Impact of resident teaching mentors on teaching certificate program outcomes

Abstract

Purpose

USC Mann has a longstanding and robust teaching certificate program involving 30 to 37 residents in USC and USC-affiliated residency programs annually. In 2020, resident teaching mentors (RTMs) were added to the program. Residents were assigned an RTM to provide mentorship and continuity throughout the teaching experience while helping to meet accreditation standards. The impact of adding RTMs to an existing resident teaching certificate program (RTCP) was evaluated.

Summary

Data were collected from PharmAcademic to assess the quantity and quality of evaluation comments related to teaching efforts and the proportion of residents who accepted postresidency positions with a teaching component, comparing residents who participated in the RTCP before (pre-RTM group) and after (post-RTM group) the inclusion of RTMs. Overall, 128 residents were included over a 5-year period (2017-2022). An overall increase in each metric was observed, including an increase in the number of criteria-based comments, the number of comments provided per resident (before: mean, 0.1; SD, 0.8; after: mean, 9.6; SD, 8.1), and the number of evaluations completed within 7 days of the due date (before: mean, 0.3; SD, 0.5; after: mean, 3.1; SD, 1). Overall, 52% of residents who completed the RTCP accepted a postresidency position with a teaching component.

Conclusion

This report provides evidence supporting the benefit of integrating dedicated faculty members, or RTMs, to serve as primary preceptors for RTCP learning experiences. RTMs may assist programs in meeting accreditation standards and contributing to the teaching development of their residents through quality, criteria-based comments submitted in on-time evaluations.

Key Points.

• Resident teaching certificate programs are commonly included as part of residency training, although no accreditation standards specifically govern their operation.

• Resident teaching mentors should be considered to serve as primary preceptors for residency teaching certificate program learning experiences.

• Incorporation of resident teaching mentors as part of a residency teaching certificate program can improve outcomes in terms of the quality and quantity of feedback provided to residents and compliance with residency accreditation standards.

Teaching, education, and dissemination of knowledge is a required competency area across most, if not all, accredited pharmacy residency programs, in which progress toward and achievement of the corresponding goals and objectives must be documented. As activities contained within a resident teaching certificate program (RTCP) generally fall under this required competency area and residents typically complete these programs in a longitudinal fashion, RTCPs should be incorporated into existing teaching and education learning experiences (LEs) or their own LE, depending on the structure of the program. According to the accreditation standard for postgraduate pharmacy residency programs from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP; referred to as “the Standard”),¹ all LEs must have a documented LE description (LED) including evaluation of the resident during the LE. For longitudinal LEs, defined as those of at least 12 weeks in duration, an evaluation must occur at preset intervals based on the length of the longitudinal LE. This includes RTCPs offered by schools or colleges of pharmacy and involves faculty who may not be serving as clinical preceptors for the resident’s respective program. Additionally, RTCPs may include residents across multiple programs. This can lead to inconsistencies in how residents are evaluated for the same experience, as the evaluations for the RTCP may be completed by the residency program director (RPD) or program preceptors rather than the faculty directly involved. Incomplete or late evaluations in PharmAcademic and, in some cases, a complete absence of any evaluations for RTCP LEs housed within schools or colleges of pharmacy may also be problematic for accredited residency programs.

In addition to the importance of meeting the Standard for accreditation purposes, providing constructive feedback and evaluation to residents at regular intervals to improve their performance as educators is essential for their growth.² A formal mentor-mentee relationship in the academic setting is highly beneficial for residents but requires structured implementation to be successful.^3,4 Although there are no standardized requirements for RTCPs according to the Standard, assigning a teaching mentor to a resident and creating intentional and meaningful interactions between the mentor and mentee is considered one of the 4 main components of a basic teaching experience along with development of a teaching philosophy, acquisition of baseline pedagogical knowledge, and experience in a variety of teaching settings.^2,5

The purpose of this report is to describe the inclusion and standardization of a resident teaching mentor (RTM) as part of a standardized RTCP LE and its initial impact on the following: (1) the number/percentage of total comments and comments on evaluations that were criteria based; (2) the number/percentage of evaluations completed in PharmAcademic within the required timeline per the Standard; and (3) the number/percentage of residents with postresidency positions involving teaching or in academia.

The USC Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (USC Mann) RTCP

Program description

USC Mann has a longstanding and robust RTCP that includes residents in USC Mann and affiliated programs across the greater Los Angeles area. Affiliated sites include both federal and community health systems and hospitals. The USC Mann RTCP trains between 30 and 37 postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and PGY2 pharmacy residents annually, with more than 80% of residents in their PGY1 year. As some activities contained within this LE are required for the residency certificate at USC Mann, nearly all USC Mann residents complete the program. Additionally, some individual residency programs include earning the teaching certificate as one of their program completion requirements.

The USC Mann RTCP is a longitudinal LE that starts in July and continues to May of the following year. Residents meet on a weekly basis throughout the year for teaching seminars and to complete weekly teaching responsibilities. During the evaluation period included in this report (2017 through 2022), residents participated in a variety of teaching roles as described in Table 1. Learners with whom the residents worked included undergraduate students, first-year through fourth-year student pharmacists, and preceptors. Education of other healthcare trainees and providers did not fall under this specific LE but was captured instead through other LEs specific to the clinical setting.

Table 1.

Required and Elective Teaching Activities

Teaching activities	CAGOs	Frequency	Description
Required teaching activities
Case conference facilitation	R4.1.3, R4.1.4	2 hours a week per semester: PGY1: 2 semesters PGY2: 1 semester	Residents facilitate case-based discussion in small groups of 13 to 15 students, emphasizing the pharmacist patient care process and skills utilized in various pharmacy practice settings
Didactic lecture	R4.1.1, R4.1.2, R4.1.3, R4.1.4	PGY1: 2-hour lecture for undergraduate course PGY2: 2-hour lecture for PharmD courses	Residents design and deliver one lecture to undergraduate or PharmD learners
CE development	R4.1.1, R4.1.2, R4.1.3, R4.1.4	1 hour	Residents design and deliver an ACPE-accredited CE presentation to pharmacist-level learners at the USC Mann Pharmacy Residency Programs Grand Rounds or pharmacy conference
Skills lab facilitation	R4.1.3, R4.2.1	4-6 hours	Residents assess P1 students on their skills competency in administering vaccines, blood pressure measurement, and obtaining blood samples for point-of-care testing
Teaching seminars and case conference review sessions	R4.1.4, R4.2.1	4.5-hour sessions for 4 weeks 2.5-hour weekly sessions per semester	Residents attend seminars and weekly patient case review sessions for direct instruction on education-based topics: writing a teaching philosophy, creating learning objectives, item writing, inclusive classroom environments, small group facilitation, roles of a preceptor, giving a 5-star presentation, use of technology in the classroom, providing feedback to learners, and effective use of learning management systems Faculty review the patient case for the week and role model how to facilitate a case to match the learning objectives and skills assessed for the case conference
Teaching self-assessment and philosophy	R3.2.1	∼2 hours	Residents submit a teaching philosophy and a teaching self-assessment at the start and end of the teaching certificate program
Elective teaching activitiesa
Health fair precepting	R4.2.1	4-8 hours per health fair	Residents serve as preceptors throughout the year at various community health fairs
OSCE facilitation	R4.1.4	6 hours per OSCE facilitation	Residents serve as evaluators for the end-of-year OSCEs for P1, P2, and/or P3 students
Other teaching activities		Varies	Examples of other teaching activities include delivering an additional CE presentation at a pharmacy conference, creating and presenting a clinical case for use in a case conference, and facilitating team-based discussions as part of interprofessional education courses

Abbreviations: ACPE, Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education; CAGOs, competency areas, goals, and objectives (PGY1); CE, continuing education; OSCE, Objective Structured Clinical Examination; PGY1, postgraduate year 1; PGY2, postgraduate year 2; PharmD, doctor of pharmacy.

^aResidents are required to complete 6 hours of elective teaching activities from an approved list of activities.

The lack of a consistent LE that encompassed the activities of the RTCP was identified internally as an area warranting improvement in 2019, further supported by an accreditation finding the following year (ie, at least one program did not have an LED in PharmAcademic related to teaching, although the resident(s) spent considerable time engaged in these activities). Along with the development of a standardized RTCP LED, a new role, RTM, was created to serve as the primary preceptor for this LE.

RTM implementation

Beginning in the 2020-2021 residency year, the existing USC Mann RTCP implemented RTMs to meet the need for structured mentorship and to ensure the new standardized RTCP LE was consistently administered across the various residency programs. Each resident in the RTCP was matched with an RTM, a faculty member with significant involvement with the USC Mann RTCP and/or recognized by the department of clinical pharmacy as having advanced expertise or experience in pedagogy, defined by role (eg, associate dean for academic and student affairs or curriculum committee chair) or an advanced degree in education (eg, doctor of education). All RTMs held a full-time faculty appointment in the department of clinical pharmacy, with most RTMs also serving as clinical preceptors to residents and students. All RTMs were appointed as preceptors through the USC Mann residency council, the oversight body of all USC Mann and affiliate residency programs, and were required to meet the same appointment and reappointment requirements as preceptors for clinical LEs.

Five to 8 faculty members were selected as RTMs each residency year and were provided approximately 1 hour of training by the associate director of residency programs, which included general expectations, applicable sections of the Standard (eg, due dates for evaluations and the requirement for criteria-based comments), and use of PharmAcademic. At the beginning of the residency year, each RTM was paired with 3 to 5 residents across multiple residency programs and met with residents individually at least 5 times per residency year to provide direct feedback and to complete PharmAcademic evaluations. RTMs spent an average of 5.2 hours per year per resident, which included quarterly meetings, review of teaching materials, in-classroom observation, and completion of evaluations (Figure 1). This time was accounted for as part of their faculty workloads and their annual evaluations. The RTMs also ensured residents achieved all requirements for the USC Mann RTCP by reviewing residents’ electronic teaching portfolio on an ongoing basis throughout the year and tracking quarterly progress (Appendix).

Figure 1.

Sample timeline of resident teaching mentor–resident meeting topics and progress review. CE indicates continuing education; OSCE, Objective Structured Clinical Examination.

Uses of PharmAcademic

Description of PharmAcademic, including primary purpose for use

PharmAcademic, a residency management platform developed and managed by the McCreadie Group, is required to be used by all residency programs accredited by ASHP.⁶ PharmAcademic contains several functions that allow programs to maintain compliance with the Standard, including tracking resident progress in meeting competency area goals and objectives and completion of evaluations by preceptors and residents. Having a standardized platform across all residency programs also allows for a smoother, less time-intensive initial and reaccreditation process, as ASHP surveyors are able to directly access data related to the Standard. Residency programs can also use the data contained in PharmAcademic for their own continuous quality improvement processes or other methods used to assess program aspects. To determine the impact of the newly implemented RTM model, USC Mann used data contained in PharmAcademic as described in the next section.

Assessment of the RTM model

The PharmAcademic records of all residents who completed USC Mann and affiliate accredited PGY1 and PGY2 programs between June 2017 and June 2022 and participated in the USC Mann RTCP were eligible for inclusion. Records were excluded if residents completed programs that were discontinued during the study period or if the RPD did not respond to the request for participation and/or make their records available for review. The pre-RTM group consisted of the records of residents who completed their residency program before implementation of the RTM program (July 2017 through June 2020). The post-RTM group consisted of the records of residents who completed their residency program after implementation of the RTM program (July 2020 through June 2022). Up to 4 evaluations per resident per year completed by the assigned preceptor (pre-RTM group) or RTM who served as the primary preceptor (post-RTM group) were examined.

Data extracted from each eligible record by members of the study team included the number and proportion of all completed evaluations and those completed within 7 days of the due date, the number and proportion of all comments in teaching-related evaluations and those that were criteria based, resident progress and achievement of objectives on evaluations related to USC Mann RTCP activities, and the number of residents with postresidency positions that were academic in nature or otherwise involved teaching. Comments assessed within evaluations were all comments included in individual objectives, summaries at the end of each quarterly evaluation (post-RTM group), or contained in an LE labeled as “teaching certificate,” “education,” or “teaching” that aligned with the objectives of the USC Mann RTCP LE (pre-RTM group). A comment was classified as criteria based if it was actionable in terms of providing the resident specific feedback to successfully achieve the objective or contained information on how the resident achieved the objective. The number of evaluations completed included all evaluations related to the RTCP throughout the residency year, independent of completion time. Academic positions were defined as full-time faculty positions at schools and colleges of pharmacy. Positions in academic medical centers or healthcare systems known to be affiliated with schools or colleges of pharmacy in addition to adjunct faculty positions were used as the definition for teaching as part of a position. For residents who participated in the teaching certificate program after RTM implementation and for whom this data point was missing or unclear in PharmAcademic, this information could also be gleaned from the final plans statement, contained within the resident’s electronic teaching portfolio.

Two members of the study team collected data using a common template, with frequent meetings to maintain consistency in categorizing the variables extracted from PharmAcademic. Data were deidentified and then organized and summarized using an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Quantitative statistical analysis was performed to analyze variables containing numerical data (mean) using a t test; a χ² test was used for variables containing categorical data (yes/no). For categorical variables related to positions in academia and teaching, “unknown” and “unreported” were collapsed with “non” to create binary categorical data appropriate to the χ² test and to more accurately report findings. Each variable was presented either as the mean with SD or frequency with percentage. This study was approved and determined to be exempt by the USC institutional review board.

A total of 151 resident records in PharmAcademic were eligible for inclusion. Data were accessed and extracted from 128 records, resulting in an inclusion rate of 85%. Data describing the total number of evaluations, the number of evaluations submitted within 7 days of the due date, the total number of comments, the proportion of comments meeting the standards for criteria-based evaluations, and data reflecting whether resident progress evaluations were related to the activities of the USC Mann RTCP were available for all 128 residents evaluated in the study. Of the 128 residents included in this 5-year sample of the RTCP, 78 (61%) were in the pre-RTM group and 50 (39%) were in the post-RTM group. Most residents (94%) completed a PGY1 program. Approximately half of the residents completed their training with a USC Mann program (52%), with 48% completing an affiliate program. Not all residents had data available to determine whether their postresidency position included teaching or was categorized as being in academia. Overall, 97 residents (77%) reported whether teaching was included in their position and 69 residents (55%) reported whether they were in an academic position.

Impact of the RTM model

The following aggregate outcomes were obtained from the PharmAcademic records of residents in USC Mann and USC Mann affiliate accredited PGY1 and PGY2 programs who participated in the USC Mann RTCP between June 2017 and June 2022 and for whom the RPD responded affirmatively to the request for study participation.

Quality and amount of feedback

When comparing the mean (SD) between the pre-RTM and post-RTM program groups, there were differences in the number of comments in evaluations (before: mean, 1; SD, 2.2; after: mean, 14.9; SD, 8.6) and criteria-based comments in evaluations (before: mean, 0.1; SD, 0.8; after: mean, 9.6; SD, 8.1). The proportion of criteria-based comments included in evaluations was 2% and 54% and the proportion of resident progress evaluations related to the activities of the RTCP was 13% and 88%, respectively, for the pre-RTM and post-RTM program groups. Metrics reflecting the quantity and quality of the comments and evaluations provided to the residents in the RTCP are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Metrics Aligned With the Standard Before and After Inclusion of Resident Teaching Mentors in the Resident Teaching Certificate Program

Metric	All (n = 128)	Pre-RTM program (n = 78)	Post-RTM program (n = 50)	P value
Number of evaluations, mean (SD)a	1.7 (1.9)	0.4 (0.8)	3.8 (1)	<0.001
Number of evaluations completed within 7 days of due date, mean (SD)a	1.4 (1.6)	0.3 (0.5)	3.1 (1)	<0.001
Proportion of evaluations completed within 7 days of due date, %	41	18	77	<0.001
Number of comments in evaluations, mean (SD)a	6.4 (8.8)	1 (2.2)	14.9 (8.6)	<0.001
Number of criteria-based comments in evaluations, mean (SD)a	3.8 (6.9)	0.1 (0.8)	9.6 (8.1)	<0.001
Proportion of criteria-based comments in evaluations, %	22	2	54	<0.001
Resident progress evaluations related to the activities of the RTCP, No. (%)	54 (42)	10 (13)	44 (88)	<0.001
Postresidency position in academia, No. (%)	2 (1.6)	1 (1.3)	1 (2.0)	0.75
Postresidency position with teaching, No. (%)	67 (52)	41 (53)	26 (52)	0.94

Abbreviations: RTCP, resident teaching certificate program; RTM, resident teaching mentor.

^aPer resident per year.

Timeliness of evaluations.

Differences were found in terms of the mean (SD) between the pre-RTM and post-RTM groups for the number of evaluations completed per resident (before: mean, 0.4; SD, 0.8; after: mean, 3.8; SD, 1) and the number of evaluations completed within 7 days of the due date (before: mean, 0.3; SD, 0.5; after: mean, 3.1; SD, 1). For the pre-RTM and post-RTM program groups, respectively, the proportion of evaluations completed within 7 days of the due date was 18% and 77%.

Postresidency positions involving teaching or in academia

The proportion of postresidency positions in academia was 1% for the pre-RTM group and 2% for the post-RTM group. The proportion of postresidency positions involving teaching was 53% for the pre-RTM group and 52% for the post-RTM group.

Discussion

Quality and amount of feedback provided to residents

Implementing a standardized teaching certificate LE with RTMs serving as the primary preceptor resulted in improved overall outcomes for the USC Mann RTCP in terms of increased compliance with the Standard. Before implementation of RTMs, criteria-based comments were infrequently included as part of resident evaluations for teaching LEs when those LEs were included in PharmAcademic. This may have been because RPDs or other preceptors were often assigned as the primary preceptor for these LEs, rather than faculty members who were actively engaged in monitoring and evaluating residents’ progress throughout the year as it pertained to teaching. Another possibility as to why this substantial improvement was observed is how RTMs were recruited. One of the selection criteria for RTMs was proven expertise or experience in pedagogy, which may be, in part, reflected in their ability to provide specific and actionable feedback to learners based on specific criteria. Another advantage to using designated RTMs, rather than program-specific directors and preceptors, may be that communication with RTMs regarding their role occurred through one person, the associate director of residency programs, who oversaw the entirety of the USC Mann RTCP as part of their position. This likely resulted in more consistent messaging, compared to separate communication with RPDs, which could introduce variability in expectations regarding feedback provided to residents.

Timeliness of evaluations

Large improvements were observed in the number of quarterly evaluations completed for longitudinal LEs, completion of evaluations within 7 days of the due date, and evaluations matched to the objectives and corresponding activities of the USC Mann RTCP. This finding is consistent with recommendations for improving the quality and efficiency of residency programs across health systems by aligning LEs through use of a standardized LE template with the same description and objectives for all associated sites and programs.⁷ The USC Mann RTCP LE also included consistent due dates for the quarterly evaluations. This likely had a positive impact on the ability of RTMs to complete evaluations in a timely manner despite their advising residents across multiple residency programs.

Postresidency positions involving teaching or in academia

When comparing postresidency positions between the groups, there was no apparent difference in the percentage of residents obtaining a postresidency position in academia nor in those who were teaching. This may be reflective of USC Mann and affiliated programs attracting residents already interested in teaching before matching. Additionally, the program at USC Mann is not specifically dedicated to creating full-time academic faculty but rather to training pharmacists who are able to teach in a wide array of settings and with various populations, which could explain the low proportion of residents accepting academic positions after their residency.

Limitations

There were a few limitations to this study. First, there were some barriers in determining whether a resident obtained a postresidency position involving teaching or in academia, as this information was not routinely captured in PharmAcademic. Additional data were manually curated from the electronic teaching portfolio for the post-RTM group to determine whether postresidency positions included teaching or were with academic institutions. However, this resulted in a very small increase in number, as most residents either were not employed at the time they completed their electronic teaching portfolio or did not include this information in their final plans. Further, our results may be an underrepresentation of the reported data because residents who were classified as unknown due to unemployment may have later accepted positions in academia or that included a teaching role. This presents an opportunity for improvement in the residency post-completion tracking system to better capture outcomes related to RTCPs. Finally, the approach described may not be generalizable to other settings due to the structure of the USC Mann RTCP. Residents in this program spend a considerable proportion of their residency training in teaching activities, which may have influenced the metrics observed.

As RTMs were recruited to improve the quality of feedback to residents, there may have been a Hawthorne effect, the phenomenon that occurs when a research participant changes their behavior due to knowing that they are being observed and assessed.⁸ However, this is unlikely as (1) this effort was not designed to be a study and (2) minimal evidence suggests that the Hawthorne effect occurs routinely in health professional education research.⁹ Likewise, these residents may have been more prone to asking for criteria-based feedback on their teaching skills from a preceptor, specifically designated as an RTM, which implies teaching expertise.

Future directions and implications for RTCPs

Although RTCPs are commonly offered through colleges and schools of pharmacy, residency programs may be operated under a clinical site rather than the college or school, which may limit the availability of faculty to serve as RTMs. Even in settings in which faculty are available to serve in this role, competing priorities (eg, scholarship, teaching, and service) may limit their availability. This has current relevance as pharmacy programs may have fewer faculty members to cover teaching responsibilities due to decreased enrollment in doctor of pharmacy programs. For residency programs with limited numbers of qualified faculty with availability to serve as mentors, other similar approaches could be utilized. For example, a primary preceptor could be assigned to the RTCP LE for a resident along with other preceptors, including faculty members, who would mentor individual teaching activities in the LE that fall within their areas of expertise. This would limit the time commitment on the part of any one preceptor, which may enable feasibility for programs with fewer resources.

Although individual publications provide recommendations regarding the structure and requirements of teaching certificate programs,^5,6 RTCPs are not included in the Standard, which leads to significant variation between programs. Outcomes data on the impact of these programs are also limited. However, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) recently published a guideline for teaching experiences in pharmacy residency.¹⁰ In this guideline, it is recommended that residents have at least one teaching mentor to guide their teaching LEs and, as part of this role, the teaching mentor should meet with their assigned residents, at minimum, on a quarterly basis, which is consistent with the RTM model described in this report. As such, this model may be useful for other teaching programs to consider if aligning their RTCPs with the recently published guidance from ACCP.

Along similar lines, the development of a formalized standardized curriculum for preceptors serving as RTMs may be useful for all programs, but especially for those with limited resources or not affiliated with a college or school of pharmacy. Nonfaculty pharmacists could be trained in basic pedagogy, which may be useful in mentoring residents and strengthening preceptors’ teaching skills. Preceptors serving as RTMs could also benefit from attending selected teaching seminar sessions with their resident mentee(s) and being paired with their own faculty teaching mentor during the first year of their involvement with the RTCP.

One future direction could include collecting qualitative data from both residents and faculty who served as RTMs, through either an anonymous survey or structured interview. Alternatively, this information could also be gleaned from PharmAcademic evaluations. However, evaluations in PharmAcademic are not anonymous, which may cause some residents, or even faculty and preceptors, to comment on only the positive aspects of the experience to avoid damaging professional relationships. Regardless of the method of data collection used, having a continuous quality improvement process to assess outcomes and make changes accordingly should be an essential component of all RTCPs.¹⁰

Conclusion

This report provides evidence supporting the benefit of integrating dedicated faculty members, or RTMs, to serve as primary preceptors for RTCP LEs. RTMs may assist programs in meeting the Standard and contributing to the teaching development of their residents through quality, criteria-based comments submitted in on-time evaluations.

Appendix—Teaching certificate checklist, July 2021-June 2022.

Name of Resident: ________________________________________

To complete the teaching certificate program at the University of Southern California (USC) Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, the resident is required to establish and maintain an electronic teaching portfolio on Blackboard. As part of the electronic teaching portfolio, the resident will maintain documentation for completion of the following items in the teaching portfolio. The resident must achieve each item to be considered for a teaching certificate at the completion of the residency year. Evaluator comments, including a plan, are required for any NI ratings.

As part of the USC Mann Teaching Certificate Program, the resident is assigned to a resident teaching mentor (RTM). The resident will meet with their RTM, at minimum, five times during the year (initial, mid-fall, end of fall, mid-spring, end of teaching year). Prior to meeting with the RTM, the resident should ensure that all required documentation has been uploaded to Blackboard for the RTM to review. During each quarterly meeting, the resident and RTM will discuss the resident’s progress toward achieving the teaching certificate program’s requirements including updating the checklist in Blackboard each quarter. Once a task has been achieved, no further evaluation is needed. Please note that some tasks can only be achieved at certain points of the year for all residents whereas the timing of achievement of other tasks will vary depending upon when the resident is assigned to complete the task.

Item	Mid-Fall (Quarter 1)	End of Fall (Quarter 2)	Mid-Spring (Quarter 3)	End of Teaching Year (Final)
Section 1 – General Requirements
Attend all teaching skills seminars with no unexcused absences – no documentation required	NI SP	NI SP	NI SP	NI ACH
Teaching certificate requirements checklist				NI ACH
Teaching log				NI ACH
Certificates of completion	NI SP	NI SP	NI SP	NI ACH
Section 2 – Initial Self-Assessments
Teaching self-assessment version - initial	NI ACH
Initial teaching philosophy	NI ACH
Section 3 – Midpoint Self-Assessments
Fall teaching reflection		NI ACH
Section 4 – Case Conference Teaching Experience
Attend all case conference review (CCR) sessions with no unexcused absences	NI SP	NI SP	NI SP	NI ACH
Facilitate small group discussions for Case Conference and/or Introduction to Therapeutics as assigned	NI SP NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP NA	NI ACH NA
Evaluate student pharmacist performance by established deadlines	NI SP NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP NA	NI ACH NA
Provide constructive comments to students on grading rubrics	NI SP NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP NA	NI ACH NA
Evaluations (eg, CCF, LEE)	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI ACH NA
Section 5 – Didactic Lecture Teaching Experience
Develop teaching materials for a didactic session including learning objectives, PowerPoint slides or other handouts, active learning, and examination or self-assessment questions	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI ACH NA
Complete a synchronous classroom session either live in-person or via Zoom	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI ACH NA
Didactic lecture evaluations	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI ACH NA
Section 6 – Continuing Education (CE) Development
Teaching materials for a CE program including learning objectives and self-assessment questions	NI SP NA	NI SP	NI SP	NI ACH
Deliver CE in an asynchronous and/or synchronous format				NI ACH
CE presentation evaluations	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI SP ACH NA	NI ACH NA
Section 7 – Other Teaching Experience
Serve as a facilitator/instructor for one P1 Skills Lab activity	NI SP ACH	NI SP ACH	NI SP ACH	NI ACH
Serve as a facilitator/instructor for other teaching activities (eg, community health fairs) for a minimum of 6 hours, outside of time spent in the P1 Skills Lab	NI SP ACH	NI SP ACH	NI SP ACH	NI ACH
Participate in other teaching experiences as directed by the residency teaching program	NI SP NA	NI SP NA	NI SP NA	NI ACH
Mentor P4 students as part of the Residency Candidate Mentoring Program				NI ACH
Section 8 – Final Self-Assessments
Teaching self-assessment version - final				NI ACH
Final teaching philosophy				NI ACH

Abbreviations: ACH, achieved or completed; NA, not applicable; NI, needs improvement (requires comments); SP, satisfactory progress.

Data availability

The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to the privacy of the records of the individuals used to generate the data for this study.

Disclosures

The authors have declared no potential conflicts of interest.

Previous affiliations

At the time of the work described, Dr. Mosley was affiliated with The Titus Family Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Southern California Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.