Impact of Postgraduate Second-Year Pharmacy Training (PGY2) on Clinical, Financial, and Educational Outcomes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A scoping review was conducted to screen the published literature on the clinical, financial, and educational effect of postgraduate second year (PGY2) pharmacy residency training. FINDINGS: A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central and Web of Science without study design, language, or time restrictions (inception to March 2022). Articles were reported using the PRISMA reporting items list. Studies were included if a measurable clinical outcome, a cost-avoidance calculation and/or involvement in teaching or research activities was reported. Studies were excluded if there was no mention of a PGY2 training. Of the 2534 articles that were screened, 21 articles met our inclusion criteria. Seven studies reported clinical outcomes, five reported cost avoidance, six reported educational outcomes and three studies reported both clinical and cost-avoidance outcomes. Four of the studies evaluating clinical outcomes took place in a psychiatric clinic setting. Better disease control was reported in four articles. Two studies evaluated readmission and emergency department visits at 30 days but only one showed significant reduction. The estimated cost avoidance reported ranged from $22,380 to $5,387,679 and two studies reported the services billed by the resident. In two studies, PGY2 pharmacists were more likely to be involved in teaching activities and were more likely to participate in research activities. CONCLUSION: Even though few studies evaluated the benefits of PGY2 pharmacy trainings, they showed to improve patient care, enhance involvement in teaching activities, and decrease financial burden for health-care systems. More studies should be done to reinforce the merits of such training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".