Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Clinical competence
35% weight
Check hands-on dispensing volume, pharmacy systems used (Rx30, PioneerRx, Epic Willow, EnterpriseRx), sterile compounding under USP 797/800, plus PTCB or ExCPT certification and state registration status.
Evidence to listen for
Command of the procedures, anatomy, and equipment the role requires
Holds current registration or certification
Knows normal from abnormal and what to do about each
Recognises when a case is outside their scope
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unsafe knowledge gaps; registration missing or lapsed.
2
Needs Improvement
Knowledge gaps that would affect patient care.
3
Satisfactory
Competent for standard cases; needs support on complex ones.
4
Very Good
Strong clinical knowledge; safe and reliable across the usual range.
5
Excellent
Names daily script volume, specific dispensing software, IV hood or TPN compounding experience, and holds current PTCB certification with state license.
02
Evaluation factor
Patient safety and protocol
30% weight
Probe how they handle look-alike sound-alike drugs, NDC verification, expired stock pulls, DEA Schedule II counts, recalls, and near-miss reporting to the supervising pharmacist.
Evidence to listen for
Follows identification, infection control, and documentation protocol without prompting
Can describe an error or near miss and what they did
Escalates deterioration early
Treats protocol as protection rather than bureaucracy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Casual about protocol; would not report an error.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent protocol adherence; slow to escalate.
3
Satisfactory
Follows protocol reliably; documentation sometimes thin.
4
Very Good
Protocol is instinctive; escalates early and reports honestly.
5
Excellent
Describes a specific catch before dispensing, cites CII perpetual inventory reconciliation, and escalates anything outside technician scope without hesitation.
03
Evaluation factor
Patient communication
20% weight
Assess how they handle patients at the counter: insurance rejections, prior authorization delays, copay shock, refill-too-soon messages, and redirecting clinical questions to the pharmacist.
Evidence to listen for
Explains a procedure to an anxious or confused patient
Handles distress, pain, or refusal without losing control of the interaction
Respects privacy and dignity in practice, not just in principle
Works with families and carers
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Dismissive of patients; no bedside awareness.
2
Needs Improvement
Task-focused; struggles with distressed patients.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate rapport; less confident in difficult interactions.
4
Very Good
Calm, clear, and respectful with anxious or difficult patients.
5
Excellent
De-escalates a frustrated patient calmly, explains a PA timeline plainly, and never offers dosing or counselling advice themselves.
04
Evaluation factor
Working in a clinical team
15% weight
Judge their fit in the workflow: handoffs to pharmacists, coordinating with prescriber offices on clarifications, supporting techs at data entry versus fill, and covering during rush periods.
Evidence to listen for
Hands over cleanly and completely
Challenges a colleague when patient safety requires it
Takes direction from clinicians without deferring blindly
Handles shift work and pressure without becoming difficult to work with
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Poor handover; cannot work in a clinical team.
2
Needs Improvement
Handover gaps; avoids raising concerns about colleagues.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable team member; handover adequate.
4
Very Good
Clean handovers and willing to speak up on safety.
5
Excellent
Gives concrete examples of unblocking the pharmacist, chasing prescriber callbacks, and flexing between intake, fill, and register roles.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
