Letters of reference for PGY1 pharmacy residency candidates: A survey of residency program directors and opinion statement. Issue 3 (15th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Skrupky, Lee P.; Dy‐Boarman, Eliza A.; Gurgle, Holly E.; Isaacs, Alex N.; McCreary, Erin K.; Nisly, Sarah A.; Paloucek, Frank; Peterson, David M.; Smith, Andrew; Schramm, Garrett E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Volume 4:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 379
• Page End: 389
• Publication Date: 2020-12-15
• Subjects: letter -- residency -- survey -- pharmacy; Pharmacy -- Periodicals; Pharmacy Service, Hospital; Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodical; 615.105
• DOI: 10.1002/jac5.1370
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2574-9870

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Although letters of reference (LORs) are required for postgraduate year one (PGY1) residency applications and used to distinguish between candidates, an evaluation of residency program director (RPD) perceptions and values surrounding LORs has not been described. Objective: The aim of the study was to describe PGY1 RPDs' processes, values, and perceptions surrounding LORs. Methods: This was a cross‐sectional descriptive survey. After assessing content validity, the Education and Training Practice and Research Network (PRN) taskforce sent a 25‐item electronic survey to 1266 PGY1 RPDs. Survey questions captured program demographics, LOR requirements, processes for LOR review, and perceptions about the value of LORs. Two open‐ended questions solicited suggestions for LORs and the existing standardized form; responses were evaluated via thematic analysis. Results: A total of 291 (24%) programs completed the survey. LORs were rated as extremely or quite valuable by 82% of respondents and moderately valuable by 16% of respondents. Scoring rubrics for LOR evaluation were used by 79% of programs, and performance ratings were reported to impact interview consideration by a majority of programs. Accuracy, detailed comments, and inclusion of specific candidate strengths and areas for improvement were rated as extremely or quite important characteristics by 90% or more of respondents. Specific strengths were reported to be present in LORs more than half of the time by 81% of programs; however, accuracy, detailed comments, and inclusion of specific areas for improvement were only reported to be present about half the time or less by 41%, 63%, and 63% of respondents. Among 207 suggestions submitted to improve LOR utility, common themes included a desire for LOR authors to have candid discussions with candidates prior to letter writing, to contextualize their relationship with the candidate, and provide honest and specific assessments. Conclusion: LORs remain highly valued by PGY1 RPDs during application review. Several notable findings were observed, resulting in recommendations for LOR authors, residency applicants, and the standardized LOR form.