ACCT Streamlining the Residency Interview Process Using Web Teleconferencing HW Explain the interview process. you are required to read two articles attac

ACCT Streamlining the Residency Interview Process Using Web Teleconferencing HW Explain the interview process.

you are required to read two articles attached and complete an annotated bibliography for each article.

500 words in total.

Annotated bibliographies must be written in manner, in which, they are understandable. You must describe all-important data such as:

The participants

The reason the study was conducted

What research design was used (surveys, interviews, case study, etc.)

Which research analysis was used (MANOVA, ANOVA, Kruskal Wallace, etc.)

The results of the study along with any conclusions of the author(s)

Let me know for questions.

Thanks

Temple, M. E., & Lagzdins, M. (2014). Streamlining the residency interview process using Web-based teleconferencing. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 71(9), 697–701. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp130406

Ansari Saleh Ahmar, Rusli, & Abdul Rahman. (2016). Steps in Designing Queue and Interview Process using Information System: A Case of Re-registration of New Students in Universitas Negeri Makassar. Asian Journal of Technology Management, 9(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.12695/ajtm.2015.9.1.5 Management Consultation
Management Consultation
Streamlining the residency
interview process using Web-based
teleconferencing
T
he American Society of Health-System
Pharmacists has suggested that, by
2020, residency training will be a prerequisite for pharmacists involved in
direct patient care.1,2 Approximately 4500
graduating pharmacy students
and new practitioners registered
to use the Pharmacy Online
Residency Centralized Application Service (PhORCAS) in 2013
with hopes of obtaining 1 of the
2694 spots available as a postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy resident; over 1400 of these
candidates went unmatched.3
Applicant qualifications are easily quantifiable yet remarkably
equivalent among multiple candidates. Therefore, it is difficult to
determine who should be invited
for an onsite interview, unless
program personnel have personal
experience with an applicant.
Program representatives must
use resources wisely and maintain patient care and administrative services while interviewing
candidates for a residency. Residency
programs struggle with a limited timeline,
given that PhORCAS may open in late
November; however, candidates may not
have everything complete in the database
until early January. This allows 30–60 days
for interviewing and determining a rank
list for a program. This time frame may
be too short to accommodate these tasks,
especially when programs face a high
volume of candidates.
We report the use of Web-based technology for preliminary mini-interviews
of PGY1 pharmacy residents at Hillcrest
Hospital, a 500-bed Cleveland Clinic
community hospital.
Background. Skype (Microsoft Corp.,
Redmond, WA) is an online video chat
application that does not require the use
of a telephone. It is most commonly utilized between computer users. FaceTime
(Apple, Cupertino, CA) is a video chat
application that is compatible most commonly with iPhones. Our goal was to
determine, through behavioral-based interviewing, which candidates might best
match with our pharmacy residency program. The use of this technology helped
to balance patient care and administrative
duties with the interview process while
minimizing interview time and costs for
our PGY1 pharmacy residency program.
For the previous seven years, we conducted onsite interviews based on
a ratio of about 14 candidates for
each PGY1 residency position.
Most recently, we reviewed our
top 35 candidates in 2011–12
to select candidates for onsite
interviews. The substantial time
required to interview candidates
and the poor fit of some of the
candidates with our program
caused us to reflect and reevaluate our process for interviewing
resident candidates.
Analysis and resolution.
As in the past, we used a paper
screening tool to determine our
top 24 potential candidates for
two PGY1 resident positions
whom we intended to invite for
onsite interviews. This tool was
based on many criteria, including academic record, work experience, research or publications, extracurricular involvement, and community
Continued on page 699
The Management Consultation column gives readers an opportunity to obtain advice on common
management problems from pharmacists practicing in health systems. The assistance of ASHP’s
Section of Pharmacy Practice Managers and its Advisory Group on Manager Development in
soliciting Management Consultation submissions is acknowledged. Unsolicited submissions are
also welcome. Readers are invited to submit topics for this column to ajhp@ashp.org or ASHP c/o
David Chen, Director, Pharmacy Practice Sections, 7272 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814
(dchen@ashp.org).
Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 71 May 1, 2014
697
Management Consultation
Continued from page 697
outreach. The applicant evaluation form
had an unlimited score, depending on the
extracurricular involvement and leadership of each candidate. The residency
program director (RPD) utilized the
form to conduct the initial evaluation.
However, new this year, once the 24
candidates with the highest scores were
identified, we e-mailed them an offer for
a Skype or FaceTime interview. If they
responded with interest, a date and a
time for the interview were scheduled.
We scheduled up to six mini-interviews
each day over a five-day period. Interviews occurred between 11:30 a.m. and
1:30 p.m., when most candidates likely
had a lunch break.
Our program representatives initiated
contact with the candidate on the day
of the interview. Up to 20 minutes was
allotted for each interview. We used five
behavioral-based interview questions
from our institution’s behavioral-based
interviewing bank that we felt would best
help us ascertain whether there was a
good fit between our institution and the
candidate. We chose one question from
each category of the behavior-based
interviewing bank. These categories addressed the technical skills, expectations,
“fit” with our staff, and goals of the applicant. Each question was worth 5 points,
and preceptors graded each candidate
based on how well they felt the candidate
answered the question. We used two Apple iPads to conduct the interviews. Two
clinical pharmacy specialists or administrators interviewed each candidate. After
our program representatives completed
their assessments, the candidates had 5
minutes to ask questions regarding the
program and our interview process. Two
representatives each scored the candidates
individually based on a total possible
score of 30. The average of these scores
from the Skype or FaceTime interview
was evaluated alone and then added to
the score from the paper screening tool
to determine which candidates were offered an onsite interview. Candidates who
scored fewer than 20 points from either
program representative on the Skype or
FaceTime interview were removed from
onsite interview consideration. Candidates with the highest Skype or FaceTime
scores were given preferential onsite
interview status.
We received a total of 30 candidates
from nine pharmacy schools for our institution’s two available PGY1 residency
positions. Two candidates with incomplete applications were eliminated from
further consideration. The remaining 28
candidates were evaluated by the RPD
with our initial applicant evaluation
form. Candidate scores ranged from 28
to 126 on the initial screening tool. Four
candidates scored fewer than 30 points
on the initial screening tool and were not
considered further. We offered Skype or
FaceTime interviews to the remaining 24
candidates.
The Skype or FaceTime interview
scores ranged from 16 to 27. For 4 of 6
candidates with initial screening scores of
greater than 90, there was a positive correlation with higher Skype or FaceTime
scores. One candidate who seemed superior on paper barely made the cut for an
onsite interview, given a FaceTime score
of 20. Another candidate had a FaceTime
score of 21 and, in looking back, was not a
quality candidate for our program. No definitive correlation was observed in those
with initial screening scores of less than 90
but greater than 40. Some candidates with
scores in this range had very high Skype
or FaceTime scores (1 candidate scored
46 on the initial screening form yet had a
Skype or FaceTime average score of 27 out
of 30 points). For candidates who scored
between 30 and 40 during the initial
screening, 80% scored high on the Skype
or FaceTime interview; for the other 20%,
the Skype or FaceTime interview confirmed the finding of the initial screening
score (i.e., poor candidate).
A majority of the interviews lasted
no more than 10 minutes, with a few
requiring 15 minutes. Thus, for the
24 Skype or FaceTime interviews, we
spent approximately 240 minutes (four
hours) total among nine preceptors and
administrators on screening candidates.
We successfully connected with all candidates scheduled for a Skype or FaceTime
interview. We experienced some difficulty
with connections when the Apple iPads
were used in administrative offices in the
basement level of the hospital. At times,
the use of Skype was more difficult than
FaceTime. Two of the 24 interviews
required a follow-up telephone call to
complete the interview because we failed
to maintain a clear Skype connection.
These 2 interviews occurred with our
representatives on the basement level.
Loss of the video connection prevented
us from evaluating body language related
to certain questions, which was part of
our evaluation.
All candidates established a Skype or
FaceTime account. Each candidate chose
the preferred modality for the interview.
A majority of candidates (n = 16) chose
to use FaceTime, as many did not have
Skype accounts. Candidates conducted
their interviews from advanced pharmacy
practice experience locations, from home,
or from pharmacy schools.
We set the maximum number of onsite
interviews at 18 versus 26 in the previous year. Each interview lasted 6 hours.
Interviews were offered in descending
order of the Skype or FaceTime score. The
mini-interview scores were added to the
initial screening scores for any applicants
with equal Skype or FaceTime scores.
None of the cumulative scores were equal.
The candidate with the higher cumulative
score was given an interview first. The use
of Skype or FaceTime interviews helped
us confidently decrease the number of
interviews by eight candidates, or 48 onsite interview hours. Skype or FaceTime
screening saved a total of 44 hours of
onsite interviewing time. We successfully
matched both of our positions with quality candidates.
Discussion. Programs should choose
a candidate for an onsite interview if the
candidate seems qualified4 ; however, this
may not be an economically feasible process, depending on the hospital or health
care institution’s size and resources as the
number of candidates who apply continues to increase. Further, it is difficult to
discern candidates’ qualifications, since
Continued on page 700
Am J Health-Syst Pharm—Vol 71 May 1, 2014
699
Management Consultation
Continued from page 699
most are graduating from a doctor of pharmacy program and
have no notable professional work history that may indicate
success in a residency program or attrition into an institution’s
staff postresidency. We hypothesize that a majority of programs
likely evaluate candidates based on their ability to multitask,
their academic achievements, discernment of similar letters of
recommendation, and candidate involvement in the pharmacy
profession and in the community. Unfortunately, what is on
paper may not be any indication of a candidate’s interpersonal
skills and “fit” for a particular program. Thus, unless each
program can bring in all candidates who seem equally qualified to assess their fit and interpersonal skills, solely utilizing a
criteria-based evaluation form may not be optimal.
Our applicant pool was reduced this year; this was possibly related to several new residency programs that started
in the area or to difficulties experienced with the initiation of
PhORCAS. However, we evaluated 30 candidates for onsite
interviews, which may be a reasonable pool for a community
hospital. We used Skype or FaceTime to reduce our onsite
interview time and to provide an additional tool for assessing the fit for our program and a candidate’s interpersonal
skills. This seemed like a reasonable option based on our own
personal experiences with this technology and our enormous
time commitment to bring in a large number of candidates for
onsite interviews.
Our experience is comparable to that found during nonpharmacy Web-based interviewing.5 Authors from a medical
urology program assessed interview candidates’ and faculty
satisfaction with Web-based versus onsite interviews via a
survey. Participants were randomly assigned to participate
in either a Web-based interview or an onsite interview. Specifically, comparative effectiveness, convenience, and cost
between participants in each group were assessed. A total of
33 candidates and 6 faculty members participated in the Webbased interview process. Ninety-five percent of participants
completed surveys for the research study. Web-based interview participants graded its effectiveness significantly lower
than traditional onsite interview participants (21 versus 25
on a 30-point satisfaction scale, p