Accreditation Council For Pharmacy Education Research Articles

Immunization Training: Right or Privilege?

Immunization training in US colleges and schools of pharmacy has progressed quickly and significantly. The first formal national training and certificate program aimed at pharmacists was introduced by the American Pharmacists Association in 1996 and was quickly adopted as a curricular model and component by many colleges and schools.1-3 The 1990s also saw extensive changes to many pharmacy practice acts, expanding the pharmacists’ scope of practice to include the administration of immunizations. By 2004, forty-three states recognized pharmacists as immunizers, and now all 50 states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have authorized such privileges.4 Despite the significant progress made in recognizing the role of the pharmacist as immunizer, academic pharmacy still appears to be lagging in it responsibilities to uniformly educate students in preparation for this role. A 2009 report found that approximately 38% of colleges and schools of pharmacy were providing immunization education and training as a component of their core curricula.5 Gaps and lack of uniformity in education are creating challenges for pharmacy students and practicing pharmacists alike as boards of pharmacy and employers adopt different legislative and workplace regulations regarding the preparedness and privilege to immunize. From a public health standpoint, these educational gaps may contribute to low immunization rates and the ability or inability of the US health care system to achieve quality health indicators in this area as targeted in Healthy People 2020.6 The profession has not clearly established or advocated for the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) degree as the sole credential necessary to immunize. Despite immunization training being introduced into the curricula of many institutions some 10 to 15 years prior, many colleges and schools still do not mandate such training. It is common for immunization-related course work and materials to be relgated to elective status, aimed at students with expressed interest in this area. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) Standards 2007 (Version 2.0) for programs leading to the PharmD degree refer to instruction in the area of immunizations only esoterically as a component of formal instruction in immunology and/or as a component of larger preventative health programs. The standards do, however, state that students should be prepared for “administering medications where practical and consistent with the practice environment and where legally permitted.”7 The mismatch between practice standards (where pharmacists are granted varied levels of immunization privileges from state-to-state) and educational standards (which do not recognize, mandate, and/or enforce formalized immunization training as a minimal competency in granting of the PharmD degree), continue to create a confusing dichotomy for employers and regulatory agencies. Pharmacy educators and accreditation bodies should recognize that both the profession and the public have embraced the concept of “pharmacist as immunizer.” The literature is now replete with references to the impact of pharmacist-provided immunization services on public health indicators related to vaccine-preventable diseases.1,8 This should serve as a mandate to colleges and schools to develop practitioners with both the knowledge and skills to immunize. Training in this area should not be relegated to an elective component of curricula but rather recognized as a standard of practice that demands that all students demonstrate competency in providing immunizations upon graduation. Uniform and standardized instruction in this area, without a need for external validation (certificate programs, etc.), would increasingly serve to further establish the PharmD degree as the sole credential required to immunize. Graduates are not expected to gain additional credentials beyond the PharmD degree to dispense medications, counsel patients, or compound pharmaceuticals. Similarly, in a modern curriculum, students should not be required to seek additional training in order to immunize. In future revisions of PharmD standards, ACPE should consider inclusion of lecture-based and hands-on immunization training as discrete and required elements of all curricula. Such standardization would assist employers and regulatory bodies in understanding the abilities and competencies of PharmD graduates. Certainly, peripheral training programs play a significant and important role in providing opportunities for pharmacy school graduates and existing practitioners who were not trained as immunizers either as a component of their degree work or through postgraduate experiences. The dichotomies between immunization education in US colleges and schools, state-mandated regulations, and professional practice privileges and employer requirements should be a lesson for the profession in terms of more proactively and uniformly reacting to contemporary changes in practices. The fragmentation and discrepancies between teaching, practice, and legislation can only serve to frustrate students, slow progress towards improved patient care, and confuse the public. As the profession moves forward with continued advances in practice and practice standards (eg, pharmacist-prescribing, triage and referral, primary care, medication therapy management), we should be cognizant of remaining proactive in our construct of curricula and unified in our approach to regulation and credentialing.

Incorporating a Continuous Quality Improvement Process into Pharmacy Accreditation for Well-Established Programs

Incorporating a Continuous Quality Improvement Process into Pharmacy Accreditation for Well-Established Programs

Sharing Ideas in Experiential Education

Sharing Ideas in Experiential Education

Importance of Direct Patient Care in Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education issued revised standards (Standards 2007) for professional programs leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy degree in July 2007. The new standards require colleges and schools of pharmacy to provide pharmacy practice experiences that include direct interaction with diverse patient populations. These experiences are to take place in multiple practice environments (e.g., community, ambulatory care, acute care medicine, specialized practice areas) and must include face-to-face interactions between students and patients, and students and health care providers. In 2009, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) identified concerns among their members that training for some students during the fourth year of pharmacy curriculums are essentially observational experiences rather than encounters where students actively participate in direct patient care activities. These ACCP members also stated that there is a need to identify effective mechanisms for preceptors to balance patient care responsibilities with students' educational needs in order to fully prepare graduates for contemporary, patient-centered practice. The 2010 ACCP Educational Affairs Committee was charged to provide recommendations to more effectively foster the integration of pharmacy students into direct patient care activities during advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). In this commentary, the benefits to key stakeholders (pharmacy students, APPE preceptors, clerkship sites, health care institutions, academic pharmacy programs) of this approach are reviewed. Recommendations for implementation of direct patient care experiences are also provided, together with discussion of the practical issues associated with delivery of effective APPE. Examples of ambulatory care and acute care APPE models that successfully integrate pharmacy students into the delivery of direct patient care are described. Enabling students to engage in high-quality patient care experiences and to assume responsibility for drug therapy outcomes is achievable in a variety of practice settings. In our opinion, such an approach is mandatory if contemporary pharmacy education is to be successful in producing a skilled workforce capable of affecting drug therapy outcomes.

Pharmacy School Provenance and Pharmacy Practice

Pharmacy School Provenance and Pharmacy Practice

The Pharmacy Student Population: Applications Received 2009-10, Degrees Conferred 2009-10, Fall 2010 Enrollments

INTRODUCTION This report presents data that describe the 2009-10 pharmacy application pool, degrees conferred in 2009-10, and fall 2010 pharmacy program enrollments. Data for this report were requested from the one hundred and twenty (120) U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy recognized by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) using five separate survey instruments. There were previously two professional education programs at U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy: one leading to a baccalaureate in pharmacy, and the other leading to the doctor of pharmacy (Pharm.D.) degree. However, June 30, 2005 marked the official expiration of the ACPE standards to the baccalaureate in pharmacy (B.S. Pharmacy) degree programs in accordance with the transition to the doctor of pharmacy (Pharm.D.) degree as the sole professional degree program in the U.S. Some colleges and schools of pharmacy conferred degrees in the B.S. Pharmacy program until 2004-05. For the purpose of this report, students in doctor of pharmacy programs are categorized under Pharm.D.1 when the program leads to a doctor of pharmacy degree conferred as the first professional degree. Students who have already received a baccalaureate in pharmacy and are enrolled in a doctor of pharmacy degree program are categorized under Pharm.D.2. The following definitions refer to the race/ethnicity groups as used in this report. White, black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino refer to students of the respective race/ethnicity who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. or its territories. The Asian, native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander group includes students who are Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Asian Indian, Guamanian, Samoan, or Pacific Islanders who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. or its territories. The American Indian or Alaska native classification includes Native Americans, Eskimos, and Aleuts who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. or its territories. Students listed under Other are those who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. or its territories, but for whom race/ ethnicity is unknown or are students of two or more races/ethnicities. Included in Foreign are all students who are foreign, nonpermanent residents of the U.S., regardless of race/ethnicity. 2009-10 APPLICATION POOL The 2009-10 Application Pool Survey was conducted online in October 2010, with an announcement and request for participation sent to the dean at each of the 120 colleges and schools of pharmacy in the U.S. recognized by ACPE. After follow-up correspondence and telephone calls, one hundred and twenty (120) colleges and schools (100.0 percent) submitted the requested information. The Pharmacy College Application Service (PharmCAS) provided application data for the 74 full-participating colleges and schools of pharmacy. Included in the application pool are students who applied for admission and submitted all required application materials between September 2009 and August 2010 for the entering class of fall 2010. Numbers reported represent the number of applications, not applicants, and may represent multiple applications submitted by individual applicants. During the period September 2009 through August 2010, the 120 reporting institutions received 111,744 applications for admission. The Medical University of South Carolina and the University of South Carolina merged to become the South Carolina College of Pharmacy and only accepted applications to the South Carolina College of Pharmacy. The Medical University of South Carolina is still in the process of phasing out its program. Therefore, 119 of the 120 reporting institutions received applications. When compared with entering class enrollment data for fall 2010 at these institutions, the resultant ratio was 7.7 applications received for every one entering student enrolled. …

Simulation and Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences

This paper reviews the literature on the various types of simulation and their incorporation into health professions curricula, describes how simulation training is recognized in other professions, and evaluates the feasibility of integrating simulation into experiential education programs of colleges and schools of pharmacy. The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) Board of Directors develop standards and guidelines on the use of simulation as part of introductory pharmacy practice experiences within the doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) curriculum.

Quality assurance in European pharmacy education and training

A survey of quality assurance (QA) systems in European faculties of pharmacy was carried out under the auspices of the European Association of Faculties of Pharmacy PHARMINE consortium. A questionnaire based on the quality criteria of the International Pharmaceutical Federation and the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (USA) was sent out to European faculties. Replies were obtained from 28 countries. Just above half has a working QA system. QA scores were high concerning matters such as complete curriculum and training, use of European Credit Transfer System, students' representation and promotion of professional behavior. QA scores were low concerning matters such as evaluation of achievement of mission and goals, and financial resources. The PHARMINE consortium now has a basis upon which to elaborate and promote QA in European pharmacy faculties.

The Power of Planning: Address to the 2011 House of Delegates, July 12, 2011

The Power of Planning: Address to the 2011 House of Delegates, July 12, 2011

The New American Pharmacist

The New American Pharmacist

Board Certification of Pharmacist Specialists: American College of Clinical Pharmacy

Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapyVolume 31, Issue 11 p. 1146-1149 Free Access Board Certification of Pharmacist Specialists: American College of Clinical Pharmacy First published: 20 January 2012 https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.31.11.1146Citations: 22AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References 1 Council on Credentialing in Pharmacy. Scope of contemporary pharmacy practice: roles, responsibilities, and functions of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. J Am Pharm Assoc 2010; 50: e35– 62. 2 Saseen JJ, Grady SE, Hansen LB, et al, for the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Future clinical pharmacy practitioners should be board-certified specialists. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26: 1816– 25. 3 Blair MM, Freitag RT, Keller DL, et al, for the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. ACCP certification affairs committee. Proposed revision to the existing specialty and specialist certification framework for pharmacy practitioners. Pharmacotherapy 2009; 29: 3– 13e. 4 American College of Clinical Pharmacy. A vision of pharmacy's future roles, responsibilities, and manpower needs in the United States. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 991– 1020. 5 Murphy JE, Nappi JM American College of Clinical Pharmacy's vision of the future: postgraduate pharmacy residency training as a prerequisite for direct patient care practice. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26: 722– 33. 6 Haase KK, Smythe MA, Orlando PL, Resman-Targoff BH, Smith LS, for the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. ACCP position statement: ensuring quality experiential education. Pharmacotherapy 2008; 28: 1548– 51. 7 Pradel FG, Palumbo FB, Flowers L, Mullins CD, Haines ST, Roffman DS. White paper: value of specialty certification in pharmacy. J Am Pharm Assoc 2004; 44: 612– 20. 8 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP long-range vision for the pharmacy work force in hospitals and health systems. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007; 64: 1320– 30. 9 Daughtery NE, Ryan M, Romanelli F, Smith KM. Board certification of pharmacy residency program directors. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007; 64: 1415– 21. 10 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. Proceedings of the pharmacy practice model summit. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2011; 68: e40– 142. 11 American Pharmacists Association. Assuring pharmacists' continuing competence in contemporary practice. Current adopted APhA policy statement 1963–2009. Adopted 1995. Available from http:www.pharmacist.comAMTemplate.cfmSectionHouse_of_Delegates&TemplateCMContentDisplay.cfm&ContenD10545. Accessed July 16, 2010. 12 Spinler SA, Bosso J, Hak L, et al. Report of the task force concerning board certification requirements for pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ 1997; 61: 213– 16. 13 Wells BG. Board certification and clinical faculty [editorial]. Am J Pharm Educ 1999; 63: 251. 14 Lee M, Bennett M, Chase P, et al. Final report and recommendations of the 2002 AACP task force on the role of colleges and schools in residency training. Am J Pharm Educ 2004; 66: Article S2. 15 Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and guidelines for the professional program in pharmacy leading to the doctor of pharmacy degree. Standard 25, guideline 25.1. Effective July 1, 2007. Citing Literature Volume31, Issue11November 2011Pages 1146-1149 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Assessment of center for the advancement of pharmaceutical education (CAPE) outcomes in a capstone course of an accelerated pharmacy program

Objective Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education endorses assessment of achievement of learning outcomes in pharmacy programs. This is a process that is aided by requiring that course outcomes align with student learning outcomes (SLOs). We sought to assess student achievement of multiple outcomes that have been linked to a senior capstone course. Materials and Methods SLOs were applied to a capstone course that requires a professional poster presentation. Faculty assessment of SLOs achievement and students' self-assessment were completed using specific evaluation tools. Successful achievement was defined as an overall score of ≥70%. Results There were 158 students assessed by faculty; 92 students completed self-evaluations. Faculty assessment found that students completed 85% of the course evaluation items (70% expected, p ≤ 0.001), with student self-assessment consistent with faculty assessment. Conclusions The assessment methods in this course provided insight into how well our pharmacy curriculum prepares students for performance of tasks that are essential attributes for a graduating pharmacist.

Information Technology and Pharmacy Education

Information technology permeates pharmacy education. Attempts to succinctly describe and analyze the complete range of information technology in use would be met with considerable challenges as the technology array is diverse in complexity and capability. Acknowledging the near ubiquity of information technology in pharmacy education, and recognizing the inherent challenges of presenting an exhaustive analysis of technology use, this supplement is devoted to several key information technology topics for pharmacy education. Colleges of pharmacy are challenged with making decisions regarding investments in information technology to support their work. These investments can take many forms, including monetary and personnel resources. In the health information systems marketplace, site visits are a de facto must-do when implementing a new clinical information system. Site visits allow potential adopters to see the technology under consideration in a live environment, and allow frank discussion between current and potential users. Monaghan and colleagues1 present the results of a nationwide survey describing information technology use in pharmacy education. Specifically, their paper details the creation of an open, searchable database that allows pharmacy faculty members and administrators to conduct virtual site visits to identify what information technology is being used, where it is being used, and who to contact for more information. Their work provides valuable information for those seeking to learn about real-world experiences with technology in pharmacy education. Social media is one category of information technology that is receiving attention for its possible use in education. Examples of social media include blogs, social networking sites, and online communities. Among the social media category of microblogs, Twitter.com is a popular service that is being explored for utility in education. Fox and Varadarajan2 describe experiences of 143 pharmacy students using Twitter in a pharmacy management course. Their experiences shed valuable insight into the potential challenges and benefits of using Twitter in a course that is primarily taught in lecture format. While the use of Twitter and other information technology tools is an instructional decision made by the faculty member, colleges and schools of pharmacy are increasingly being encouraged by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) to use portfolios for assessment of both students and faculty members.3 Electronic portfolios offer many potential improvements over paper-based portfolios, but they also present many challenges. Lopez and colleagues4 describe their experiences implementing a commercial ePortfolio application, including a description of the incorporation of curricular outcomes within their program as well as a discussion of management and logistical considerations for implementation. Two additional papers in the supplement also focus on information technology implementation. Our colleagues in institutional practice are often charged with demonstrating their clinical and financial impact. The academy faces similar challenges in demonstrating the impact and value of students and practice faculty members at experiential sites. The first paper, by Stevenson and colleagues,5 addresses this challenge in describing one pharmacy program's process and results of implementing a clinical intervention documentation system, including clinical and financial data from several years of usage. The second paper addresses implementation of a decidedly different technology: video conferencing. Fox and colleagues6 describe technology-related planning, construction, implementation, and ongoing use of resources to support a satellite campus through synchronous video conferencing. Because of the proliferation of multi-campus pharmacy programs,7 video conferencing is actually addressed in 3 papers in this supplement, including the Monaghan1 and Fox6 papers above. Additionally, Stolte and colleagues8 present student perspectives on video conferencing (among many technologies) in their description of student pharmacists’ perceptions of the impact of technology on education. Readers are encouraged to consider the findings in these papers6,8 related to the impact of video conferencing and student perspectives8 on several of the technologies described in the paper by Monaghan and colleagues.1 The last paper in the supplement addresses the knowledge and skills that pharmacy graduates should possess related to pharmacy informatics. Despite ACPE requirements,3 work remains to be done before colleges and schools of pharmacy fully incorporate pharmacy informatics content into their curricula.9,10 This last paper frames pharmacy informatics content in the context of the medication use process and includes specific readings, learning activities, and resources to assist pharmacy programs to incorporate informatics into their programs.11 Through the inclusion of a broad set of contemporary topics, this supplement is intended to help colleges and schools of pharmacy prepare for the future. This future will include information technology and pharmacy informatics as important components of pharmacy education.

Implementing Standards 2007 to Improve Students’ Preparation for Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences

To examine the impact of implementation of the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education's (ACPE's) Standards 2007 on pharmacy students' preparation for their first advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE). The doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) curriculum was altered to include introductory pharmacy practice experiences (IPPE), second-year therapeutics, classroom integration of practice experiences, more biomedical sciences, an electronic portfolio system, life-long learning exercises, and additional content based on Appendix B of Standards 2007. Curricular outcomes and the assessment plan also were revised based on Standards 2007. To evaluate the impact of these changes to the curriculum, faculty members rated 9 behaviors of students observed during the third week of their first APPE and compared their scores with those of students who were evaluated in 2004 before the curriculum had been revised. Students completing the revised curriculum performed all 9 behaviors more often and had a better average score than students evaluated in 2004. Curricular revisions implemented to address ACPE Standards 2007 were associated with positive clinical behaviors in students beginning their experiential education.

Improving student education and patient care through an innovative introductory pharmacy practice experience

![Figure][1] The standards of the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) for doctor of pharmacy programs require pharmacy curricula to provide students with introductory pharmacy practice experiences (IPPEs), which are defined as “practice experiences offered in various

Professional Technical Standards in Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy

To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and use of professional technical standards among colleges and schools of pharmacy accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). The Web site of every college and school of pharmacy accredited by ACPE was searched to identify information regarding the availability, content, and use of technical standards and to obtain demographic information. Information was obtained from all of the 114 colleges and schools of pharmacy and 67 (59%) had technical standards in place. Common themes for technical standards were: observation; communication; motor; intellectual, conceptual, integrative and quantitative abilities; and behavioral and social attributes. Of those colleges and schools with technical standards, 61 (91%) had standards that addressed all 5 of these themes and 34 (51%) specified that the technical standards were used in their admission, progression, and graduation procedures. More than half of the colleges and schools of pharmacy examined in this study have technical standards; however, 41% have yet to develop and implement them. Colleges and schools of pharmacy looking for guidance in technical standards development could use the technical standards themes identified in this study.

Biochemistry and pathophysiology instruction in U.S. colleges and schools of pharmacy: Faculty and course characteristics and faculty perceptions of student preparedness

Objectives To describe biochemistry and physiology/pathophysiology instruction in both the prepharmacy and Doctor of Pharmacy curricula, including faculty and course characteristics and faculty members' perceived preparedness of incoming pharmacy students in these content areas. Methods A 20-item online questionnaire was developed and sent to the Dean at 95 colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States. Data were analyzed via SurveyMonkey and Excel using descriptive statistics. Results Based on a 42.1% response, the primary andragogy used to deliver both content areas was lecture (84.4% for biochemistry; 74.4% for pathophysiology). Pathophysiology was more likely to be taught in an integrated format with other course content than was biochemistry (47.5% vs. 20.0%, respectively). Pathophysiology tended to be taught by a larger number of faculty than biochemistry and to involve more faculty with a terminal PharmD degree (40.8% in pathophysiology vs. only 4.8% in biochemistry). Approximately one third of respondents perceived that incoming pharmacy students had an adequate foundation in physiology (35.1%) or biochemistry (30.8%) to succeed in the professional curriculum. Conclusions Almost two thirds of entering pharmacy students were perceived by faculty to be inadequately prepared in two crucial areas of the basic sciences. Pharmacy prerequisites need to be reviewed by Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education and American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy with consideration given to standardizing basic science prerequisites across all preprofessional programs.

Development and incorporation of an interprofessional experience into a geriatric pharmacy elective: the first-year experience

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education has declared that pharmacy students should be prepared to provide patient care as a member of an interprofessional team of practitioners. Nowhere is the importance of this team approach more evident than when considering geriatric patients who often use a substantial number of medications to treat what is frequently a complex group of chronic and acute conditions. To introduce an interprofessional approach to the treatment of geriatric patients, pharmacy faculty at the Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions developed an elective course in geriatrics that exposed the students to a patient care experience with occupational and physical therapy student partners. The challenges associated with the development of the interprofessional component of the course and the use of the experience as expressed by the students who enrolled are discussed.

Clinical toxicology residency and fellowship programs for pharmacists

![Figure][1] The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education lists toxicology as a core curriculum requirement of all Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) degree programs.[1][2] Although just one component of the broad pharmaceutical sciences spectrum knowledge of clinical toxicology is vital for

ASHP, APhA warn of decreased graduate quality from increased enrollments

The quality of pharmacists entering the work force may decrease if educational organizations continue to open new pharmacy schools, add “satellite” programs, and increase existent schools’ class sizes, according to a discussion paper by ASHP and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA). Released on December 6, 2010, during the ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting in Anaheim, California, the discussion paper explains the two practitioner organizations’ concerns regarding the recent “rapid” expansion in schools’ capacity to enroll pharmacy students. Capacity increased 63% from 2000 to 2009, according to information available from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP). All students finishing a four-year Pharm.D. degree program this year spent at least 5% of their curricular hours in introductory pharmacy practice experiences. This requirement to be in the field early on went into effect in mid-2007 as part of the new standards for pharmacy schools from the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE).