Objective. To determine how accredited Doctor of Pharmacy programs implement and evaluate the cocurriculum 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, selfassessment 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.

Members from Cohort 13 of the Academic Leadership Fellows Program (ALFP) 2016-2017 were challenged to present a debate on the topic: "In Turbulent Times, Pharmacy Education Leaders Must Take Aggressive Action to Prevent Further Declines in Enrollment" at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy INfluence 2017 meeting in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico. This paper is the result of thoughtful insights emerging from this debate. We present a discussion of the question of whether pharmacy education leaders must take aggressive action or strategic approaches to prevent further declines in enrollment. There are many thoughts regarding current declines in enrollment. Some educators contend that a more aggressive approach is needed while others argue that, while aggressive actions might lead to short-term gains, a more viable approach involves strategic actions targeting the underlying causes for decreasing enrollment. This paper explores themes of enrollment challenges, current and future workforce needs, and financial issues for both pharmacy programs and students. In summation, both aggressive actions and a strategic, sustainable approach are urgently needed to address declining enrollment.

Objective. Utilize results of a national survey to describe current uses of the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Assessment (PCOA) including: assignment of cut-points and stakes; characterization of how "at-risk" students are identified; and frequency and types of remediation processes.Methods. Assessment professionals from 135 US schools and colleges of pharmacy were invited to complete a 38-item survey. Survey items were designed to investigate common uses of the PCOA, cutpoints and "stakes" assigned to the PCOA, identification of at-risk students, and remediation approaches.The survey was administered electronically using SurveyMonkey. Data were analyzed using SPSS v. 21. Results. The school response rate was 68%. The most common uses of the PCOA included curricular assessment (76%), individual student performance assessment (74%), and cohort performance assessment (71%). The PCOA was most frequently administered to third professional year (P3) students. The approach for assigning "stakes" to PCOA performance varied amongst programs depending on the student's professional year in the curriculum. There were a variety of approaches used to establish the benchmark (or cut-point) for PCOA performance. Remediation for at risk students was required by less than 25% of programs. Remediation was most commonly required for P3 students (22%). Conclusions.Survey results indicate wide variability between programs regarding PCOA cut-points (benchmarks), stakes, and remediation approaches. In the future, it will be important for pharmacy educators to identify and study best practices for use of PCOA within student assessment and remediation plans.

Objective. To evaluate how pharmacy programs administer and evaluate American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Curriculum Quality surveys (CQS) for continuous quality improvement, and to compare usage across the academy to the Principles of Good Use: AACP Quality Perception Surveys document. Methods. A 27-item survey instrument examining how CQS surveys were utilized was created and administered between March and June 2019 to assessment contacts of accredited Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy (S/COP). Descriptive statistics were performed for each survey item. Results. Of the 140 programs invited to participate, 88 (62.8%) responded. CQS data were triangulated with additional existing data (39.8%) or additional data sources were collected for triangulation with the survey data (54.5%). Based on CQS data, programs reported modifications to curriculum (85.2%), communication (75.0%), student services (68.2%), policy/process (61.4%), and professional development (53.4%). Most programs reported the assessment lead was responsible for CQS oversight. Conclusion. Of respondents, 66% were familiar with the AACP "Principles of Good Use" document, and results indicate that institutions are generally following the recommendations. Survey analysis revealed that a significant number of programs are utilizing CQS data for making meaningful programmatic improvements. Future work should center on further development of best practices for S/COP to effectively use the CQS data for continuous quality improvement.

No abstract