Challenges to Implementation of the Co-Curriculum in Accredited Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To determine areas of concern, and challenges to implementing and assessing the co-curriculum in accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs, along with how confident programs are in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding areas of concern, challenges, and confidence in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement. The frequency of responses to items are presented along with comparisons based on characteristics, including institution type, cohort size, most recent ACPE accreditation review, and supporting offices. Results. The most common concerns centered on the documentation and assessment process. The most commonly reported challenges were lack of enthusiasm or buy-in from faculty, staff, and students; lack of a clear definition of co-curriculum; and faculty time and insufficient staff. Overall, programs had a high level of confidence in their ability to meet the requirements for co-curriculum. The only differences found were related to supporting offices and cohort size. Conclusion. The results suggest that having supporting offices may reduce the co-curriculum burden. Similarly, student cohort size may have an impact on the challenges for some programs, particularly those with moderate-sized cohorts reporting challenges related to faculty and staff. Further research is needed to determine how programs address these critical issues, and to explore whether programs report differently on these areas after completing an accreditation review. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating co-curriculum

Co-Curriculum Implementation and Assessment in Accredited Doctor of Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To determine how accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs implement and evaluate the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding how co-curriculum models were being implemented, including types of activities, structure, learning outcomes, oversight, and assessment. The frequency of responses to items were presented to describe the general features of co-curriculum models. Results. The types of co-curricular activities reported by programs were generally consistent, with the majority of programs categorizing these activities and allowing students to choose which they would engage in. Most respondents reported that the program mapped co-curricular activities to learning outcomes, primarily ACPE Standards 1-4. The structural oversight of the co-curriculum typically included a co-curriculum committee, subcommittee, or task force, and supporting offices. The most common offices/departments involved in the co-curriculum were assessment, student affairs/services, experiential education, and academic/curricular affairs. The most common assessments were reflections, self-assessment surveys, and checklists. Conclusion. In most programs, implementation of the co-curriculum was a joint effort among various individuals, committees, and offices. Given the developing nature of programs, descriptive studies should be repeated to identify how programs develop and enhance co-curriculum models. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating the current state of co-curriculum implementation and potential areas for program development

Co-Curriculum Implementation and Assessment in Accredited Doctor of Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To determine how accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs implement and evaluate the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding how co-curriculum models were being implemented, including types of activities, structure, learning outcomes, oversight, and assessment. The frequency of responses to items were presented to describe the general features of co-curriculum models. Results. The types of co-curricular activities reported by programs were generally consistent, with the majority of programs categorizing these activities and allowing students to choose which they would engage in. Most respondents reported that the program mapped co-curricular activities to learning outcomes, primarily ACPE Standards 1-4. The structural oversight of the co-curriculum typically included a co-curriculum committee, subcommittee, or task force, and supporting offices. The most common offices/departments involved in the co-curriculum were assessment, student affairs/services, experiential education, and academic/curricular affairs. The most common assessments were reflections, self-assessment surveys, and checklists. Conclusion. In most programs, implementation of the co-curriculum was a joint effort among various individuals, committees, and offices. Given the developing nature of programs, descriptive studies should be repeated to identify how programs develop and enhance co-curriculum models. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating the current state of co-curriculum implementation and potential areas for program development

An interprofessional activity involving pharmacy and physician assistant students aimed at reinforcing the patient care process

Background: Pharmacy students should have the opportunity to practice applying the Pharmacists\u27 Patient Care Process (PPCP) in an interprofessional environment. The purpose of this study was to compare the change in students\u27 confidence in their ability to complete the five steps of the PPCP before and after participation in an interprofessional activity involving physician assistant (PA) students. Interprofessional education activity: Second-year pharmacy students and second-year PA students completed an activity in teams of six (four pharmacy and two PA students per team) in which they applied the PPCP to a patient case to create a plan of care. Students completed a pre- and a post-survey regarding their confidence in completing the PPCP and their attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration, as well as a program evaluation after completion of the activity. Discussion: There were 117 pharmacy and 58 PA students divided into 29 interprofessional teams. Of those, 99 (85%) pharmacy and 52 (90%) PA students completed both surveys. There was a statistically significant increase in confidence to perform the PPCP for all students, with a large effect size. There were no changes in attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration. Overall, the program evaluation reflected the activity was rated highly by students. Implications: The interprofessional activity demonstrated a positive effect on students\u27 self-reported confidence in their ability to complete steps of the PPCP. While the interprofessional activity did not affect student attitudes toward interprofessional collaborative practice, the activity was rated highly and most found it to be an important part of their professional development

Knowledge and Attitudes of Student Pharmacists Regarding Polypharmacy and Deprescribing: A Cross-Sectional Study

Pharmacists play a key role in deprescribing medications. Incorporation of this concept into pharmacy school curricula is important in ensuring that graduates can address the complex needs of an aging population. The aims of this study were to assess if and how student pharmacists were exposed to deprescribing within their curriculum, to assess students’ perceptions regarding their attitudes, ability and confidence in deprescribing, and to assess if reported curricular exposure to this topic resulted in improved perceptions or objective knowledge assessment scores. An electronic survey was distributed to third- and fourth-year pharmacy students at 132 schools of pharmacy. The survey included three sections including: (i) demographics and questions on their exposure to deprescribing and other experiences within their curriculum; (ii) questions regarding their attitudes, ability, and confidence regarding deprescribing on a 5-point Likert-scale; (iii) a knowledge assessment on polypharmacy and deprescribing in the form of 12 multiple-choice questions. Likert-scale questions were analyzed as scales utilizing the mean score for items measuring student perceptions regarding deprescribing attitudes, ability, and confidence. Comparisons were made on each variable between students with and without curricular exposure to deprescribing using t-tests. Ninety-one responses were included in the analysis. Only 59.3% of respondents reported exposure to deprescribing in their didactic coursework. The mean scores on the polypharmacy and deprescribing knowledge assessments were 61.0% and 64.5%, respectively. Those with exposure to deprescribing concepts within their curriculum were more likely to agree that their school’s curriculum prepared them to deprescribe in clinical practice (t(89) = −2.26, p = 0.03). Pharmacy schools should evaluate their curricula and consider the addition of specific deprescribing objectives and outcome measures for didactic and experiential training

Factors Associated With Cultures of Assessment at US Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy

Introduction: Pharmacy education has standards for assessment that must be met, prompting many programs to develop cultures of assessment. This study assesses the extent to which assessment personnel perceive that a culture of assessment has been established within their schools/colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs) and determines whether a relationship exists between assessment structure and the perceived strength of the culture of assessment. Methods: An electronic survey was administered to assessment personnel at 134 S/COPs. Respondents were asked about changes within the past five years pertaining to assessment personnel/committees and factors prompting these changes. They were also asked to rate items related to support for institutional assessment (SIA scale) and faculty engagement with assessment (FEA scale). The reliability of each scale was estimated using Cronbach alpha and bivariate correlations were conducted to estimate the relationships among the two scales and other survey items. Results: The S/COP response rate was 84% (113/134). Most (58%) noted the formation or re-structuring of the assessment office, with 26% creating one or more new assessment positions. The most common source of change was new accreditation standards (55%) followed by a new leadership position created in assessment (40%). Cronbach alpha for the SIA scale was 0.79 and 0.84 for the FEA scale. Program size was strongly negatively correlated with school age (rs = −0.58) and the FEA scale (r = −0.21). Conclusions: There was a strong relationship between SIA and FEA. Future studies are warranted to determine the interdependency of support for assessment and faculty engagement with assessment

Surveying the Current Landscape of Assessment Structures and Resources in US Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy

Introduction: Expectations for assessment in higher education have increased in recent decades, prompting institutions to invest additional resources in this area. This study aimed to determine the resources, structure, and perception of assessment resources in United States schools and colleges of pharmacy (S/COPs). Methods: Assessment personnel in S/COPs were surveyed electronically. Information collected included S/COP demographics, composition of assessment positions, experience and training of assessment personnel, and structure and responsibilities of committees engaged in assessment. Respondents’ perception of their S/COPs having sufficient assessment personnel, recent changes in assessment, and the factors that prompted assessment changes were also surveyed. Results: Respondents included individuals from 113 S/COPs (84% response rate). Most S/COPs had 1–2 assessment positions and 1–2 assessment-related committees. The most common assessment position titles were assistant/associate dean, director, coordinator/specialist, and administrative assistant. Dean-level administrators typically had worked in assessment the longest, whereas directors were more likely to have formal assessment training. Most respondents (75%) agreed they had sufficient assessment personnel to meet the 2007 Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards. Nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed they had sufficient personnel to meet the 2016 Standards and support their current assessment plan/process. Most S/COPs had a formal assessment committee (93%) and an average of two committees overseeing assessment. Conclusion: Most S/COPs reported having sufficient resources to support assessment activities. Although there were some consistent themes, there does not appear to be a single model for structuring assessment resources or committees. Effectiveness of various assessment structures represents an area for future research

Reported Challenges to Co-Curriculum Implementation at Accredited Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To determine areas of concern, and challenges to implementing and assessing the co-curriculum in accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs, along with how confident programs are in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement as mandated by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Methods. A survey was administered to all ACPE-accredited pharmacy programs to collect information regarding areas of concern, challenges, and confidence in their ability to meet the co-curriculum requirement. The frequency of responses to items are presented along with comparisons based on characteristics, including institution type, cohort size, most recent ACPE accreditation review, and supporting offices. Results. The most common concerns centered on the documentation and assessment process. The most commonly reported challenges were lack of enthusiasm or buy-in from faculty, staff, and students; lack of a clear definition of co-curriculum; and faculty time and insufficient staff. Overall, programs had a high level of confidence in their ability to meet the requirements for co-curriculum. The only differences found were related to supporting offices and cohort size. Conclusion. The results suggest that having supporting offices may reduce the co-curriculum burden. Similarly, student cohort size may have an impact on the challenges for some programs, particularly those with moderate-sized cohorts reporting challenges related to faculty and staff. Further research is needed to determine how programs address these critical issues, and to explore whether programs report differently on these areas after completing an accreditation review. The study results may be useful to members of the Academy when evaluating co-curriculum