community pharmacy. The patient's life is on the line at all times. If you screw up, it could be fatal. There's no going back on that. The article states that pharmacists that are involved with direct patient care will be compensated for their work. This sort of reminds me of MTM. It is not the same as counseling, which is a job requirement for community pharmacists. Medication Therapy Management involves interacting with the patient in a whole new level. You sit down with them and look at all the current medications they are taking, whether it be OTC or prescribed, and look at interactions and see what drugs are helping and what are not. This is what direct patient care is. And this is why clinical pharmacists should be paid for this. Direct patient care should not be required for community pharmacists. They don't have the time to talk to patients for that long. Especially if they are the only pharmacist working at an independent pharmacy. One thing that is worth mentioning is the pay difference between community pharmacists and clinical pharmacists. Clinical pharmacists get paid significantly less than community pharmacists. If residencies are incorporated for clinical pharmacists, then they will most likely get paid more which is always a good thing. If residencies were required for community pharmacists I still would have decided to come to pharmacy school. It's something I have always dreamed of doing and a residency for one year is not so bad. But at the same time I do not think residencies for community pharmacists are necessary. The skills we need are all mostly taught to us in school. We learn how to compound, what the top 200 drugs are, how to handle scheduled drugs, and a lot more. So in conclusion, clinical pharmacists should be required to have residency training. They will probably get paid more. Also, every day is different in the clinical setting. A patient can have new signs and symptoms appear at any time. It's a high stress environment and pharmacists should be better prepared for it.
Ashmira Patel
Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
I do not think direct patient care applies to community pharmacists but does apply to clinical pharmacists. If a residency is mandatory for ALL graduating pharmacy students, there needs to be different tracks. For instance, clinical pharmacists need a residency involving direct patient care whereas community pharmacists’ residency should be tailored more towards the focus of their practice—counseling, possibly MTM, immunizations, public education etc. Furthermore, what about pharmacists who want to teach, be involved in government or research? A direct patient care residency might not be applicable to their future career and would put them in situations they do not want to be in which could lead to errors or lack of motivation which is not in the patients’ or pharmacists’ best interest. Also, their employers in their career track may not value a residency. This all being said, the education of pharmacists will adapt to fit the public’s need and expectations. With all the changes in healthcare technology, insurance, regulations, pharmacists’ scope of practice and so on, the dust will have to settle before any huge requirements for residencies need to take place.
Kristin Payne
2017 PharmD Candidate
WUSOP
First, let's define direct patient care. Direct patient care could be a broad term where the pharmacist can help the patient find a solution to a problem they may be having with their medication or an issue affecting their health that is medication related. However, ACCP (as well as others who want mandatory residencies) are trying to define direct patient care in the sense that the pharmacist almost acts like a doctor to the patient and is on the edge of performing diagnosis for the patient. I believe that being a pharmacist who "could almost give a patient a diagnosis" is a great place for some to be, but this is not an area well suited for everyone. I believe that a knowledge of drugs and an ability to use this knowledge of drugs to help treat the patient are critical, but I do not believe the pharmacist has to have completed a residency to have this knowledge. Being able to have a good knowledge of the drugs and being able to apply it to patients should be the minimum requirements for a graduate of pharmacy school. What if a doctor of pharmacy wants to be highly specialized, should they be able to practice independently right away? In my opinion, I don't believe that is a good idea for the patient or the pharmacist, but again most people do not want to be clinical pharmacists, and is not necessary for every one.
I believe when you read any article, you always first have to consider the source of the article. The ACCP wrote this article and ACCP stands for American College of Clinical Pharmacy. "College" and "Clinical" are words that stick out to me when I see ACCP. Obviously, this article is a very bias article in the sense that it is calling for all doctors of pharmacy to complete a residency. While the article points out that most doctors have to complete a residency, I don't believe that a doctor of pharmacy should have to complete a residency. After a doctor of pharmacy has completed 4 years of education, in a pharmacy school and passed the board exam, this should be enough to work in a pharmacy as a pharmacist. However, again ACCP is bias. ACCP is probably made up of pharmacists who became educators and therefore have very bias opinions about how much education a pharmacist should have. My summation of ACCP's position statement is that they are calling for more bureaucracy of pharmacists in a sense. I believe that one of the greatest things about a PharmD degree is that there are so many avenues you can take without having to follow arbitrary rules of a bureaucratic organization. ACCP's position statement combined with the fact that many of ACCP's members are more than likely educators makes their position statement seem very bias and more like a call for bureaucracy of pharmacists, than a want for better care of the patient. Honestly, I am not quite sure of ACCP's motives, but I am very curious.
-Michael Crawford
I personally don't like things being made mandatory. I feel that residencies can be very useful for many areas of pharmacy (including direct patient care areas) but I feel that making this mandatory is the wrong approach. I think that a better approach would be to a more "demand" sided approach. If better paying jobs in direct patient care were starting to require residencies, then the more motivated and harder working individuals would able to get these residencies and therefore land those jobs. This would retain the choice of residency while adding a motivation and value to completing a residency.
I don’t think residency should be mandatory for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. Pharmacists get enough exposure and training during rotations and class to not have to be forced into a residency. I do think that it should be mandatory for specializations such as veterinary or pediatric pharmacy. If residency did become mandatory they should guarantee the positions and spots are available for residency. Right now residency is so competitive and spots are limited so it brings up the question of who will be in charge of creating the spots for the residency. I really don’t think it’s necessary for community pharmacists or staff pharmacists to be required a residency because these are settings and experiences we gain in rotations and we shouldn’t have to go through an extra year or two of residency repeating the same thing. Given that the curriculum adequately educates pharmacy students then the expectations of a pharmD can depend on each individual student’s experiences along with the education received which could lead one graduate to being capable of running an independent pharmacy and another graduate to be a staff or community pharmacist. I don’t think there’s a set guideline for expectations of what a graduate with a pharmD can do but there might be basic guidelines of what can be expected from a graduate who has a pharmD.
Pooja Duggaraju
I think that unless we are going to specialize in a specific field that requires extra expertise outside of what we generally learn in Pharmacy School then no residencies should be required. I think all paths in Pharmacy (with the exception of information or research based careers such as biomedical informatics) involve direct patient care. We should have a concrete understanding as well as the necessary skills needed to handle direct patient care when we graduate from Pharmacy School. Personally, I wouldn't mind doing a residency, however, if residencies were required a few things would need to change. First of all, Pharmacy residencies would need to be less competitive and more available. Second of all, there should be more incentive; if we're going to have the same amount of training as medical students we should be paid a more comparable amount. Lastly, there should be more specialized career opportunities available for Pharmacists that would have a need for a residency.
Cristina Negron
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
Direct patient care as defined by the article is the involvement of the pharmacist in observing and contributing to the selection of medications as well as the monitoring of patient specific drug therapy. The article leans more towards the pursuance of residency training and mandatory residency training for pharmacists. I believe that residency training should be mandatory, at least for those going into the clinical world and not focusing more on the retail world. However, this would only be feasible if employers would be willing to compensate with higher pay and more practice privileges given to those with residency training. Also, there would need to be more places offering residency programs in order to fill positions for all pharmacists.
Rebecca Andersen
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I think this article has a good point and a bad point in regards to mandatory residencies. I think requiring all graduates to do a residency is a little unrealistic. Some people may choose to do retail pharmacy and I don't think you would need one to function as a great retail pharmacist. Some students may also not have the grades or desire to do a residency and being forced into one may not produce success. On the other hand, I feel like this may benefit pharmacists who wish have more patient centered care or practice in a clinical setting. If you want to own an independent pharmacy and provide more MTM or counseling services, being resident trained could allow you to be considered as a healthcare provider. This would allow you to be compensated by third parties for providing a larger array or services. The other problem I see is that there are only a limited number of slots available. The article stated that the anticipated graduates per year at 10,000. Finding every graduate a slot would be nearly impossible and is unrealistic for residency providers. I also feel that requiring residencies may increase competition for specialized residencies.
Tavie Laws
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
I believe that requiring a residency for all "direct patient care" is ideal in theory, but not something you can be easily apply. If your end goal in pharmacy is to work as a retail pharmacist, there is no need for a residency. Pharmacy school adequately prepares you for this role within the profession. However, after you finish pharmacy school and you decide that you want to work in a direct patient care role, I do believe that the extra experience would be beneficial. However, I don’t think it should be required. A residency is something a pharmacist does to better prepare them in a field in direct interest to them. I do not know what the exact statistic is, but a large percent of pharmacists already choose to do a residency. Requiring a residency will only increase the competition to get one and some people may end up in a residency that they are not interested in because it was mandatory to do one. A pharmacist that is not passionate about their work will only increase the amount of mistakes within the profession. Furthermore, requiring everyone to have a residency completed will mean that everyone that is currently a “specialist” will no longer be a specialist.
No, I do not think residency training should be required for pharmacists that are involved with direct patient care. For example, PA's are all involved with patient care and they are only required 2 years of post-undergraduate schooling. Depending on the level of patient care, I would agree that a residency should be required. Critical patient care, yes. Obviously, a residency would be required for these level of epertise.
-Taylor Morrisette
There are pros and cons to the article by ACCP. I agree to the tone of the article that residency training should be mandatory, but I think it should be mandatory to specialized pharmacies such as infectious disease pharmacy, or oncology pharmacy. I don’t think it’s necessary to do a residency for community pharmacy even though it involves direct patient care. I believe that direct patient care involves patient care in all community and hospital pharmacies. Although I think residency should be mandatory to hospital pharmacies, I don’t think it should apply to all community pharmacies because community pharmacies involves more dispensing than direct patient care.
All graduates of a doctor of pharmacy program should be able to work in almost all pharmacies because the program includes rotation training, so the graduates are familiar with the different environments and different job duties within various pharmacies. I think that if residency programs were required for post-graduates then a lot of things should be considered before applying to pharmacy school. The tuition that is required after graduation would be tough because a resident would not receive the average income that an entry pharmacist earn. Secondly, the residency program needs to be highly funded so more opportunities would open for graduates. What would happen to graduates that could not find a residency program because it’s not available? Many people would not choose pharmacy school because of that. Being able to choose makes a big different because some graduates just want to be able to start working after pharmacy school instead of spending two more years of studying.
After considering all the outcomes, I believe residency training should be optional.
I feel that this article, while seeming slightly biased, does have it's own point in the matter of a required residency. Having done a residency opens a new perspective in a pharmacist's eyes, since it allows a pharmacist to have seen both a clinical side of patients and also their own perspective in their field.
In a retail field, if pharmacists were required to have completed a residency, they may be able to have a better outlook on a problem a patient may come in with. Residency experience also opens up the field for more responsibility within a pharmacist, and more of a medical practicioner role. This way a pharmacist could more easily do recommendations for a patient, or medication therapy management.
There is nothing really wrong with asking an important healthcare professional to have had more experience. The argument of having the residency required poses it's own very valid point, however in some fields of pharmacy it should definitely not be required- such as nuclear pharmacy or compounding in a lab where little patient interaction might be found. Perhaps, instead of having a definite required residency, there could be a pay raise for those pharmacists that have done residencies. For instance, a retail pharmacist that has done a residency might make more money rather than one who hasn't. This would provide incentive for completing the residency and thus giving the pharmacist more experience and knowledge.
Karen Ross
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
Although I think all direct-patient care pharmacists, mainly clinical pharmacists, would benefit from completing a residency, I do not think that having a mandatory residency for direct patient care is necessary. Just having the residency available plus the competitive nature of these careers will take care of itself in a way. By this I mean that only those students with a completed residency will obtain these jobs.
I also think that having a residency for those people who want to practice in a community or even a research area would not benefit very much from a residency like this. I also think that throughout pharmacy school all student pharmacists get plenty of opportunities to practice their patient to patient interaction skills and counseling within our experiential responsibilities. I believe just having the residencies out there for those people who want to go into direct patient care is acceptable, but making it mandatory seems unrealistic.
-Jacob Gibson
PharmD candidate 2017
WUSOP
I do not fully agree with the tone that this article has because by the time pharmacists reach the end of their schooling experience in addition to work experience, they should not be required to have residency training. Pharmacists devote a full four years to direct study of their field and they become experts in the profession. Here at WUSOP, we have many rotations and plenty of work experience. By the time we finish school, we are ready to start working as a pharmacist where we are ready to work. With the time we put into school and the money we put into it, we should be able to choose what we want to do concerning residencies because we are experts in the field, prepared with or without the residency. Some residencies are necessary but not for all pharmacists.
Direct patient care is self-explanatory in the name—it is working directly with patients and not working behind the scenes where you don’t deal with patients. I do not think it needs to apply to all community and hospital pharmacists. To me, I do not even think working in a community pharmacy should require a residency unless the pharmacist is specialized in a certain area. Likewise, hospital pharmacists who are specialized in a certain area should do a residency but not all hospital pharmacists need to do one.
By the time graduation from pharmacy school comes, the student/soon-to-be-pharmacist is ready to get out and start working and applying their knowledge and experience to their own profession. They can be ready and prepared to be independent clinical pharmacists if that’s where they are going. Help could be needed with working in an independent pharmacy but it is possible to start working in one right after school.
I would still choose to go to pharmacy school whether I would have to do a residency or not but it is inconvenient to have to do a residency. Coming out of school with a bunch of debt is not optimal but I am also not here for myself. If that is the way it would be, then so be it because this is where I was led to be.
I think this article displays a viable topic that is something all pharmacy students should consider in thought. The traditional roles of pharmacist are changing rapidly with the advancement of technology and pharmacy tech roles moving forwards. We should look at residency as something that would further our academic knowledge and practice. It should also be seen as an additional tag that could be used as a "foot in the door". Also I think that the salary during residency would have to be dramatically changed due to the low salaries to work ratio that is already in place. With a PharmD a pharmacist should be paid the appropriate salary that averages across the board.
In the end...I believe that the residency should remain optional for the time being because residency potions are low. I believe that the position of pharmacy will change over the next few years...but the change should be critically thought out and slowly formed into what position is viable in the future for the field of study
I do not agree with the article that residencies should be required for all pharmacists involved with direct patient care. I believe that the amount of education (particularly the rotations) required to be a pharmacist is more than enough to prepare us for direct patient care duties. I do, however, believe that residencies are very beneficial, especially for pharmacists who want to specialize in a particular field.
Unfortunately, the amount of residencies available as well as the amount of pay offered makes even the "optional" residency difficult to obtain. I want to pursue a residency after pharmacy school, so this requirement would not have effected my decision to come to pharmacy school.
Nicole Free
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I do not believe that every student should be required to do a residency as many students want to do retail pharmacy and residency wouldn’t really benefit you in the long run. In my opinion, a retail pharmacist does not need the extra experience since they learn the material within school. However, I do believe that if you want to do clinical pharmacy (within the hospital) a residency should be required. After shadowing in transplant pharmacy at UNC, I realized the value of a residency for a pharmacist who might want to specialized. I do not believe school can replace the hands-on experience that a residency offers. I believe residency depends on where you want to be later on in life. Also, I believe if everyone was required a residency after graduation there would not be preceptors for the mass amount of graduates needing a residency.
Jared Frye
I believe that instilling a mandatory residency is a little overbearing. I do not believe that it should be mandatory simply because not every path in pharmacy requires specialization in a particular area. I feel that the extra experience that is involved in a first year residency can be learned on the job wherever you are at depending on the path you take. Also, community pharmacists have to be knowledgeable and in skilled in many different areas because of the host of people they encounter day to day. So a residency that pin point’s one specialization would not suffice for the wide variety of situations that could possibly occur. There is nothing wrong with wanting a residency to specialize in a particular area that you are passionate about, but again a PGY1 residency should not be mandatory for all pharmacists.
Dustin Webster
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
After reading the article, I believe that making residencies for pharmacist is unnecessary. I do agree that in some aspects of pharmacy, a residency would be beneficial, not only to the patient, but to the knowledge and skill set of the pharmacist. Settings such as clinical pharmacy, or any hospital type setting would benefit from the knowledge from a pharmacy, but the other categories of pharmacy wouldn’t be necessary. It would benefit the patient and overall health-care system if pharmacist were mandated to have a residency, but I believe it would have a negative impact on the pharmacist. Many pharmacists would not want to go into a clinical setting so a residency might not be appealing. Also, many pharmacists would want to work right after receiving their degree, due to financial situations or other factors, so an extra yea in academics would be another burden on them. In the case of WUSOP, our P4 years already require numerous amounts of clinical hours, so I don’t believe more residency for community pharmacist would be necessary.
I believe that the competitiveness of residency and selectiveness of residencies make it unique and special. It allows pharmacist to become distinguished and specialized. This makes it a unique experience for those select few individuals who wish to pursue a residency to pursue their specific interest. I believe it should be the pharmacist choice to go into extra training and specialization, not the board’s choice. The expectations for a new graduate from a pharmacy program should be the ability to pursue a direction of pharmacy they wish to pursue, whether it involves a residency or not. Depending on their knowledge, interest and experience, then they should be able to practice as independent clinical pharmacist. If residencies were mandatory for me to become a pharmacist, then I would still choose pharmacy school. Pharmacy school is a long process and journey regardless, and still holds my interest and focus. Doing a residency was already in my mindset and consideration, so my choice to choose pharmacy school would not change.
Chris Chu
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I believe that making a residency required is not a reasonable idea. A residency is something that should be pursued if one is looking to specialize in a certain area of pharmacy. The type of work for someone who wants to work in a retail pharmacy covers more of a broad spectrum of pharmacy and does not require the degree of specialization that something like an ambulatory program might entail. Instead of requiring a residency, there should be more incentives for those who want to pursue one. In addition, there also should be more opportunities made for those who want to do a residency.
Trent Tysinger
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I think that residency training would without a doubt be beneficial but I think that making it a mandate would be ridiculous. Unless the ACCP can increase the number of clinical residencies available to graduating pharmacists the number that could provide this level of care will dwindle. I just don't see how its logistically possible. Another possible deterrent to mandatory residency, is the low amount of pay offered to those participating in a residency program. A big worry for most graduating pharmacists is the debt that we will have accrued at the end of 4 years. Getting paid at such a low rate would make paying back loans and living expenses hard to budget. Lastly I think that requiring residency would lower the prestige of having done one. It lowers residency to entry level.
Mitch Speer
I disagree with the article in with regards to everyone having to complete a residency. I believe that it should be the option of the graduate to choose to do a residency or not. As for direct patient care, it applies to every field of pharmacy. If you take it literally, direct patient care is simply interacting with the patient. This is something you do in any field of pharmacy (except possibly compounding). Residencies are put in place for those pharmacists aspiring to apply for specific fields of pharmacy. If everyone were required to do a residency there would be too many qualified applicants for a limited number of positions available. Not to mention, where is the salary benefit of completing a residency? Right now there is not one.
Robert Byrd
The article made some well-placed points, but I find the qualifier of "...pharmacists involved in direct patient care" to be unsettling. I feel that if residency training becomes mandatory, it should not further divide the profession. What I mean by this is that if this residency training becomes mandatory, it should be mandatory for all pharmacists. Otherwise, there should be no requirement. Completely leaving behind dispensing to pursue clinical roles would be, as a whole profession, a mistake. Not only would it limit job opportunities for new graduates, but it would eliminate some of the most lucrative job opportunities. While I believe that gaining clinical roles is an advancement for pharmacy, I do not want to cause independent community pharmacists to lose the ability to do MTMs because of semantics surrounding the definition of "patient care." Part of what makes pharmacy such a great field is its broad range of possible uses for the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree. I have heard that one of the best ways to find a great job in pharmacy is to find your second choice of career - one that does not necessarily fall into the healthcare field - and combine it with pharmacy to arrive at an intersection between the two. Someone interested in business and pharmacy should be able to pursue both together. Fragmenting the field into smaller parts of ambulatory care, clinical, consulting, DI specialty, and retail - to name a few - without being able to incorporate each into most individual job positions would not benefit pharmacists at all. Pharmacists should have enough autonomy to choose which parts of the field to incorporate into their work without having to select a residency that fits their needs immediately after graduation. This includes what the article refers to as "patient care."
Michael Russell
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
I believe that for pharmacist to be required to do a residency, residency must change. It needs to be open to more pharmacists if not all, and the pay needs to go up so that we have a chance to get our loans paid off sooner rather than later. I plan on doing a residency anyway, but I don't see the need in it for other pharmacists as long as they feel comfortable in their field of practice. Another solution would be for Universities to streamline their programs so that they incorporate the extra knowledge available through a residency.
Direct patient care to me is any communication between a health provider and a patient that doesn't involve outside assistants. So answering a patient's questions and giving them all the needed information so that they can better themselves health-wise.
Matthew Ryan Quick
WUSOP CO 2017
Upon reading the ACCP’s article, I do not believe it should be mandatory for pharmacy students to complete residency training. I feel that residency training should be oriented toward those students who want to specialize in a specific field. For those who desire to work in a community setting, this should not be required since it seems the training would not be necessary to one’s profession. It should be up to the individual whether to participate or not participate in residency training.
I consider direct patient care to consist of the pharmacist, with the aid of other healthcare providers, overseeing and determining the effectiveness of the drug therapy of a patient. Although most conclude “direct patient care” to be more related to a hospital setting rather than a community setting, I think direct patient care can be applied to both areas. Despite the differences in their job descriptions, a community pharmacist has the same duty as a hospital pharmacist: the wellbeing of the patient. Therefore, by definition, direct patient care is not restricted only to certain pharmacy settings.
I think the expectations for a new doctor of pharmacy graduate should include the individual’s ability to take on the role of a healthcare professional. The education and experience that students receive during the four years of pharmacy school should adequately prepare them to become practicing pharmacists. Yet, if one desires to specialize in a certain area, then it is expected of that person to have residency training in addition to the four years of schooling.
If residency training was required, I believe that it would change an individual’s outlook on pharmacy school. For example, if someone was firmly against completing a residency, then it is very likely that he or she may decide not to attend pharmacy school and may choose to pursue a different profession. However, if one is truly dedicated to becoming a pharmacist, the type and time span of required education and experience should not matter.
Kimberly Pullium
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
Annalisa Fong
I wonder what to do with pharmacists that want to work in 'systems'? Do they need a residency? Do they even need a PharmD? I liked the suggestion to incorporate more specialization into the PharmD program. Another option, and this would generally open up the pharmacist's role in the health care community, is instead of making it mandatory, just increase the amount of residencies currently available. If there are more options and less competition and stress on the front end, I believe more PharmD candidates would naturally matriculate into a residency program. As more people go through it optionally, and get out and practice, the results can be quantitatively analyzed (evidence based residencies?) to see if making a residency a requirement is justified.
Annalisa Fong
Clarication: As far as evaluating the benefits quantitatively: do the benefits tip the scales to the 'mandatory' side? I should also probably say qualitatively as well, in that, are we improving the quality of service we provide to the patient.
The tone of this article is biased towards making residency a mandatory one for all pharmacist involved in direct patient. If there are settings in pharmacy that require strict direct patient care, then those pharmacists should get residency. It should be mandatory for only that sector of pharmacy. On the other hand, a pharmacy student who is aiming to be a community pharmacist should not be required to do residency. Therefore, I do not agree with the article totally, however, there are some settings with in pharmacy profession that needs to have a mandatory residency, for example clinical pharmacist.
When I define direct patient care, I define it as a pharmacist that have long-term interaction with patients. One of the services that pharmacist provide is Medication Therapy Management (MTM). Through MTM service, pharmacists provide pharmaceutical care in a way to have positive therapeutic outcome for their patient. In other words, in MTM service in which a pharmacist sits down with patient to help them make patient medical record. This record contain all medications from prescribed to non-prescribed to herbal, and/or dietary supplements. Through this service, a pharmacist can also encourage patient to take good care of themselves, by updating their patient medical record. To me, MTM is part of direct patient care. Now that many community pharmacies started adapting MTM service, than those pharmacist or pharmacy student, who are aiming to be a community pharmacist, should not be required to go through residency. Therefore, I would say residency should not be applied to community, however, it may be applied to hospital pharmacist, hence there is more direct patient than community setting.
Shruti S. Desai
PharmD Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I do not think residency should be required of every postgraduate. However, I do agree with the article in that it is a valuable learning experience and really prepares pharmacists for challenges they may face in the future. If I wanted to go into clinical pharmacy, I would certainly want as much preparation as possible.
I think residency is a great option for gaining experience, and extra training for direct patient care. I consider direct patient care to be medication therapy management, which does require special knowledge and training. I did not realize before reading the article that pharmacists are considered unprepared for direct patient care after earning a PharmD. I remember at the interview at WUSOP we were told that this program would leave us "insanely prepared" and "overconfident" for our careers.
Also, many of us will need to pay off student loans once we graduate, myself included. Taking on a residency would mean delaying payback of loans, when many postgraduates will feel a sense of urgency to pay them off as soon as possible.
Residency training is very beneficial, and sets pharmacists apart from their peers. It should remain optional so that those who choose a residency will stand out from those who do not.
Mary Parsons
WUSOP PharmD candidate
Class of 2017
The tone of this article is definitely biased to requiring residencies. It seems to want residencies to be a requirement.
I believe that requiring a residency for all direct care pharmacists is not a good idea. In my opinion, it would cause there to be a shortage of residency spots. It is already a very competitive process and this would make it impossible to get a residency. Also, I feel like it is unnecessary. We have many classes that go deeply into the information that we need to know. Also, we have rotations for all four years. I feel like these steps prepare us very well for patient care.
Direct patient care is when the pharmacist interacts with the patient. This interaction is direct and does not include a physician.
I believe that new pharmacy graduates should be ready for clinical pharmacy. They should be equipped with the skills to be a clinical pharmacist after graduating from pharmacy school.
If residency was required, I would probably not have decided to come to pharmacy school. I feel like this is too much school for the amount of pay that pharmacist's make. We already have so much debt by the end of the fourth year and another 2 years would be excessive. However, if the average pay was higher, I may have still made the decision to go to pharmacy school.
Walter Parham
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
Even though residency training is extremely beneficial, I do not think it should be considered mandatory. The goal of pharmacy school and having rotation practice sites are to help prepare you to be a pharmacist when you graduate. You should be receiving all of the training you need to perform your job duties and administer quality patient care. However, I do think that areas of specialties, such as oncology or cardiology, should require a residency. Community pharmacists should have the opportunity to do a residency, but it should not be required.
Since residencies are currently really competitive, more spots will have to become available for everyone to acquire a residency if it becomes mandatory. I also believe that they will need to increase a resident’s salary to help compensate for the accumulation of debt students acquire throughout pharmacy school. However, if residencies do become required, they will no longer distinguish one individual from another. Therefore, residencies should remain optional in order for certain individuals to stand out above others who choose not to do a residency.
Summer Powell
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
WUSOP Class of 2017
This subject is definitely something that can go both ways. Even though most people will probably argue that a residency is not required, I will personally say that if going into clinical pharmacology it definitely should be required. Knowing a lot of information about medications is great and definitely one of the most important things in this field, but knowing how to work with people and how to access them is something that can't be learned in the classroom. Even large amounts of experience as pharmacy technicians will not be enough get us prepared for the counseling and clinical work to be done. Going through a residency will lead to more loans and time being used for education, but in the long run will be a huge benefit for the pharmacists.
The only way I could see a clinical pharmacy student becoming exempt from a residency would be if they had 5+ years of experience already in an environment that gave the student a chance to speak to patients a lot.
I think that residency training should be required to work in areas of pharmacy that involve direct patient care. When I hear direct patient care, I think about being directly involved in hands on treatment of patients rather than just dispensing medications and counseling them on their proper use. I do not think that community and hospital pharmacists should be included in having to have mandatory residencies. I feel that the purpose of residencies is get more experience in actually coming up with appropriate treatment plans for individual patients. I feel as though community and hospital pharmacists are not involved in direct patient care except for when they are recommending over-the-counter medications. I think that the expectations for a new graduate from a doctor of pharmacy program should be that they should be able to get a job in a community or hospital pharmacy where their job duties include dispensing drugs and counseling patients. I do not think that they should be ready to practice as independent clinical pharmacists because if someone does not want to enter a specialized field of pharmacy, then I don’t think that they should have to learn how to be able to practice in every specialized area of pharmacy during pharmacy school. If someone knows that they just want to work in a community pharmacy (and not do MTM), why should they have to spend their time learning how to be an independent clinical pharmacist in pharmacy school? In terms of an analogy requiring hospital and community pharmacists to have a residency would almost be like saying if someone wants to be able to drive a regular car (community or hospital pharmacy), then they have to be able to drive an Formula 1 car too (specialized pharmacy fields). It never hurts to have more education and experience, but if it is not necessary to successfully do your job, then I do not think that it should be mandatory. I think that if residencies were required to work in a community or pharmacy hospital, I would still do it because I want to be a pharmacist and would do what it takes to do it.
Ed Svendsen
Wingate University
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
Class of 2017
I don’t agree with the idea of making residency mandatory for all pharmacists who involved in direct patient care. The reason is that there is very limited available for specific training of pharmacy students after graduation because as I remembered only a few students are accepted into residency programs which they are interested. So, what happens for the rest of students who do not get acceptance into residency or getting area field which they don’t like?
However, I don’t deny an idea that clinical pharmacy and hospital pharmacy would benefit for pharmacist who complete 1 to 2 years residency, but I think if it is mandatory for all pharmacists, it is unreasonable. Indeed, adding requirement residency training will make a large amount of pharmacists struggle with their plans since they have own faimly to take care of and so on. Another reason is that some pharmacy students have a different background which means some of them have from 3 to 4 years experience when working in community pharmacy or hospital, so forcing them to go through 1 to 2 more years training is waste their time.
Thuy Nguyen
Doctor of Pharmacy Candicate 2017
WUSOP
There seem to be some very valid points made already about the benefits to requiring residency for direct patient care but not a good way to implement it. In most ways I agree that residency training would be a good idea to all those that are seeking direct patient care but at the moment their are not enough ways to get every student into a residency. I think a way that they could help accommodate more residency programs is to implement them in places that we wouldn't normally think of them. We keep talking about how some of these high volume stores are only run by a few pharmacists and that they are jam packed all the time. Why not add a couple more pharmacists too these stores with direct patient care experience and somehow convert the store to a MTM type clinic? That way we could help with the overload of orders and people asking for help while giving people valuable experience. Just an idea I was thinking about with this mandatory residency issue.
That being said I still believe it should be an option whether you want to do a residency or not.
Matthew Thompson
I think the article has a good incentive of being named a health care worker and getting some more compensation for providing patient care. I believe that the article has a good view of wanting pharmacists to get more experience after graduation but I feel that the schooling we already get is good experience in order to work. Residencies do not have enough spots as it is right now. Spots would have to be opened up for all graduates to go into a residency which is one of the areas the article addresses. In addition, the article talks about more training beyond two years of residency which is unnecessary for those that do not want to specialize. I feel that they are trying to get everyone on the same level but there will always be the next step that someone wants to take in order to get above the rest. We will all not be on the same page as it goes for where we want to work as everyone has their own preferences. The question really is when do you stop adding more and more years of school on in order to feel like you are qualified to go out and work. When you are working you are getting hands on experience maybe not the same as a residency with the many different things that you get to experience but there is also a possibility of going to school for that long and not coming out with a job. It also brings up the concern of not being compensated enough for the amount of school you go for and the amount you get paid when you come out. I feel that this article is pushing people to go to school longer when they might not necessarily want to do this in order to get to where they want to work. This could be due to expenses. The article also brings up a point that says residency is necessary for skilled clinicians. I do not necessarily agree with this for all pharmacists. I think it depends on the person. Some people require extra schooling in order to become more skilled clinicians while others are skilled right away after some practice through school.
Direct patient care is considered to be working with the patients directly in order to provide specific therapies. This means directly communicating with the patient in order to give them the best possible outcome. This does not necessarily apply to all community pharmacists but does apply to if not all hospital pharmacists. This does not apply to all community pharmacists because with improving technology not all patients in community settings need to see their pharmacists, as they are maybe not as sick as they would be in a hospital setting. In hospital settings pharmacists need to directly work with their patients as they are in need of therapy and direct care.
I think that the expectations for a new graduate from a doctor of pharmacy program should be ready to practice as independent clinical pharmacists. I think that the doctor of pharmacy programs especially the one here at Wingate really prepares you for when you get out of school. I believe that instead of pushing residencies on all graduates from doctor of pharmacy programs they should be pushing it onto the schools that do not give their students enough practical experience. This will eventually force the school to change some curriculum to allow their students to have more practice experience rather then just having the minimum hours which is still a good amount. This would eliminate pushing the residency on all graduates.
I would have still came to pharmacy school because if that was the norm that had been started a few years ago just like when they changed the BS for pharmacy into a Pharm D. I think that there would have to be that initial change period for people. I choose pharmacy because I feel passionate about helping people not necessarily about the amount of school. Personally, if this were the norm then it would not have inhibited me from coming to school.
Kelly Fuhrmann
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I do not think that it should be mandatory for all pharmacists to go into residency training. Clinical pharmacists should have at least one year of residency to get their foot in the door. Every situation is different and if they walk right into in, they may not be ready, especially if they want to specialize. Yes community pharmacists do have patient interaction, but their interaction is many counseling at the particular drug they are receiving.
Direct patient care is when one comes into contact with another person to help them with what they need. There is different kinds of patient care though. Like I said, clinical pharmacists deal with the patients directlty and talking with the team in deciding what medication is correct. Community pharmacists talk to the patient about the drug they are picking up or a question that they may have.
I believe it is important for a person to get a residency training if they are going into clinical pharmacy. They need the extra experience before going right into it. You never know what may happen or what you may experience. Retail pharmacy does see different things, but the difference is that they are talking about the drugs they are givving them. The drugs are learned while in pharmacy school.
Becca Giannetti
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
After reading many of the responses already made, I must agree with the majority who believe residency should not be mandatory. The overall tone for this article seemed bias towards making a residency mandatory however nothing was mentioned on the cons for pursuing this option.
I believe in any job opportunity in pharmacy you will encounter direct patient care. Therefore, it should be the pharmacy school’s responsibility to prepare the student to develop skills needed for patient care. I believe this is just another way for any school to accumulate more money from students. Honestly what is so special that students need to go for an extra two years that pharmacy school cannot incorporate in their schedule now? Even in the current course program we are taking pointless classes to fill the schedule that pharmacy school could be a two year program if they didn't incorporate useless filler classes. So maybe instead of taking some of these filler courses the pharmacy school incorporates more direct patient classes and this could eliminated the “need” for the extra two year program that they want to make mandatory. Once you make something mandatory it puts all students back at the same level. There would be nothing that would help some students differ from others enlisted in the same program. Therefore something else would be integrated to make certain individual stand out for the rest.
Anna Smaragdis
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I think residency is very important and beneficial for graduate pharmacist but I don’t think it should be mandatory. The practice area a graduate pharmacist wants to pursue should more than likely determine whether residency may be necessary or not. For example, if one wants to be a clinical pharmacist such as oncology pharmacist at a large institutional hospital, then doing a residency will be very beneficial. The residency program will equip such a clinical pharmacist in successfully dealing with the kinds of cases and scenarios that he/she will be confronted with daily.
Working in other practice areas such as retail however, may not necessarily require residency after graduation. Granted, some who work in retail may engage in MTM and other types of direct patient care, however, that does not truly justify the notion of required residency for all retail pharmacist. Services such as MTM are a small portion of their daily activities, so it does not warrant all retail pharmacist to do a residency. I think the PharmD program and its curriculum will well equip a pharmacist to be able to practice successfully after graduation without a need for residency. All graduate pharmacist should be able to provide good pharmaceutical services such as dispensing, counseling, compounding, interventions, dose calculations, follow ups and all other related duties and responsibilities. Hence, residency should be extra and optional training not mandatory.
As a recipient of a Doctorate of Pharmacy degree, you are a very distinguished individual who has had passed over extraordinary leaps and bounds that speak for themselves. In my opinion, a residency should remain a choice for pharmacy students to make if they want to specialize in a certain area. Making a residency mandatory for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care is simply not necessary as pharmacists are already well equipped to handle direct care protocols. As pharmacy students, there is a considerate amount of emphasis on pharmaceutical care and how to properly “assess” the patient, therefore I think it’s unnecessary to add more emphasis towards clinical training. This gives students the option of doing a residency later. Pharmacy has always been my dream career, therefore I would have still chosen to pursue a career in pharmacy even if completing a residency was mandatory to work as a retail pharmacist.
Meagan Scott
WUSOP Doctorate Of Pharmacy Candidate 17
I did not agree with this articles argument that all pharmacists should require a residency. This is especially since we spend our entire fourth year out in the field actively participating in direct patient care. It is also important to take into account WUSOP students are unique in that we begin rotations and complete 120 hours all within our first year.
I believe residencies should remain mandatory for those pharmacists looking to diversify themselves. Obtaining a residency is extremely competitive and if this were to become the new rule, many other positions would have to open to make this feasible.
I also think if a residency is going to be required, pharmacists should be paid more than what they are currently. After going to pharmacy school for four years, loans are piling up and if the pay was more acceptable, I think more people would do it.
Jordan Grubb
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
I do not feel that a residency should be required as a prerequisite for entering into a pharmacy career. I think that they way the program is set up now is working well. For me, I plan to do a residency anyways. If I am accepted to a residency program, it will give me the opportunity to have something more for my CV that a graduate fresh out of pharmacy school will not. I eventually hope to be a pediatric clinical pharmacist which will require a general first year residency then a specialized second year residency. I feel that by doing these residencies I will gain more of the skill necessary to do the job appropriately and correctly. If a residency was mandatory, there would no longer be a way to set me apart from the other people trying to get the same job as myself. Also, if the career route that you plan to take involves working in a community pharmacy and dispensing, you do not need a residency to learn the techniques for your occupation. After our fourth year rotations, we will have a great understanding of what it takes to do most pharmaceutical jobs. I do not feel that another year or two of training with inadequate pay is necessary for a job you already know how to perform. In the end, I feel that residencies should not be required; however, the option of having one will set you apart and give you better skills for the more clinical pharmaceutical jobs. If the job you want and are pursuing does not need a residency, you should not have to spend your time in doing one.
I do not think that it should be mandatory for all PharmD grads to go through a residency. I think that if you want to go into a certain specialty or want to have an edge over other graduates it would be a good path for you. But to require everyone to go through residency is not a viable option right now because of the limited nature of residencies. I do like the idea that "direct patient" contact experience should be added to PharmD programs to keep up with the change in pharmacy. I may not have came to pharmacy school if residency was required. Being older and going back to school 6-7 years is quite enough time away from my family and I feel adding more time to that without sufficient pay would not appeal to me when I could be making more money straight out of school.
Wendy Sanchezruiz
PharmD Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I do not think that residency training should be mandatory for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care, at the current time. Residencies are extremely competitive and difficult to secure. Currently, there would not be enough residencies offered to cover the amount of graduating pharmacists. If this were made a requirement, several pharmacists would be stuck without a job. Residencies could eventually become required, but the number of opportunities would have to drastically increase. Possibly, one year of residency could be required, while having the second year be optional for those who want to specialize as a clinical pharmacist. Direct patient care would be any opportunity given to the pharmacist to deal with a patient one-on-one. I think residencies should be aimed more toward clinical pharmacists at the current time. Community pharmacists would not necessarily need any more training after four years of pharmacy school. For a new graduate of the doctor of pharmacy program, I think residency should be required if they plan to become a clinical pharmacist. Clinical pharmacists have more responsibility for patients, and therefore, should have more training than a retail pharmacist. If residency programs were required for me to become a community pharmacist, I would still have chosen to come to pharmacy school. Becoming a pharmacist is not something to take lightly. Our patients trust and depend on us to keep them safe and healthy. More training could only make us better at our jobs.
Jordan Richmond
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
I do not think that the tone of the article was either positive or negative, necessarily. Because the article was written by an organization that is focused on the clinical aspects of the pharmacy profession, I think that the tone portrayed in the article was appropriate. I think that direct patient care, as it relates to a pharmacist, is when a pharmacist is given the responsibility of being the health professional that a patient first goes to with regards to their medication, health condition, etc. I do not think that it applies to all community and hospital pharmacists. Different areas cater to different populations and not all of these areas require patient care, to the extent that would be considered direct patient care. I think it all comes down to a matter of individual choice. If a recent graduate wants to practice in a specialized area, then they have the option to complete a residency. But I also think that if pharmacy schools should take a bit of the burden off residency programs. If pharmacy schools focused a bit more on teaching clinical skills necessary for direct patient care, organizations like the ACCP might perhaps have a different outlook on the requirement of residency programs after pharmacy school.
Brenda Simiyu
Wingate University School of Pharmacy 2017
I do not agree with the article's objective.
First, I do not believe it is feasible with the lack of sites available.
Second, I do not believe the funding is even available to make it mandatory.
Third, I do not believe every pharmacist needs residency training, especially community/retail pharmacist.
Fourth, where does the buck stop? Education is in constant inflation, requiring more and more as time goes on. There comes a point where an amount of education is enough for a certain field of work.
Fifth, residency training focuses on specialization. Not every pharmacist wants to specialize.
Sixth, if everyone is specialized, then no one is any longer special.
Considering that the world of Pharmacy is advocating for more patient interaction, it is not a surprise that the article’s recommendation is in favor of the mandatory residency for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. As Pharmacists advocate for more responsibilities in the field of direct patient care, it may be necessary to acquire more training in a field that is the turf of physicians.
Mandatory residency would ensure that pharmacists are grounded, confident and ready to take on this new direction of patient care. However, considering that this may be financially strenuous to individuals, it may be worthwhile if the pharmacy schools could incorporate a curriculum that will ensure that new graduates from the Doctor of Pharmacy program, would be ready to practice as independent clinical pharmacists right after graduation.
In the end, If I was required to do a residency to be a community pharmacists, I probably would have still chosen to come to pharmacy school.
Considering that the world of Pharmacy is advocating for more patient interaction, it is not a surprise that the article’s recommendation is in favor of the mandatory residency for all pharmacists involved in direct patient care. As Pharmacists advocate for more responsibilities in the field of direct patient care, it may be necessary to acquire more training in a field that is the turf of physicians.
Mandatory residency would ensure that pharmacists are grounded, confident and ready to take on this new direction of patient care. However, considering that this may be financially strenuous to individuals, it may be worthwhile if the pharmacy schools could incorporate a curriculum that will ensure that new graduates from the Doctor of Pharmacy program, would be ready to practice as independent clinical pharmacists right after graduation.
In the end, If I was required to do a residency to be a community pharmacists, I probably would have still chosen to come to pharmacy school.
Adaobi Obika
WUSOP
Doctor oh Pharmacy Candidate
Class of 2017
I don't think that residencies should be required for pharmacy school students. For one, students that want to go straight into community pharmacy don't really need a year or two of training before they are ready to be full time pharmacists. They already have the knowledge, and the training can be done during the first few weeks of work. Also, a residency is what separates pharmacy school students whenever they graduate and apply for jobs. If everyone has a residency then what will employers look at to determine who is the better candidate? I think the way the system is set up now works just fine. If you don't want to specialize in something then you don't have too, but if you do then the opportunity is available for you.
Jamie Warren
WUSOP Candidate of Pharmacy 2017
Post a Comment