No abstract

No abstract

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose To describe the perceptions of residency candidates, residency practitioners (current residents and preceptors), and residency program directors (RPDs) regarding a virtual interview process for pharmacy residency programs across multiple institutions. Methods In May 2021, an anonymous web-based questionnaire characterizing perceptions of the virtual interview process used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was distributed to residency candidates, residency practitioners, and RPDs across 13 institutions. Quantitative responses measured on a 5-point Likert scale were summarized with descriptive statistics, and open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic qualitative methods. Results 236 residency candidates and 253 residency practitioners/RPDs completed the questionnaire, yielding response rates of 27.8% (236 of 848), and 38.1% (253 of 663), respectively. Overall, both groups perceived the virtual interview format positively. When asked whether virtual interviews should replace in-person interviews moving forward, 60.0% (18 of 30) of RPDs indicated they agreed or strongly agreed, whereas only 30.5% (61 of 200) of current preceptors/residents and 28.7% (66 of 230) of residency candidates agreed or strongly agreed. Thematic analysis of qualitative responses revealed that while virtual interviews were easier logistically, the lack of in-person interactions was a common concern for many stakeholders. Lastly, the majority (65.0%) of residency candidates reported greater than $1,000 in savings with virtual interviews. Conclusion Virtual interviews offered logistical and financial benefits. The majority of RPDs were in favor of offering virtual interviews to replace in-person interviews, whereas the majority of residency candidates and practitioners preferred on-site interviews. As restrictions persist with the ongoing pandemic, our results provide insight into best practices for virtual pharmacy residency interviews.

Purpose of review The current review discusses the supplemental use of vitamin C as an adjunct in the management of sepsis and septic shock. Recent findings The antioxidant properties of vitamin C are touted to be useful in modulating the inflammatory response, decreasing vasopressor requirements, and improving resuscitation. Current resuscitation practices are focused on addressing the hemodynamic instability and ensuring adequate oxygen delivery to tissues. The conceptual framework of the use of vitamin C during a resuscitation is to modulate in a beneficial fashion the inflammatory response to sepsis while concomitantly resuscitating and treating the infection. While there is promising animal and burn-related data on improved fluid resuscitation with the use of vitamin C as an adjunct, the most recent meta-analyses of the available data fail to show a survival benefit in sepsis, and concerns regarding nephrotoxicity remain. Summary Although there are large number of animal studies, only a few small prospective and retrospective studies in humans address the use of vitamin C to treat sepsis. Further research in a controlled and randomized fashion is needed to determine if vitamin C is effective in this role. While there is a promise of ascorbate's addition to the sepsis bundle as an adjunct to resuscitation, the evidence is not conclusive.

No abstract