Sepsis and Septic Shock Guidelines

One of the main guidelines in sepsis is the Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock from 2012 (updating the 2008 guidelines).

Pocket Guide

Key recommendations and suggestions:

• Early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C)
• Blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C)
• Imaging studies performed to confirm a potential source of infection (UG)
• Administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B)
• Infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C)
• Initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C)
• Initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to acheive a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C)
• Fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG)
• Norepinephrine as the first-choice vasporessor to maintain mean arterial pressure >/= 65 mm Hg (1B)
• Epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B)
• Vasopression (0.03 U/min) can be added to NE to either raise MAP to target or to decrease NE dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG)
• Dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C)
• Dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite acheiving adequate intravascular volume and adequate MAP (1C)
• Avoiding use of IV hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C)
• Hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B)
• Low tidal volume (1A) and limiation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
• Application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B)
• Higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C)
• Recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C)
• Prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of </= 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practicees (2C)
• Head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B)
• A conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C)
• Protocols for weaning and sedation (1A)
• Minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B)
• Avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C)
• A short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hours) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO2/FIO2 < 150 mm Hg (2C)
• A protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose </= 180 mg/dL (1A)
• Equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B)
• Prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B)
• Use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B)
• Oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rathern than either complete fasting or provision of only IV glucose with the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C)
• Addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hours of intesive care unit admission (2C). 

Osteoporosis: Topic of the Day

The National Osteoporosis Foundation released an update to its Clinician's Guide to the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis last year (April 2014). 

The current version (2014) was released April 1, 2014. The 2014 version of the Clinician’s Guide stresses the importance of screening vertebral imaging to diagnose asymptomatic vertebral fractures; provides updated information on calcium, vitamin D and osteoporosis medications; addresses duration of treatment; and includes an expanded discussion on the utility of biochemical markers of bone turnover and an evaluation of secondary causes of osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis Guidelines

Postmenopausal women and men age 50 and older

National Osteoporosis Foundation (2014) U.S. Preventative Services Task Force among other organizations

Postmenopausal women

 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (2010) – North American Menopause Society (2010)

Men

Endocrine Society (2012)

---

Review of the 2014 NOF Clinician's Guide

• Approach to the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis
• Universal Recommendations 
• Pharmacotherapy (Who) and FDA indications
• Sequential and combination therapy
• Duration of treatment

---

Dual‐energy Absorptiometry (DXA) Bone Density Testing: Indications

• NOF guideline
  • Women > 65 years old and men > 70 years old
  • Younger postmenopausal women, women in the menopausal transition, and men age 50‐69 years old with clinical risk factors for fracture • e.g., current smoker, low body weight, history of osteoporosis, low trauma fracture in a first‐degree relative
  • Adults who have a fracture after age 50 years
  • Adults with specific conditions or medications associated with bone loss
• Other – Women 50‐ 64 years old with FRAX overall fracture risk > 9.3% (USPSTF) – 

WHO Definition of Osteoporosis Based on Bone Mineral Density testing results:

• Normal 
  • BMD within 1 SD of the mean level for a young-adult reference population
  • T-score at -1.0 and above
• Lone Bone Mass (Osteopenia)
  • BMD between 1.0 and 2.5 SD below that of the mean level for a young-adult reference population
  • T-score between -1.0 and -2.5
• Osteoporosis
  • BMD 2.5 SD or more below that of the mean level for a young adult reference population
  • T-score at or below -2.5
• Severe or Established Osteoporosis
  • BMD 2.5 SD or more below that of the mean level for a young adult reference population
  • T-score at or below -2.5 with one or more fractures

Imaging Recommendations

• Vertebral Imaging recommended for women age 70 and older and all men age 80 and older if BMD T-score at the spine, total hip or femoral neck is </= -1.0
• Women age 65-69 and men age 70-79 if BMD T-score at the spine, total hip or femoral neck is </= -1.5
• Postmenopausal women and men age 50 and older with specific risk factors: low trauma fracture during adulthood (age 50), historical height loss of 1.5 inches or more (4 cm), prospective height loss of 0.8 inches or more (2 cm), or recent or ongoing long-term glucocorticoid treatment.

FRAX was developed to calculate a 10-year probability of a hip fracture and the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (defined as clinical vertebral, hip, forearm or proximal humerus fracture). FRAX algorithm available at www.nof.org as well as at www.shef.ac.uk/FRAX.

FRAX is for postmenopausal women and men age 50 and older. In patients being pharmacologically treated for osteoporosis, clinical judgment must be use in interpreting results. No treatment in 2 years could be interpreted as untreated. Femoral neck BMD is preferred in calculating FRAX.

---

Diagnosis of Osteoporosis (WHO Criteria) (Postmenopausal women and men >/= 50 years of age)

• T‐score at ‐1.0 or above  (SD) Normal
• T‐score between ‐1.0  and ‐2.5 (SD) - Low bone mass (Osteopenia)
• T‐score at or below ‐2.5 (SD) - Osteoporosis
• T‐score at or below ‐2.5 (SD) with one or more fractures - Severe or established osteoporosis SD = standard deviation

---

Diagnosis of Osteoporosis (International Society for Clinical Densitometry 2007 Guidelines)*

• Z‐score above ‐2.0 (SD) “Within the expected range for age”
• Z‐score at or below ‐2.0 (SD) “Low bone mineral density for chronological age” or “Below the expected range for age” SD = standard deviation Premenopausal Women, Men < 50 Years of Age, and Children * These criteria are never used alone to diagnose osteoporosis in these populations

---

RECOMMENDATIONS IN ALL PATIENTS:

Several interventions to preserve bone strength can be recommended to the general population. These include an adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, lifelong participation in regular weight-bearing and muscle-strengthening exercise, cessation of tobacco use, identification and treatment of alcoholism, and treatment of risk factors for falling. 

Bone‐Healthy Lifestyle:

• Calcium - Recommended elemental calcium intake should be obtained ideally through dietary sources + supplements
• Age Group Recommended Daily Intake Maximum Daily Intake
  • 19-50 years 1000 mg
  • 50-70 years 2000 mg Men = 1000 mg Women = 1200 mg
  • ≥ 71 years 1200 mg

According to the updated 2014 National Osteoporosis Foundation guideline, intakes of calcium in excess of 1200 to 1500 mg per day could place a patient at increased risk for kidney stones, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and stroke. (J Bone Metab 2014;29:531‐3; J Bone Metab 2014;21:21‐8; Am J Clin Nutr 2011;94:270‐277)

---

Vitamin D: This is the amount needed to maintain the majority of healthy patients within the sufficient range

• Age Group Recommended Daily Intake
  • National Osteoporosis Foundation (2014)
    • <50 years 400-800 units (4000 units max daily intake) 
    • ≥ 50 years 800-1000 units (4000 units max daily intake)
• Institute of Medicine (2010)
  • ≥ 71 years 800 units (4000 units max daily intake)
  • 51-70 years 600 units (4000 units max daily intake)
  • 19-50 years 600 units (4000 units max daily intake)

---

When to Consider Drug Treatment

• History of (low trauma) hip or vertebral fracture
• T‐score - ‐2.5 at femoral neck, hip, or spine by central DXA
• Postmenopausal women and men 50 years of age if T‐score between –1 and –2.5 and 10‐year hip fracture probability of 3% or a 10‐year all major osteoporosis‐related fracture probability of 20%

---

Bisphosphonates:  inhibit osteoclastic bone resorption and reduce osteoclast activity and beneficial effect on osteoblasts.

• Drug holidays are being considered for bisphosphonates to prevent which serious long‐term adverse effects 
• Show residual effects after discontuation
• Evidence for efficacy beyond 5 years is limited, whereas rare safety concerns become more common beyond 5 years. 
• Reasonable to discontinue after 3-5 years in patients who have a modest risk of fracture after the initial treatment period, but in high risk, continued treatment or alternative treatment should be considered.

Non-Bisphosphonates: produce temporary effects that wane with discontinuation.

Duration of Treatment and Drug Holiday

• Alendronate: Duration of treatment 5 years. Assessment for reinitiation: 1-2 years
• Risedronate: Duration of treatment 5 years. Assessment for reinitiation: 1 year
• Zoledronic acid: Duration of treatment 3 years. Assessment for reinitiation: 2-3 years

Denosumab Role in Therapy

• FDA osteoporosis indications
  • Postmenopausal women and men with high fracture risk (Osteoporosis fracture, multiple risk factors, can’t use other meds)
  • Androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
  • Adjuvant aromatase inhibitor for breast cancer
• AACE guideline – first line
• Increases BMD for at least 8 years
• Vertebral, hip, & nonvertebral fracture prevention
• Quicker reversal with medication discontinuation
• Adverse effects: Common adverse reactions (> 5% and diff placebo)
  • Back, shoulder, leg, and musculoskeletal pain – Increased cholesterol – Cystitis
  • Cases of MRONJ and atypical fractures

Raloxifene Role in Therapy

• FDA indications
  • Osteoporosis prevention and treatment
  • Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and/or at high risk for invasive breast cancer
• AACE guideline –Second‐ and third‐line therapy
• Dose ‐ 60 mg daily
• Contraindications ‐ active or past history venous thromboembolism
• Precaution – risk for stroke
• Adverse effects – Vasomotor symptoms (hot flushes) – Leg cramps – Breast tenderness – Spotting – Venous thromboembolism – Box warning – fatal stroke

Teriparatide Role in Therapy

• FDA indications
  • Postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture
  • Men with primary or hypogonadal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture
  • Glucocorticoid‐induced osteoporosis
  • High fracture risk
    • Previous fracture
    • Extremely low BMD (T‐score < ‐3.5)
    • Multiple risk factors for fracture
  • Teriparatide Dose, Selection, and Common Adverse Effects
    • 20 mcg subcutaneously daily for 24 months
    • Once weekly injection in trials – ? Start antiresorptive agent before end of therapy
    • Contraindications – Skeletal muscle radiation, bone cancer, hypercalcemia, Paget’s disease
    • Common adverse effects
      • Orthostasis – first doses
      • Nausea, arthralgia, leg cramps
      • Hypercalcemia (check calcium at baseline)
      • Box warning ‐ osteosarcoma (animal data)

Calcitonin: Role in Therapy, Efficacy, Dose, and Adverse Effects

• FDA indication – osteoporosis treatment for women   5 years post menopause with low bone mass
• AACE guideline – fourth‐line therapy
• Only vertebral fracture prevention
• Dosing –Intranasal ‐ 200 units daily alternating nares
• Adverse effects –Nasal – rhinitis, epistaxis, irritation –Subcutaneous – pain, redness –Other – nausea, allergic response, backache, headache –FDA post‐marketing analysis for cancer risk

References:

• National Osteoporosis Foundation (2014)

• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – calcium vitamin D (2013)

• Ann Intern Med 2013;158:691‐696

• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – screening (2011) – www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsoste.htm

• International Society for Clinical Densitometry (2013) – www.iscd.org/documents/2013/07/2013‐iscd‐official‐ positions‐adult.pdf

• American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists(2010)

• Endocr Pract 2010;16(Suppl 3):1‐37

• North American Menopause Society (2010) – www.menopause.org/docs/default‐document‐ library/psosteo10.pdf?sfvrsn=2

• Endocrine Society (2012) – J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:1802‐1822

Should Pharmacists Become Board Certified?

I enjoy brainstorming with other pharmacists on becoming board certified.

I remember back in 1998-1999, the assistant dean of my alma mater, the University of Tennessee at Memphis, stressed how important it was to consider residency and board certification. At the time, I was 25 years old and making decisions that would impact me for life.

I decided back then to decline that path. I only saw the dollars that were before me in retail pharmacy and the student loan debt approaching 6 figures. So, I quipped, "Why would I want to work for half pay or less for a whole year?" and "Why would I want to spend money and time to become board certified when there are no immediate financial rewards?"

Hindsight is 20/20. Fast forward to a 40-something in the profession for more than 14 years experiencing all sorts of different pharmacy experiences. After trying most, I have regrets regarding my earlier decisions. I regret not doing a rotation overseas. I regret not doing a residency. I regret that I dismissed it all for more money.

I know that not everyone feels like me, and that is understandable. Perhaps I am just a different sort who realized fairly quickly that I was falling behind. Whatever the reason, I decided to pursue a Board Certified Pharmacotherapy Specialist (BCPS) certification a couple of years ago. I work in a small community setting in a smaller city, and although it is nothing like Memphis in terms of clinical opportunities, such opportunities can be found with a little luck. Passing the test was probably up there with my other personal accomplishments.

Why should you become board certified?

1. According to the Board of Pharmacy Specialties (BPS) website, "From patient to provider, the value of the BPS-certified practitioner registers throughout the health care continuum. For pharmacy professionals, documentation of specialized experience and skills yields the additional benefits of personal satisfaction, financial rewards and career advancement." I definitely agree, but most BCPS-certified pharmacists I have spoken with did not receive a raise unless they changed jobs. While BCPS certification may have helped with landing a clinical job in the past, it might just be something to separate you from a PharmD without BCPS on any pharmacist job interview today.

2. If you have been out of school for more than 5 years, I bet you have already forgotten some of what you have learned. You can either depend on your local hospital's computer system to remind you of every little thing OR you can take charge of what you know and remain committed to being the best pharmacist you can be. Think of it like this: if you work in a hospital and are commanding larger salaries than new graduates with fresher knowledge, there comes a point at which you are replaceable. Remain competitive in your field, which means using continuing education to really learn something, rather than last-minute cramming to renew your state license.

3. A paper published in 2006 states that "Future Clinical Pharmacy Practitioners Should Be Board-Certified Specialists.” In the past, clinical pharmacists have not made board certification a priority, but this is changing rapidly in both clinical and staff positions. As pharmacists move in the direction of becoming reimbursed professionals for optimizing medications, there will be a trend toward licensing agencies requiring board certification in certain scenarios. Sure, that is not the case today, but if you would have told me in 2000 that the market would be in its current shape with oversaturation and residency demand, then I would have done things very differently in 1999-2002.

4. The PharmD curriculum is not enough to get you in sync with other health care professionals. Experience in dealing with physicians and their assistance along with board certification will take you to the next level in recommending appropriate treatment. Placing new graduates in clinical positions without experience and expecting them to build relationships with clinicians is not the best-case scenario for building pharmacist clinical teams. Requiring board certification ensures a higher level of expertise and is moving toward becoming a requirement in many hospitals. The benefits in just preparing and studying for the test are immense, in my experience.

5. Last, but not least, you should become board certified to give your patients the best care possible. This was my number 1 reason. I remember the day when I sat at my desk years ago and realized I had no idea about new practice guidelines and that order entry had essentially turned me into a robot dependent on the computer. I realized that it was time to make some personal changes that would cost me both dollar and time, yet result in amazing benefits for my patients.  

Most pharmacists are reluctant to pursue BCPS certification because no one wants to fail, much less fail twice. Although it is humbling to fail once, it is euphoric to pass, even the second time.

I hope to inspire more pharmacists to be their best in our profession. If you fail, realize that any amount of learning will significantly change how you practice pharmacy. 

Cholesterol Guideline Changes

A whopping 13 million more Americans will now be taking statins due to the recent changes in the guidelines formulated by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology (source:  NEJM).  The new guidelines released by the American Heart Association were released back last November.  

The new guidelines are taking a very different approach.  Rather than focusing on specific end targets for cholesterol, the guidelines focus more on risk and prevention of strokes and heart attacks.  They disregard the guideline that doctors should prescribe cholesterol-lowering drugs when a patient's LDL, or bad cholesterol, reaches a certain threshold — in recent years, above 130.  The guidelines also say everyone with known heart disease should be taking statins.

The guideline recommends statin therapy for the following groups:

• People without cardiovascular disease who are 40 to 75 years old and have a 7.5 percent or higher risk for having a heart attack or stroke within 10 years.  (According to a new risk calculator).
• People with a history of a cardiovascular event (heart attack, stroke, stable or unstable angina, peripheral artery disease, transient ischemic attack, or coronary or other arterial revascularization).
• People 21 and older who have a very high level of bad cholesterol (190 mg/dL or higher).
• People with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes who are 40 to 75 years old.  The drugs are also recommended for younger adults if their LDL cholesterol is over 190.

(Just for reference the old guidelines, using a different calculator, prescribed statin use at a 10-year risk above 20 percent, along with an LDL-cholesterol reading above 130).

As far as side effects go:

• FDA's Guidelines

My Alma Mater: University of Tennessee Health Science Center (Pharmacy School)

Back when I attended UT Memphis Pharmacy School, it ranked in the top 10 of pharmacy colleges in the country.  Today, US News and World Reports ranks it as #17.  

A Chart of Anticoags, Antithrombins, etc...

You like this chart?  Why or why not?

Aspirin (cardio-protective dose only)

Clopidagril (Plavix)

Dabagatrin (Pradaxa)

Dalteparin (Fragmin)

Enoxaparin (Lovenox)

Fondaparinux (Arixtra)

Heparin

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto)

Ticlopidine (Ticlid)

Ticagrelor (Brilinta)

Prasugrel (Effient)

Warfarin (Coumadin)

Aspirin

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Clopidagril (Plavix)

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

X

X

X

M

Dabagatrin (Pradaxa)

M

M

X

X

X

X

X

M

M

M

M**

Dalteparin (Fragmin)

M

M

X

X

X

X

X

M

M

M

M*

Enoxaparin (Lovenox)

M

M

X

X

X

X

X

M

M

M

M*

Fondaparinux (Arixtra)

M

M

X

X

X

X

X

M

M

M

M*

Heparin

M

M

X

X

X

X

X

M

M

M

M*

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto)

M

M

X

X

X

X

X

M

M

M

M**

Ticlopidine (Ticlid)

M

X

M

M

M

M

M

M

X

X

M

Ticagrelor (Brilinta)

M

X

M

M

M

M

M

M

X

X

M

Prasugrel (Effient)

M

X

M

M

M

M

M

M

X

X

M

Warfarin (Coumadin)

M

M

M**

M*

M*

M*

M*

M**

M

M

M

Key:

M = Monitor

M* = Monitor and only give together if INR is NOT therapeutic

M**= Monitor and only give together if INR is NOT therapeutic.  Should only be given together when switching from one agent to the other

***Brilinta (Ticagrelor) cannot be given with Apirin doses > 100mg

X = Never give together without first checking with a physician

Pharmacy Residency or Not?

If you were a manager or director of a hospital pharmacy, what candidate would be the most desirable for your team:

1. A fresh-out-of-school pharmacist who just passed the boards
2. A fresh-out-of-school pharmacist a year ago that just completed a residency
3. A seasoned 5-10 year pharmacist in the same type of pharmacy

This is the question I have been thinking about in the past few months, and a follower here has mentioned I should do a post on it and try to lend some insight without bias.

That's the hard part because I fall into category 3 and you can better believe that I truly believe the seasoned 5-10 year pharmacist has a lot over the other two.  So, can I do this without bias?  At least I have gotten my opinion out of the way.

The pharmacist that just passed the boards is likely to have the most up-to-date knowledge at his/her fingertips... or rather brain.  He or she more than likely has just memorized a plethora of information since we cannot bring Lexi-Comp or any other reference into the boards exam to help us pass.  But is it true that knowing information is very different from applying it in practice?  I remember graduating with that same idea of knowing my stuff but the job I chose helped me quickly forget about 80% of what I learned (retail).  I did not need to know sterile technique.  Gone.  I memory dumped everything about IVs and anything else that I could and focused on classes of drugs commonly used in retail, the side effects, the interactions and giving flu shots.  I obtained my immunization certification and let those that graduated with me that wanted to do a residency to go for it.  Heck, they were making $40K to my 100K.  Seriously.  Easy decision with Sallie Mae knocking on my mailbox monthly for her piece of the pie.  I wanted a bigger pie to have left for ME.

The new grad has the knowledge, but the application is not there yet.  That's my point.

The residency trained pharmacist, on the other hand, has had the knowledge memorized and hopefully had the opportunity to apply that knowledge surrounded by professional pharmacists who helped them to grow both in learning and application.  It really depends on where you did your residency, but yes.  If you did one, kudos to you.  Would I do one now if I could do it all over again?  YES and YES.  Sorry, my opinion that your last rotation of clinicals being equal to a residency is not.  To arrive at a facility for one month and to move on doesn't even get you started on the nuances of the place much less dealing with the different personalities of physicians and nurses.  It doesn't matter if you did the same work as the resident.  He/she will be there for awhile.  It is just different.  Plus, they are sacrificing about 80,000 in pay probably.  Maybe less.  It is just different.

The seasoned pharmacist.  Big sigh.  He/she could be really over it, could be the type that wants to do more (me), or could just really be doing what they love.  The neat thing about experience is that it is priceless.  A pharmacist that has been in the field for over 20 years really has an appreciation for it all.  Yes, they may have moved on past order entry and clinical floor work.  They may be in management at this point, but some remain in a operational/clinical role.  I truly have more appreciation for this category because the truth is I'm heading there faster than I would like.

I have had this blog now for several years, and I remember when I started it I wanted to fall in the ranks with others that griped about retail.  I had a different story for most every HOUR of the day.  Things that you could never imagine were happening around me and it was so very entertaining.

I went through a conversion from retail to home infusion to LTC to hospital.  The last move was made for me because the LTC I worked on sold to another company and lay-offs were happening.  I had to find a place before it was my turn.  I would probably still be there had it not fallen on hard times running customer service, the IV program and maybe even PIC.  Who knows.  Things change all the time just like in every area of life and you have to take the bull by the horns and work with what you have.

The original question:  Pharmacy residency or not?  If you are graduating from pharmacy, please for the love of God do a residency.  There are too many pharmacists now and you have to differentiate yourself.  If you are not or cannot do one, find a niche.  Find something that doesn't have a glass ceiling.  Pass the BCPS exam after three years of experience.

Does the three year rule of working before you can take the BCPS equal one year of residency then?  Perhaps.  I can see how this is a good rule of thumb of knowledge.

Who would you hire of the three and why?

Read this article.  Seriously a good read from the ACCP.

Don't Be Afraid to Fail