(002) A Qualitative Assessment of Professional Distress among Pharmacy Residents and Clinical Pharmacist Specialists at a Dedicated Cancer Center

Poster Abstract:

Background: The growing body of evidence on moral distress, burnout, and resilience among healthcare professionals often focuses on physicians and nurses (2-4). While clinical pharmacy is emotionally, intellectually, and sometimes morally challenging, pharmacists’ direct patient care roles are poorly recognized in comparison to traditional dispensing and order verification tasks (1). Oncology pharmacists work with critically ill patients with high mortality. While the COVID-19 pandemic, concern for medical errors, and longer work hours contribute to burnout among oncology pharmacists, sources of professional distress stemming from patient-facing roles have yet to be described (5).

Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center has implemented quarterly in-person meetings, called “Death Rounds’, to improve well-being and engagement among residents and clinical pharmacist specialists. Participants debrief and reflect on challenging patient cases or work interactions. These meetings provide insight into sources of professional distress and foster collegiality and empathy among participants.

Objectives: To explore and describe sources of professional distress and core professional values among pharmacy residents and clinical pharmacist specialists

Methods: This is a non-randomized, single center, exploratory, qualitative study of professional distress among pharmacy residents and clinical pharmacist specialists working at a dedicated cancer center. Participants will complete consents and baseline demographic surveys, including Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index scores, prior to participation in the in-person study session which will be recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams. A maximum of 4 pharmacy residents (minimum 2) and 10 clinical pharmacist specialists (minimum 4) may participate. Transcripts will be reviewed for accuracy by the study investigators. A post-session survey assessing feedback on the session will be distributed to participants within 24 hours post-session with a subsequent reminder one-week post-session to complete the survey.

Qualitative analysis and coding of themes will be independently performed by two study investigators and one peer reviewer, followed by triangulation of resulting data to ensure appropriate categorization of common themes. Differing interpretations of any themes will be included as a negative case analysis. The three reviewers will then discuss shared themes that will be included in the analysis. De-identified direct quotes or paraphrasing of quotes from participants will be included to support identified themes of professional distress.

Results: Results are pending.

Discussion/

Conclusion: Discussion and conclusion are pending.

References (must also be included in final poster): 1. Astbury JL and Gallagher CT. Moral distress among community pharmacists: causes and achievable remedies. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2020;16:321-328.
2. Sporrong SK, Hoglund AT, Arnetz B. Measuring moral distress in pharmacy and clinical practice. Nursing Ethics. 2006;13(4):416-27.
3. Kjeldmand D, Holmstrom I. Balint groups as a means to increase job satisfaction and prevent burnout among general practitioners. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(20:138-45.
4. Rabinowitz S, Kushnir T, Ribak J. Preventing burnout: increasing professional self efficacy in primary care nurses in a Balint Group. AAOHN J. 1996;44(1):28-32.
5. Golbach AP et al. Evaluation of burnout in a national sample of hematology-oncology pharmacists. J Oncol Pract. 2021;18(8):e1278-1288.
6. Kruijtbosch M, Gottgens-Jansen W, Floor-Schreudering A, et al. Moral dilemmas reflect professional core values of pharmacists in community pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract. 2019;27(2):140-8.
7. Johnson JL, Adkins D, Chauvin S. A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualtiative research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(1):138-46.