Marketing

ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR PHARMACY EDUCATION

Categories
Published
of 24
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR PHARMACY EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON MADISON, WISCONSIN THE EVALUATION TEAM REPORT OF THE PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM LEADING TO THE DOCTOR OF PHARMACY DEGREE NOVEMBER
Transcript
ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR PHARMACY EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON MADISON, WISCONSIN THE EVALUATION TEAM REPORT OF THE PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM LEADING TO THE DOCTOR OF PHARMACY DEGREE NOVEMBER 14-16, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose 1 B. Accreditation History 1 C. Evaluation Team 1 D. Evaluation Procedure 2 II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. College or School s Overview 4 B. Summary of the College or School s Self-Study Process 5 C. Summary of the Evaluation of ACPE Standards 7 Standards for Mission, Planning and Evaluation 8 (# 1 3) Standards for Organization and Administration 20 (# 4 8) Standards for Curriculum 34 (# 9 15) Standards for Students 56 (# 16 23) Standards for Faculty and Staff 76 (# 24 26) Standards for Facilities and Resources 84 (# 27 30) APPENDIX I: Evaluation Team Visit Schedule 94 APPENDIX II: Faculty Addendum 99 APPENDIX III: Faculty Resource Report 107 APPENDIX IV: Professional Practice Experience Resources 109 i DOCTOR OF PHARMACY PROGRAM THE EVALUATION TEAM REPORT I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose The on-site evaluation is a component of the accreditation review that results in the Evaluation Team Report to be used for purposes of considering the continued accreditation of the Doctor of Pharmacy program. The evaluation process on this comprehensive review gave particular attention to the progress made and the changes that have occurred since the last comprehensive onsite evaluation in 2006, as well as to the plans for continuing development. In addition to the School s self-study, the evaluation team reviewed the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) responses to the School s interim reports submitted since the last comprehensive visit (see accreditation history below). B. Accreditation History Date of Last Comprehensive Review: April 5-7, Focused Visits since Last Review: None. Interim Reports since Last Review: October 18, 2007; October 15, Special Conditions/Status: None. Standards Requiring Monitoring (as of last Board action): No. 7: College or School Organization and Governance; No. 15: Assessment and Evaluation of Student Learning and Curricular Effectiveness; No. 28: Practice Facilities: No. 30: Financial Resources. C. Evaluation Team The evaluation team members were: Kem Krueger, PharmD, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Wyoming School of Pharmacy, Laramie, Wyoming; Lauren Schlesselman, PharmD, Director of Assessment and Accreditation, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, Connecticut; Jerry Siegel, PharmD, FASHP, Practitioner, Gahanna, Ohio; 2 Craig Svensson, PharmD, PhD, Dean and Professor, Purdue University College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, Indiana; and Robert Elenbaas, PharmD, FCCP, ACPE Evaluation Consultant, Phoenix, Arizona. Observing the work of the evaluation team was Timothy Boehmer, RPh, Board Member, Wisconsin State Board of Pharmacy, Neenah, Wisconsin. D. Evaluation Procedure The accreditation review was based upon the Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for the Professional Program in Pharmacy Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree, adopted January 15, 2006, and implemented July 1, 2007 ( Standards 2007 ). As a component of this evaluation, the School of Pharmacy provided a self-study the School and the Doctor of Pharmacy program, as well as other materials that describe the pharmacy program and how to access public information about the program available on the Internet. The schedule of the evaluation team visit is enclosed (Appendix I). The evaluation team validates the program s selfstudy, providing the perspective of an independent external peer review. A summary of the evaluation team s findings and recommendations was presented at the conclusion of the on-site evaluation to the Dean and then to the University of Wisconsin Madison Chancellor and Provost. A written Evaluation Team Report (ETR) presenting the findings of the evaluation team is sent to the chief executive officer and the dean of the program following the conclusion of the on-site evaluation. The ETR is not an accreditation action but is an evaluative step in the accreditation process. The dean of the program is given the opportunity (through an to the dean) to correct factual errors and to comment on the draft ETR prior to finalization and distribution of the ETR to the Board. The chief executive officer of the institution and the dean of the program may also provide supplemental materials related to the facts and conclusions presented in the ETR prior to the time the ETR is reviewed by the Board of action. Any such materials must be received by ACPE no later than 21 days prior to the start of the Board meeting at which action on the ETR will be taken. The Evaluation Team Report, the School s self-study, and any additional communications and/or information received from the School will be considered by the ACPE Board of Directors at its January 18-22, 2012, meeting. The Accreditation Action and Recommendations of the Board will be transmitted to the institution as soon as is feasible following this meeting. 3 II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. College or School s Overview The college or school was invited to provide an overview of changes and developments related to the program and the college or school since the last comprehensive on-site evaluation. The summary should have been organized by the six sections of the Standards. Comments: Please comment on anything that is notable from the college or school s overview. Items of special note are described and discussed as they relate to individual standards within the body of this report. 4 B. Summary of the College or School s Self-Study Process Please use the following form to evaluate the college or school s self-study process and the organization, clarity and completeness of the report, and provide feedback to assist the college or school to improve the quality of future reports. Participation in the Self-Study Process Knowledge of the Self-Study Report Completeness and Transparency of the Self-Study Report Relevance of Supporting Documentation Evidence of Continuous-Quality Improvement Organization of the Self-Study Report Commendable Meets Expectations Needs Improvement The self-study report was written and reviewed with broad-based input from students, faculty, preceptors, staff, administrators and a range of other stakeholders, such as, patients, practitioners, and employers. Commend Students, faculty, preceptors, and staff are conversant in the major themes of the report and how the program intends to address any deficiencies. Commend All narratives and supporting documentation are thorough, clear and concise. The content appears thoughtful and honest. Interviews match the self-study findings. Commend Supporting documentation of activities is informative and used judiciously. Commend The program presents thoughtful, viable plans to not only address areas of deficiency, but also to further advance the quality of the program beyond the requirements of the Standards. Commend All sections of the report are complete and organized or hyperlinked to facilitate finding information, e.g., pages are numbered and sections have labeled or tabbed dividers. Commend The self-study report was written and reviewed with broad-based input from students, faculty, preceptors, staff and administrators. Meets Students, faculty, preceptors, and staff are aware of the report and its contents. Meets All narratives and supporting documentation are present. The content is organized and logical. Supporting documentation is present when needed. Meets Meets The program proactively presents plans to address areas where the program is in need of improvement. Meets The reviewer is able to locate a response for each standard and the supporting documentation with minimal difficulty. Meets The self-study report was written by a small number who did not seek broad input from students, faculty, preceptors, staff, and administrators. Needs Improvement Students, faculty, preceptors, and staff have little or no knowledge of the content of the self-study report or its impact on the program. Needs Improvement Information is missing or written in a dismissive, uninformative or disorganized manner. Portions of the content appear biased or deceptive. Needs Improvement Additional documentation is missing, irrelevant, redundant, or uninformative. Needs Improvement No plans are presented or plans do not appear adequate or viable given the issues and the context of the program. Needs Improvement Information appears to be missing or is difficult to find. Sections are not well labeled. Needs Improvement Additional Comments on the Self-Study 5 The self-study process began in summer 2010 with an all-school retreat. The overall process was overseen and guided by the Self-Study Steering Committee, which included broad faculty, staff, and student participants, as well as representatives from the University Ombuds office, Pharmacy Alumni Association, and the School s Board of Visitors. Six Area Committees that corresponded to the six sections of the accreditation standards were established and were responsible for addressing the standards within their respective sections. Collectively, these committees included broad faculty, staff, student, and external representatives. Student members of the Steering Committee held open forums to obtain input from their peers. Similarly, each of the Area Committees held open forums to gain input from the School s faculty. The final self-study document was approved at an All-School retreat in summer The faculty are commended and thanked for their willingness to serve as a beta site for implementation of the Assessment and Accreditation Management System (AAMS). Doing so obviously added to the work of the self-study preparation, and this extra effort is appreciated very much. The School also is thanked for agreeing to move its reaccreditation review from Spring 2012 to Fall 2011 to accommodate ACPE workload issues. This obviously compressed the time available for completing the self-study. The School s willingness to assist ACPE in this way also is appreciated very much. 6 C. Summary of the Evaluation of All Standards 1 Standards Compliant MISSION, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION 1. College or School Mission and Goals 2. Strategic Plan 3. Evaluation of Achievement of Mission and Goals ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION 4. Institutional Accreditation 5. College or School and University Relationship 6. College or School and other Administrative Relationships 7. College or School Organization and Governance 8. Qualifications and Responsibilities of the Dean CURRICULUM monitor 9. The Goal of the Curriculum 10. Curricular Development, Delivery, and Improvement 11. Teaching and Learning Methods 12. Professional Competencies and Outcome Expectations 13. Curricular Core Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Values 14. Curricular Core Pharmacy Practice Experiences 15. Assessment and Evaluation of Student Learning and Curricular Effectiveness STUDENTS 16. Organization of Student Services 17. Admission Criteria, Policies, and Procedures 18. Transfer of Credits and Waiver of Requisites for Admission with Advanced Standing 19. Progression of Students 20. Student Complaints Policy 21. Program Information 22. Student Representation and Perspectives 23. Professional Behavior and Harmonious Relationships FACULTY AND STAFF 24. Faculty and Staff Quantitative Factors 25. Faculty and Staff Qualitative Factors 26. Faculty and Staff Continuing Professional Development and Performance Review FACILITIES AND RESOURCES 27. Physical Facilities 28. Practice Facilities 29. Library and Educational Resources 30. Financial Resources Partially Compliant Non- Compliant 1 Findings of the Evaluation Team serve as advisory to the ACPE Board of Directors and should not be viewed as an expression of the Board s determination of compliance or non-compliance with any ACPE accreditation standard. 7 SECTION ONE: MISSION, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION Standard No. 1: College or School Mission and Goals: The college or school of pharmacy (hereinafter college or school ) must have a published statement of its mission, its goals in the areas of education, research and other scholarly activities, service, and pharmacy practice, and its values. The statement must be compatible with the mission of the university in which the college or school operates. 2 These goals must include fundamental commitments of the college or school to the preparation of students who possess the competencies necessary for the provision of pharmacist-delivered patient care, including medication therapy management services, the advancement of the practice of pharmacy and its contributions to society, the pursuit of research and other scholarly activities, and the assessment and evaluation of desired outcomes. Documentation and Data: Use a check to indicate the documentation and data provided by the college or school and used to assess this standard: Required Documentation and Data: The current mission statement, goals, objectives, and core values for the college or school of pharmacy The mission statement and goals of the parent institution (if applicable) Required Documentation for On-Site Review: (None required for this Standard) Data Views and Standardized Tables: It is optional for the college or school to provide brief comments about each chart or table. AACP Standardized Survey: Students Questions AACP Standardized Survey: Faculty Question 16 AACP Standardized Survey: Alumni Questions Optional Documentation and Data: Other documentation or data that provides supporting evidence of compliance with the standard. Examples could include extracts from committee meeting minutes, faculty meeting minutes, evidence of initiatives that document the mission in action, etc.) The college or school has a published statement of its mission; its long-term goals in the areas of education, research and other scholarly activities, service, and pharmacy practice; and its values. The mission statement is compatible with the mission of the university in which the college or school operates. The college or school s vision includes the development of pharmacy graduates who are trained with other health professionals to provide patient care services as a team. The college or school s vision and long-term goals include fundamental commitments of the program to the preparation of students who possess the competencies necessary for the provision of pharmacist-delivered patient care, including medication therapy management services, the advancement of the practice of pharmacy and its contributions to society, the pursuit of research and other scholarly activities, innovation, quality assurance and continuous quality improvement, and the assessment and evaluation of desired outcomes. The college or school s vision and goals provide the basis for strategic planning on how the vision and goals will be achieved. S N.I. U For new college or school initiatives, e.g., branch campus, distance learning, or alternate pathways to degree completion, the college or school ensures that: the initiatives are consistent with the university s and the college or school s missions and goals S N.I. U 2 The term university includes independent colleges and schools. 8 the same commitment to the instillation of institutional mission and academic success is demonstrated to all students, irrespective of program pathway or geographic location resources are allocated in an equitable manner N/A (no applicable initiatives) Comments on the Standard: a. The college or school s descriptive text and supporting evidence have specifically addressed the following (use a check to indicate that the topic has been adequately addressed to assess this standard): How the college or school s mission is aligned with the mission of the institution How the mission and associated goals address education, research/scholarship, service, and practice and provide the basis for strategic planning How the mission and associated goals are developed and approved with the involvement of various stakeholders, such as, faculty, students, preceptors, alumni, etc. How and where the mission statement is published and communicated How the college or school promotes initiatives and programs that specifically advance its stated mission How the college or school supports postgraduate professional education and training of pharmacists and the development of pharmacy graduates who are trained with other health professionals to provide patient care as a team How the college or school is applying the guidelines for this standard in order to comply with the intent and expectation of the standard Any other notable achievements, innovations or quality improvements. Interpretation of the data from the applicable AACP standardized survey questions, especially notable differences from national or peer group norms b. Summary of areas of the program that are noteworthy, innovative, or exceed the expectation of the standard; any areas of concern along with actions or recommendations to address them; and additional actions or strategies to further advance the quality of the program. For plans that have already been initiated to address an issue, the college or school should have provided evidence that the plan is working. The School s mission and vision statements were reviewed and updated in 2009 as part of its most recent strategic planning process. A set of guiding principles (values) that anchor the School s activities also was created at that time: professionalism, community, collaboration, innovation, and excellence. The School s mission includes to educate, train, and provide life-long learning opportunities for students, pharmacists, and scientists, while creating, disseminating and applying new knowledge based on research in the biomedical, pharmaceutical, social, and clinical sciences... Compliant Compliant with Monitoring Partially Compliant Non Compliant 9 No factors exist that compromise current compliance; no factors exist that, if not addressed, may compromise future compliance. No factors exist that compromise current compliance; factors exist that, if not addressed, may compromise future compliance /or compromise compliance; the plan has been fully implemented; sufficient evidence already exists that the plan is addressing the factors and will bring the program into full compliance. Factors exist that compromise compromise compliance and it has been initiated; the plan has not been fully implemented and/or there is not yet sufficient evidence that the plan is addressing the factors and will bring the program into compliance. appropriate plan to address the factors that compromise compliance does not exist or has not yet been initiated /or Adequate information was not provided to assess compliance Compliant Compliant with Monitoring Partially Compliant Non Compliant Recommended Monitoring: None. Standard No. 2: Strategic Plan: The college or school must develop, implement, and regularly revise a strategic plan to facilitate the advancement of its mission and goals. The strategic plan must be developed through an inclusive process that solicits input and review from faculty, students, staff, administrators, alumni, and other stakeholders as needed, have the support of the university administration, and be disseminated in summary form to key stakeholders. Documentation and Data: Use a check to indicate the documentation and data provided by the college or school and used to assess this standard: Required Documentation and Data: The college or school s strategic plan for achieving its mission and goals Required Documentation for On-Site Review: The strategic plan of the parent institution (if applicable) Data Views and Standardized Tables: It is optional for the college or school to provide brief comments about each chart or table. Questions from Faculty Survey 10 Optional Document
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks