2026 Southeastern Residency Conference

Background: Contemporary literature calls for health systems to elevate and structure paid pharmacy internships so they benefit both learners and institutions, moving beyond purely distributive tasks and aligning with patient-care activities and workforce needs. While evidence exists that characterizes the structure and impact of single programs, no publications offer a comparison of program structure or utilize internal stakeholder opinion to influence development. This study is therefore timely and novel in using reported data from existing external programs and internal stakeholder data to inform the design of a comprehensive, hospital-based internship program.  

Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional, survey-based design to help inform the development of a comprehensive hospital-based pharmacy internship program. Electronic surveys were distributed via REDCap to leaders of pharmacy intern programs at external United States health systems and practicing pharmacists at the institution where the project took place. Surveys included quantitative items (e.g., demographics, program characteristics, Likert-scale perceptions of satisfaction and value) and qualitative open-ended questions exploring program strengths, gaps, and factors influencing intern retention. Data wase analyzed descriptively, with thematic analysis applied to qualitative responses. Findings will be used to identify impactful program elements and stakeholder priorities to inform internship program design.

Results: There were six external intern program survey participants. Progressive, multi-year programs made up 50% of the participants. Medication access, medication history, and discharge education were the most common intern activities. The median percent of time dedication to direct patient care was 40 (IQR 10-85). Interns also participated in journal clubs, patient case presentations, and medication use evaluations. Strengths identified by participants included staffing flexibilities, mutual benefit between interns and institutions, and positive mentoring experiences, yet increasing clinical opportunities, funding, and tracking intern errors and activities were identified as areas for improvement. There were 22 internal pharmacist survey participants. Of the 22, 12 were clinical pharmacist while 6 work in the central pharmacy. Pharmacists identified formal mentoring, project participation, clinical shadowing, transitions of care, direct patient care responsibilities, and the training of technicians and/or new interns as beneficial activities to possibly include in the new design. Pharmacists rated their current involvement as a 2 (IWR 1-4) on a scale of 1-10, but this number jumped to 5.5 (IQR 5-8) when asked how involved they are willing to be. Strengths identified by internal pharmacists included exposure to health system practice, strong operational integration, and high potential. Areas of improvement identified included lack of structure and organization, limited visibility and role clarity, insufficient mentorship and professional integration, underutilization, limited clinical exposure, and desire for longitudinal growth and leadership development. 

Conclusion: Institutions have established a need for more formal intern programs with a mutual benefit. There are vast difference in intern programs around the United States, so the development of a new program will more so reflect internal needs. Encouragingly, internal pharmacists are willing to take on a greater role once a formal program is established. The next step is to formalize the design of the program utilizing the survey results.