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

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