Rhonda M. Jones

Portfolio Use and Practices in US Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy

Objectives. To identify the prevalence of portfolio use in US pharmacy programs, common components of portfolios, and advantages of and limitations to using portfolios. Methods. A cross-sectional electronic survey instrument was sent to experiential coordinators at US colleges and schools of pharmacy to collect data on portfolio content, methods, training and resource requirements, and benefits and challenges of portfolio use. Results. Most colleges and schools of pharmacy (61.8%) use portfolios in experiential courses and the majority (67.1%) formally assess them, but there is wide variation regarding content and assessment. The majority of respondents used student portfolios as a formative evaluation primarily in the experiential curriculum. Conclusions. Although most colleges and schools of pharmacy have a portfolio system in place, few are using them to fulfill accreditation requirements. Colleges and schools need to carefully examine the intended purpose of their portfolio system and follow-through with implementation and maintenance of a system that meets their goals.

National Survey of Volunteer Pharmacy Preceptors: effects of region, practice setting, and population density on responses.

Objectives: To survey volunteer pharmacy preceptors regarding experiential education and determine whether differences in responses relate to such factors as geographic region, practice setting, and population density. Methods: An online survey was sent to 4396 volunteer experiential preceptors. The survey consisted of 41 questions asking the preceptor to comment on the experiential education environment. Experiential education administrators from 9 schools of pharmacy administered the survey to their volunteer preceptors in all regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) of the United States, in various pharmacy practice settings, and areas of differing population densities. Results: A total of 1163 (26.5%) preceptors responded. Regionally, preceptors in the West disagreed more than those in the Midwest and the South that they had enough time to spend with students to provide a quality experience and also required compensation less often than their counterparts in the Northeast and South. Concerning practice settings, hospital preceptors accepted students from more schools, had greater increases in requests, turned away more students, and spent less time with the students compared to preceptors in other settings. Population density differences reflected that preceptors at urban sites took and turned away more students than those at rural sites. Preceptors from rural areas spent more time with students and felt they were spending enough time with their students to provide quality experiences when compared to other preceptors. Conclusions: The results of this national volunteer preceptor survey may assist pharmacy school leaders in understanding how location, practice type, and population density affect experiential education, preceptor time-quality issues, and site compensation so they can take necessary actions to improve quality of student practice experiences.