AACP 2015-2016 Council of Sections Final Report, July 2016

American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy

Council of Sections

Executive Summary

Edward M. DeSimone, Chair

As we prepare for the Annual Meeting, all of the task forces and committees have either completed their charges or have reduced these charges to just a few that are incomplete. The Council of Sections and the individual sections themselves have a total of 62 committees and 16 task forces. I have provided below a very brief summary of the work of each COS task force. The full reports of each task force are included within this report. In addition, I have added any recommendations for consideration by the Association.

Summary of COS Task Forces

Innovations in Teaching: The task force focused on “the development of a Community of Practice around teaching strategies provides an opportunity to create a supportive environment for sharing existing practice and development of new innovations.” Five recommendations are being proposed:

• 1. Invite winners (and honorable mention) to present a poster in addition to the award presentation

  Past winners report invitations to present a poster in addition to their award presentation. Inviting both winners and honorable mentions to present a poster at the annual meeting would provide greater exposure to projects and attendees throughout the meeting and after the meeting through the AACP poster gallery.

• 2. Advertise award winners prior to the annual meeting

  In a crowded program it is difficult for attendees to select between conflicting sessions. Limited information on the topics of award winning projects makes it challenging to draw an audience for award presentations. By advertising all award recipients recognized at the meeting prior to the annual meeting, attendees are exposed to information even if they elect to attend another competing session.

• 3. Expanding the concept and interpretation of “innovative teaching” (Completed at annual meeting 2016)

  Committee discussion has indicated that many faculty are not aware that their teaching practices may be innovative due to their own interpretation of innovation. To help further identify current innovative teaching practices within the academy, faculty need to recognize their own work as innovative. To aid in this endeavor at the annual meeting, the committee will present a theoretical model poster to the 2016 Annual Meeting entitled “Innovation in the Open: Changing the Innovation in Teaching Award Process to Foster Innovation Discovery.” The poster will focus on the concept “innovation” with an aim to a) clarify the concept of innovation in teaching, b) raise awareness for the Innovations in Teaching Award Competition and c) help promote innovative works within the academy.

• 4. Supporting a distributed community online (future)

  While the committee feels that a Community of Practice is essential to advancing the practice of innovative teaching, the AACP web site can play a supporting role as a hub for information. Functionality like PEAS can provide a supportive community structure, but it is unclear how the web site and its functionality will evolve as the AACP web site changes in the next several years. As community functionality is considered for special interest groups, evaluating communication mechanisms to allow likeminded individuals to interact on a variety of teaching topics would be helpful.

• 5. Continue tracking AACP Innovations in Teaching Award application data to provide detailed metrics of applications over time.

  Better understanding of the award lifecycle and its applicants provides an indicator of the state of innovation across the academy. Limited past data makes it difficult to determine where innovation is being developed, but has not achieved award recognition. In the past, the only data available to evaluate the application process is the total number of applications received and a list of award winning projects/individuals. Establishing criteria for longitudinal application data storage will be essential to ensure that any future modifications in the award application process can be done with the benefit of quantifiable data. This will allow AACP to determine how innovative practices are changing in the academy over time.

Strategic Planning: This task force has completed the charge of selecting and prioritizing the top three strategic critical initiative objectives. However, with the decision to re-do the Association’s strategic plan, the decision was made to suspend any further action by this task force until the new initiatives for the Association are identified since one of the goals for the COS strategic plan is to integrate the COS vision with that of the Association. There are no recommendations for consideration.

Marijuana: There has been a slight delay in completing the Marijuana Toolkit. However, the plan is to have it completed in time for the Annual Meeting. There are no recommendations for consideration.

Scholarly Teaching: The task force created a survey that is intended to provide baseline data regarding how institutions are promoting scholarly teaching by their faculty. It was approved by the Northeastern University IRB and sent to 120 schools. Thirty-two responses were received (26% response rate). The key findings of the survey can found in the Scholarly Teaching Task Force report. A copy of the rubric developed by the task force can be found in Appendix A.

Tom Cook left Touro, New York, during the course of the task force’s work. During that time, Nate Rickles was made Co-Chair in order to help guide the completion of the task force’s charges. Special thanks go to Nate for stepping in and helping to complete the charges of the task force. I want to wish Tom Cook well in his new position: Director of Graduate Education, Global Scope, Inc, Email: thomasjcookphd@gmail.com, Phone: 908-938-1595.

One recommendation is being made:

• 1. It is highly recommended that AACP’s Council of Sections consider ways to help pharmacy schools and colleges develop a national manual/handbook for scholarly teaching practices, additional Annual Meeting programs on scholarly teaching, and/or promoting the availability of other resources (such as identification of scholarly teaching mentors who can help programs in need of support) to facilitate the development of more infrastructure supporting the consistent focus on excellence in scholarly teaching.

Section-SIG Relationship: This task force was charged with identifying any SIG that has common overlapping interests with each section and identifying practical ways to facilitate Section-SIG programming and interaction. The results of the survey of Sections can be found in Appendix B. Two recommendations are made.

• 1. Identify any other practical ways to facilitate Section-SIG programming and interaction.

  • a. Deadlines shifted to allow review of special session submissions for adoption by Sections/SIGs (implemented this year)
  • b. Consider joint Section/SIG sponsorship of mini-sessions (may assist with marketing)
  • c. Develop special session Review Committee with members from all Sections and SIGs to select special sessions based on quality and interests addressed
  • d. Focus more on webinars to deliver programming

    • ○ Sections and SIGs could be polled/surveyed with the following questions:

      • ▪ Has your SIG offered any webinars?

        • • If yes, how many?
        • • If yes, were any of them business meetings?
        • • If yes, how was the business meeting received?
        • • If no, does your SIG have plans to have any webinars in the future? (We could then ask them about what types of webinars they are thinking).
        • • If no, what are the primary barriers to offering webinars? (then we could list possibilities)
  • e. SIG programs with Section adoption to have priority
  • f. Include representative SIG membership on section programming committees
  • g. Section program committee chairs reach out to SIG Cabinet as part of program planning, and SIG chairs reach out to the appropriate section as part of their program planning
  • h. When possible, do not schedule sessions from SIGs that have close alignment at the same time as Section programming.

• 2. Survey the SIG cabinet and ask the same 2 questions included in this charge that were asked of the sections.

Faculty and Student Marijuana Use: Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form. Due to a major ruling in June 2015 by the Colorado Supreme Court, questions have arisen about the potential harm to pharmacy students, faculty, and preceptors who test positive for marijuana even in states that allow recreational use. The task force decided that no single policy would cover all possibilities.

The task force, however, recommends that each School or College consider and decide how to address the following:

• 1. Students, preceptors, and faculty need to be informed regarding potential negative consequences of marijuana use depending on whether the school/college, Site/Institution, and/or State Board prohibits its use.

• 2. Students, preceptors, and faculty need to be informed regarding potential negative consequences of marijuana use because it is currently prohibited by Federal Law.

• 3. Just because a student is in a state that allows marijuana use recreationally or medically does not mean that if tested positive it won’t negatively affect his/her academic status, experiential placement, employment, or licensure.

• 4. Just because a pharmacist preceptor is in a state that allows marijuana use recreationally or medically does not mean that if tested positive it won’t negatively affect his/her employment or licensure.

• 5. Each school/college needs to assess the role and use of a random drug screening program in its student body.

• 6. Each school/college needs to consider how to interpret, manage, and address positive drug screens in their students.

• 7. Schools/colleges and students need to be aware that a positive test for marijuana use may impact federal student loan eligibility and/or licensure as an intern.

• 8. In states where marijuana use is legal recreationally or medically, are student pharmacists allowed to use it and does it make a difference if it is on or off of the school/college campus?

• 9. Are faculty researchers permitted to possess marijuana on the school/college campus for research purposes without violating federal or state laws?

• 10. If a student has a medical condition qualifying him/her to use medical marijuana in your state, how will this be addressed at the school/college?

• 11. Students may complete experiential requirements in states where marijuana dispensaries employ pharmacists. Will your school/college allow experiential placement in these facilities to meet ambulatory care and/or elective requirements? The state laws and pharmacy boards where these are located permit their operation.

• 12. In states or regions where medical and/or recreational marijuana is legal, schools/colleges should consider whether curricular changes should be made to insure their student pharmacists are adequately trained to counsel and monitor for the effects of marijuana, also realizing that recreational marijuana may not be regulated and content of products may not be known.

Summary of COS Committees

New Investigator Awards Program: Based on financial considerations, it was decided that 13 awards would be made available for 2016. A survey of committee members produced a recommendation that an additional page (for comments) be added to the NIA application for repeat submissions only. This will allow for individuals to provide additional insight into what changes they made from the last application. It was decided that other potential changes be discussed during the next year. There are no additional recommendations for consideration at this time.

Abstract Review: Approximately 550 abstracts were reviewed and 453 were accepted (greater than 80 percent acceptance). Specific numbers (by Section) will be supplied at the July 2016 annual meeting. There are no additional recommendations for consideration at this time.

Programming: A total of 19/83 (23%) of special sessions were accepted and 25/160 (16%) of mini-sessions were accepted for the Annual Meeting. Three recommendations are proposed:

• 1. If Sections/SIGs are interested in submitting programming for annual meeting, proposed programs will be reviewed by AACP Program Committee, just like all other Special and Mini-Sessions currently are. To allow for this, all Section/SIG programming must be submitted by Special/Mini-Session deadline. All programming must meet quality standards to be considered.

• 2. AACP programming rubric will be revised to provide more rigorous review of submissions and to allow for better differentiation between poor, good, and great programs. Rubric revisions are in progress.

• 3. Improved assessment of Annual meeting programs to evaluate if new process is working. This is still under development but will include individual presentation and overall annual program evaluations.

Nominating: The final slate of candidates for the Fall 2016 election are Jennifer Danielson and Arbi Nazarian for Chair-Elect; and Karen Nagel and Jeffrey Evans for Secretary.

Summary of Section Recommendations/Directions for the Association

Biological Sciences: The document, Biological Science Section’s Strategic Plan Critical Issue I Subcommittee Report can be found in Appendix C. Due to the length of this document, only the headers are listed here:

• 1. Actively recruit new members.

• 2. Provide incentive to join AACP Biological Section that encourages new membership and increases overall membership.

• 3. Reduce the cost of attending the annual meeting.

• 4. Increase graduate student membership in AACP, and/or participation at meetings.

Continuing Professional Development: The Resolutions Committee is working on a proposal to modify NIA criteria in a way that would open this award program to members of the CPD Section. The concern is that the definition of a new investigator is too restrictive for CPD Section members. Nearly all individuals in the CPD arena are more senior people in terms of their overall career, but may be new to CPD. The Section would like to see greater access to this award for Section members.

Experiential Education: Three recommendations follow.

• 1. We have many in our section who are staff, not teachers, so we feel our name should reflect our membership. We’d like to have a vote on a name change at the business meeting in July.

• 2. The committee is supportive of the new AACP Connect system and would like to express interest in being an “early adopter” section for using it. How might we volunteer for that?

• 3. We would like to request that we engage new members by generating an email to first-time faculty members in the section. How and how often might such a list of new members be generated for such an email introduction?

Pharmacy Practice: Four recommendations follow.

• 1. Complete and synchronize with the council of faculties, a needs assessment of faculty attitudes regarding what they view as important qualities and qualifications of a department chair and dean, as well as interest in pursuing leadership positions.

• 2. Describe the current number of vacancies for deans and pharmacy practice department chairs and describe the current academic backgrounds of deans and pharmacy practice department chairs.

• 3. Target programming for developing leadership for deans and pharmacy practice chairs with non- traditional Ph.D. backgrounds.

• 4. Encourage AACP to develop programming that will assist faculty members in becoming more entrepreneurial.

Task Forces, Committees, and Section Reports

2015-2016

SECTION I: COS Task Forces

A. Innovations in Teaching Task Force (Continued from 2014-15)

Charge #1 - Develop standardized process for identifying and sharing innovative teaching methodologies among academy members.

Theme: Leverage the Innovation in Teaching Award to build a community of practice surrounding teaching innovation.

• The committee recognizes the strategic challenge of building awareness of both effective and innovative teaching practices within the academy and the broader higher education community. By reviewing a wide array of teaching and learning centers nationally and discussing the development of innovation award projects by past award winners the committee has identified a growing theme - the development of communities of practice¹ oriented towards innovative teaching practice. Centered on the community rather than simply a list of self-serve web-based resources, the development of a Community of Practice around teaching strategies provides an opportunity to create a supportive environment for sharing existing practice and development of new innovations.

• The recognition of the Innovation in Teaching Award provided a mechanism to establish individuals who are passionate and engaged in a variety of innovative teaching methods establishing a core group within AACP to help promote best and innovative practices in teaching and learning. While changes to the AACP web site has provides more visibility for recognized projects, this does not allow the organization to capitalize on the social networking that is necessary to support the formation of a community identity of likeminded individuals.

Recommendations:

• 1. Invite winners (and honorable mention) to present a poster in addition to the award presentation

  Past winners report invitations to present a poster in addition to their award presentation. Inviting both winners and honorable mentions to present a poster at the annual meeting would provide greater exposure to projects and attendees throughout the meeting and after the meeting through the AACP poster gallery.

• 2. Advertise award winners prior to the annual meeting

  In a crowded program it is difficult for attendees to select between conflicting sessions. Limited information on the topics of award winning projects makes it challenging to draw an audience for award presentations. By advertising all award recipients recognized at the meeting prior to the annual meeting, attendees are exposed to information even if they elect to attend another competing session.

• 3. Expanding the concept and interpretation of “innovative teaching” (Completed at annual meeting 2016)

  Committee discussion has indicated that many faculty are not aware that their teaching practices may be innovative due to their own interpretation of innovation. To help further identify current innovative teaching practices within the academy, faculty need to recognize their own work as innovative. To aid in this endeavor at the annual meeting, the committee will present a theoretical model poster to the 2016 Annual Meeting entitled “Innovation in the Open: Changing the Innovation in Teaching Award Process to Foster Innovation Discovery.” The poster will focus on the concept “innovation” with an aim to a) clarify the concept of innovation in teaching, b) raise awareness for the Innovations in Teaching Award Competition and c) help promote innovative works within the academy.

• 4. Supporting a distributed community online (future)

  While the committee feels that a Community of Practice is essential to advancing the practice of innovative teaching, the AACP web site can play a supporting role as a hub for information. Functionality like PEAS can provide a supportive community structure, but it is unclear how the web site and its functionality will evolve as the AACP web site changes in the next several years. As community functionality is considered for special interest groups, evaluating communication mechanisms to allow likeminded individuals to interact on a variety of teaching topics would be helpful.

Theme: Active monitoring of the Innovation in Teaching Award process to ensure the process supports the needs of the academy.

Past committee recommendation for a modified 2 step application process has contributed to significantly higher numbers of award applicants (1st stage: 45+ applications). However, it is unclear if this process will sustain 2016 application numbers or if the review structure can be organizationally sustained.

Recommendation:

• 5. Continue tracking AACP Innovations in Teaching Award application data to provide detailed metrics of applications over time.

  Better understanding of the award lifecycle and its applicants provides an indicator of the state of innovation across the academy. Limited past data makes it difficult to determine where innovation is being developed, but has not achieved award recognition. In the past, the only data available to evaluate the application process is the total number of applications received and a list of award winning projects/individuals. Establishing criteria for longitudinal application data storage will be essential to ensure that any future modifications in the award application process can be done with the benefit of quantifiable data. This will allow AACP to determine how innovative practices are changing in the academy over time

  Table 1.

  Innovations in Teaching Task Force Members: 2015-2016

  

B. Strategic Planning Task Force (Continued from 2014-15)

The Task Force met on November 6, 2015 and preliminarily identified Initiative 1, Objective 1 critical, but also considered Initiative 2, Objective 2 and Initiative 5, Objective 2 as initiatives that could be achieved. At the March 30, 2016 Leadership Meeting in Nashville, TN the decision was made to suspend Task Force activities pending the release of the AACP Strategic Plan.

Table 2.

Strategic Planning Task Force

Table 3.

Strategic Planning Task Force Members: 2015-2016

C. Marijuana Task Force: (Continued from 2014-15)

We are finalizing the draft of the toolkit (a little delayed due to academic duties this past semester.) We will have a final submission by the beginning of July. Plan to send to committee members for final comments in June. There are no recommendations for AACP BOD or COS. Co-Chairs: Cynthia Koh-Knox, Michaelene (Micki) Kedzierski

Table 4.

Marijuana Task Force Members: 2015-2016

D. Scholarly Teaching Task Force (Continued from 2014-15)

Timeline since prior report:

• 1. We received IRB approval in April 2016 to send out survey to 120 schools or colleges of pharmacy that we had accessible contact information on.

• 2. We sent survey out in mid-April 2016 and closed the survey by the end of April. We received 32 survey responses or about 26% response rate.

Key Findings (see tables on attached pages):

• a. Most respondents were associate and assistant deans from private institutions that were teaching intensive. There was representation from different regions of the country with most respondents from the Northeast and Midwest.

• b. Most faculty respondents reported that their institutions do not require new faculty to participate in an introductory teaching/pedagogy training program. Of those completing this training program, 90% complete the program within the first 12 months of their employment. These programs are commonly presented as live, face-to-face and as group sessions. A little more than half reported that their institutions do not require faculty to participate in an annual teaching development seminar/workshop. There is some variability in how many hours faculty are expected to complete for professional development of teaching and the percentage of faculty meeting those expectations.

• c. Approximately 78% of the respondents indicated not using the definition of scholarly teaching and/or its standards in their University teaching award criteria. More than half indicated such standards are not used in annual faculty performance reviews. Only 10% of the respondents reported using four or more of the six standards of scholarly teaching in these annual performance reviews. A little more than a half of the respondents documented their scholarly teaching activities and almost three fourths indicated such documentation was not required.

• d. 75% of the respondents indicated their institutions engage students in discussions of scholarly learning. A majority of respondents indicated there was space for discussions of scholarly teaching and that such discussions were more available virtually than through the provision of a physical location. Close to half of the respondents indicated having formal discussions 1-2 times a year and the other half of the respondents being split between those having no formal meetings on the topic and those having 2 or more meetings a year. Over 70% of respondents indicated mentoring on teaching is done informally with more than half of those respondents reporting less than 50% faculty are mentored.

• e. There was variability in open-ended responses about how institutions discuss scholarly teaching with students and how institutions use the definition of scholarly teaching and definitions in their teaching award criteria.

3. Discussion/Conclusion:

• a. Due to the relatively low response rate, it is hard to evaluate the full extent to which pharmacy programs across the country support scholarly teaching concepts and standards. It does appear for those who responded that scholarly teaching is an informal process of mentorship involving few structured activities throughout the year regardless of length of employment and typically lack reference to definitions of scholarly teaching and standards. This survey did provide limited validation data for our rubric criteria, suggesting that at least for the participating institutions the rubric criteria could provide helpful insights for scholarly teaching, while not having all institutions “needing attention” on every criterion.

• b. It is highly recommended that AACP’s Council of Sections consider ways to help pharmacy schools and colleges develop a national manual/handbook for scholarly teaching practices, additional Annual Meeting programs on scholarly teaching, and/or promoting the availability of other resources (such as identification of scholarly teaching mentors who can help programs in need of support) to facilitate the development of more infrastructure supporting the consistent focus on excellence in scholarly teaching.

• c. We have attached a rubric (at the end of this report) with draft revisions based on this survey. While it should be intuitive to use, further description for a mixed approach to rubric design is within Peeters MJ. Measuring rater judgment within learning assessments, part 2: a mixed approach to creating rubrics. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2015; 7(5):662-668.

The task force charges are complete. Nate Rickles submitted the report for Tom Cook who has left Touro, New York.

Table 5.

Scholarly Teaching Task Force Members: 2015-2016

E. Section-SIG Relationship Task Force

The following work has been conducted since the last report with recommendations outlined below. The Task Force’s work is complete.

Charges

• 1. For each section, identify any SIG that has common overlapping interests which would allow for joint programming. A SIG may be linked with more than one section.

  • a. The task force rated overlapping interests between each section and SIG from none to significant. The spreadsheet may be accessed at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BajfCYhrL0hzvDjl-0gTuWtlMfVuXkNNacx_xfw7zUI/edit?usp=sharing (The results can also be found in Appendix B.)
• 2. For each section, identify which SIG could be embedded within each section’s administrative structure.

  • a. This charge was taken “off the table” at the beginning of 2016 from Lucinda’s perspective.
• 3. Identify any other practical ways to facilitate Section-SIG programming and interaction.

  • a. Deadlines shifted to allow review of special session submissions for adoption by Sections/SIGs (implemented this year)
  • b. Consider joint Section/SIG sponsorship of mini-sessions (may assist with marketing)
  • c. Develop special session Review Committee with members from all Sections and SIGs to select special sessions based on quality and interests addressed
  • d. Focus more on webinars to deliver programming

    • 1) Sections and SIGs could be polled/surveyed with the following questions:

      • a) Has your SIG offered any webinars?

        • 1) If yes, how many?
        • 2) If yes, were any of them business meetings?
        • 3) If yes, how was the business meeting received?
        • 4) If no, does your SIG have plans to have any webinars in the future? (We could then ask them about what types of webinars they are thinking).
        • 5) If no, what are the primary barriers to offering webinars? (then we could list possibilities)
  • e. SIG programs with Section adoption to have priority
  • f. Include representative SIG membership on section programming committees
  • g. Section program committee chairs reach out to SIG Cabinet as part of program planning, and SIG chairs reach out to the appropriate section as part of their program planning
  • h. When possible, do not schedule sessions from SIGs that have close alignment at the same time as Section programming

Potential Survey Questions for COS to consider posing to SIG Cabinet:

There are no specific objectives for the survey beyond the overall purpose to give COS leadership a tool to reach out to the SIG Cabinet to get their thoughts and input on these issues. If we think about the survey in terms of our charges, potential questions could be:

• 1. For each section, identify any SIG that has common overlapping interests which would allow for joint programming. A SIG may be linked with more than one section.

  Ask the SIG Cabinet to rate the level of their overlapping interests with each section just as we have in a spreadsheet.

• 2. Identify any other practical ways to facilitate Section-SIG programming and interaction.

  Ask the SIG Cabinet to rate and comment on the suggestions we have made so far, and ask them to add their own thoughts. Example questions as outlined above.

Chair: Debbie Byrd

Table 6.

Section-SIG Relationship Task Force Members: 2015-2016

F. Faculty and Student Marijuana Use Task Force

Charges and Deliverables:

• 1. Identify issues/situations involving medical or recreational marijuana use that may negatively impact student pharmacists while either working, participating in IPPEs and APPEs, or outside of any school-related activities.

• 2. Identify issues/situations involving medical or recreational marijuana use that may negatively impact faculty and preceptors while either working, supervising student pharmacists, or outside of any school-related activities.

• 3. Recommend, if deemed necessary, policies that should be adopted and/or actions that the Association should take to prevent problems with or minimize the impact of medical or recreational marijuana use by student pharmacists, pharmacy faculty, and preceptors.

• 4. Develop quarterly (October, January, April) and annual (June) reports for inclusions in the COS reports to the Board of Directors.

Background:

Recreational marijuana use is legal in a few states, while several other states allow for medical use of marijuana on various levels. On June 15^th of this year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a company can fire an employee for using marijuana for recreational purposes even though it is a legal recreational drug in the state due to the fact that it is still illegal on the federal level. The ruling can be found at: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SC394.pdf

Due to the issues raised by the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, it is important that the Association be proactive in addressing the potential problems that may arise out of this. These may involve student pharmacists who are licensed interns or participating on IPPEs and APPEs as well as faculty and preceptors who use marijuana for either medical or recreational purposes.

Summary of Task Force Proceedings:

The MUTF held conference calls on October 29, 2015 (1:00 to 2:00 PM CDT) and January 13, 2016 (10:00 to 11:00 AM CDT) and communicated via email in between. Each member described their involvement, as well as briefly what was happening in their states regarding marijuana use. It became clear during the discussion that there are significant differences amongst the states regarding recreational use, medical use, and illegal use of marijuana and that recommending a policy or making a statement to address the issues in the various states would not be sufficient or applicable. For example,

• a. In Connecticut, medical marijuana is only dispensed by licensed pharmacists in licensed dispensaries. Pharmacists are intentionally placed in these positions and control the dispensing from providers for a limited set of diagnoses. Many questions came up about how to address student involvement in these settings, especially from outside states that may send their students to CT for experiential activities, etc…

• b. In Colorado, where recreational marijuana is legal, there are concerns about the lack of regulation of products that are dispensed as well as a clear definition of impairment. Their schools have zero tolerance for its use and are proactively determining how to address it as its use becomes more widespread.

• c. Most members indicated that their schools/colleges and their sites had zero tolerance for marijuana use and when a student tests positive, they have steps with which they follow to handle each situation. This brought up questions about checking with key community pharmacy and health-system employers in the area about how they address these issues –do they have policies regarding marijuana use by their pharmacist employees, etc…?

Based and our discussion and the differences amongst states and schools, we decided that it was important to increase Pharmacy College and School awareness of the differences amongst states and the negative impact on students, preceptors, and faculty is important, especially as an increased number of states are legalizing recreational or medical marijuana or both. We also believe that each school needs to proactively have a discussion amongst administrators and faculty to determine their approach to the different questions, situations, and challenges that may arise. Depending on the laws governing the states they are in and/or sending students to, the MUTF feels that if schools proactively anticipate these issues and develop a plan about how they are each going to address them, that the implications can be minimized and/or eliminated. Each member of the MUTF contributed to the list of issues we recommend below for all Schools and Colleges to consider.

MUTF Recommendations as Related to the Following Charges:

1. Identify issues/situations involving medical or recreational marijuana use that may negatively impact student pharmacists while either working, participating in IPPEs and APPEs, or outside of any school-related activities.

The following scenarios were identified as issues and situations involving marijuana use that could result in negative consequences to students:

• ● If the School/College prohibits:

  • ○ Dismissal from program
  • ○ Referral for counseling/treatment prior to resumption of activities
  • ○ Suspension from program while undergoing treatment and aftercare
  • ○ Probationary status requiring completion of additional treatment/monitoring
• ● If the Site/Institution prohibits:

  • ○ Inability to complete and/or dismissal from experiential education participation at site
  • ○ Inability to obtain and/or termination of employment at site
• ● If the State Board prohibits:

  • ○ Inability to obtain or termination of licensure and/or certification to practice in the state
  • ○ Referral for counseling/treatment prior to resumption of activities
  • ○ Probationary status requiring completion of additional treatment/monitoring
• ● Since the Federal Law prohibits:

  • ○ Even though it is potentially legal in particular states, it is still illegal per Federal Law so if cases are taken to higher courts, chances of losing are high
  • ○ Federal student loan eligibility in jeopardy

2. Identify issues/situations involving medical or recreational marijuana use that may negatively impact faculty and preceptors while either working, supervising student pharmacists, or outside of any school-related activities.

The following scenarios were identified as issues and situations involving marijuana use that could result in negative consequences to pharmacists (faculty and preceptors):

• • If the Site/Institution prohibits:

  • ○ Inability to obtain and/or termination of employment at site
  • ○ Referral for counseling/treatment prior to resumption of activities
  • ○ Probationary status requiring completion of additional treatment/monitoring

    • • If the State Board prohibits:
  • ○ Inability to obtain or termination of licensure and/or certification to practice in the state
  • ○ Referral for counseling/treatment prior to resumption of activities
  • ○ Probationary status requiring completion of additional treatment/monitoring

• • Since the Federal Law prohibits:

  • ○ Even though it is potentially legal in particular states, it is still illegal per Federal Law so if cases are taken to higher courts, chances of losing are high

  • ○ Money laundering concerns (earning money from sale of marijuana)

3. Recommend, if deemed necessary, policies that should be adopted and/or actions that the Association should take to prevent problems with or minimize the impact of medical or recreational marijuana use by student pharmacists, pharmacy faculty, and preceptors.

The Task Force researched and discussed this topic. Since there is wide variance amongst states regarding marijuana use - whether it be recreational, medicinal, or not legal for either – a single statement or policy recommendation will not apply everywhere.

Our recommendation is for all Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy to consider the impact of marijuana use on their students, faculty, and preceptors. The following are questions and/or statements we recommend each School or College consider and decide how to address at each institution:

• 1. Students, preceptors, and faculty need to be informed regarding potential negative consequences of marijuana use depending on whether the school/college, Site/Institution, and/or State Board prohibits its use. (See Charges 1 and 2 above).

• 2. Students, preceptors, and faculty need to be informed regarding potential negative consequences of marijuana use because it is currently prohibited by Federal Law. (See Charges 1 and 2 above).

• 3. Just because a student is in a state that allows marijuana use recreationally or medically does not mean that if tested positive it won’t negatively affect his/her academic status, experiential placement, employment, or licensure.

• 4. Just because a pharmacist preceptor is in a state that allows marijuana use recreationally or medically does not mean that if tested positive it won’t negatively affect his/her employment or licensure.

• 5. Each school/college needs to assess the role and use of a random drug screening program in its student body.

• 6. Each school/college needs to consider how to interpret, manage, and address positive drug screens in their students.

• 7. Schools/colleges and students need to be aware that a positive test for marijuana use may impact federal student loan eligibility and/or licensure as an intern.

• 8. In states where marijuana use is legal recreationally or medically, are student pharmacists allowed to use it and does it make a difference if it is on or off of the school/college campus?

• 9. Are faculty researchers permitted to possess marijuana on the school/college campus for research purposes without violating federal or state laws?

• 10. If a student has a medical condition qualifying him/her to use medical marijuana in your state, how will this be addressed at the school/college?

• 11. Students may complete experiential requirements in states where marijuana dispensaries employ pharmacists. Will your school/college allow experiential placement in these facilities to meet ambulatory care and/or elective requirements? The state laws and pharmacy boards where these are located permit their operation.

• 12. In states or regions where medical and/or recreational marijuana is legal, schools/colleges should consider whether curricular changes should be made to insure their student pharmacists are adequately trained to counsel for and monitor for the effects of marijuana, also realizing that recreational marijuana may not be regulated and content of products may not be known.

Co-Chairs: Maryann Skrabal, George Downs

Table 7.

Faculty and Student Marijuana Use Task Force Members: 2015-2016

Section II: COS Committees

A. New Investigator Awards Program

Charges:

1. Coordinate NIA review of applications and identification of award winners.

2. To review the current process for administering the awards and make recommendations for revision.

The two charges above will be addressed together. The Immediate Past Chairs of each of the Sections met via conference call on December 3, 2015 to discuss the peer-review process and the top ranked proposals for research start-up funding for new pharmacy faculty investigators. After review, it was determined that thirteen awards will be granted for the 2016 cohort of the New Investigator Award.

UPDATE: At the AACP Leadership Forum held in Nashville, TN in March 2016 the NIA committee met and discuss the award process. Some excellent recommendations were made and a follow-up survey/email was sent to further gather input from committee members. As a result of a survey, this next year we will be adding an additional page (for comments) to the NIA application for repeat submissions only. This will allow for individuals to provide additional insight into what changes they made from the last application. Other potential changes will be discussed over the next year.

3. Develop quarterly (October, January, April) and annual (June) reports for inclusion in the COS reports to the Board of Directors.

Members:

Table 8.

New Investigator Awards Program Committee

Note: This committee consists of all of the Immediate Past Chairs of each section, please refer to the detailed listing of leadership at the top of the report for more information.

B. Abstract Review

Charges:

1. Review abstract submission process and determine if changes are warranted

2. Review abstract review process and determine if changes are warranted

The above two charges will be addressed together. It was determined that no new changes would be made to the abstract review process. Given the number of changes that have been made to the process over the past few years this seemed to be most appropriate. The COS will continue to work with AACP Staff to monitor the process and determine in the future if additional changes need to be made. The two biggest changes that have been made to the process in recent years are: (a) each abstract must reflect only completed work NOT work in progress and (b) must have undergone IRB review and approval. Submitters are asked to provide evidence of this (IRB letter).

Section leadership has been contacted to engage with their respective members to indicate their interest in serving/serving again as an abstract reviewer. A suggested number of reviewers, list of past reviewers, description of review process, and review timeline have all been sent. Section leadership are expected to submit their final list of reviewers to AACP staff by NO LATER than February 17^th, 2016 (this is also the deadline for poster abstract submissions for academy members).

UPDATE: All reviewers were submitted by individual Section leadership. All abstracts formally reviewed by subcommittees of each of the individual Sections. Approximately 550 abstracts were reviewed and 453 were accepted (greater than 80 percent acceptance). Specific numbers (by Section) will be supplied at the July 2016 annual meeting.

3. Develop quarterly (October, January, April) and annual (June) reports for inclusion in the COS reports to the Board of Directors.

Table 9.

Abstract Review Committee

C. Programming Committee (AACP)

Charges:

1. Identify opening, closing, and science plenary speakers for AACP Annual meeting (2016)

2. Identify “theme” for School Posters for Annual Meeting

3. Identify Special / Mini-Session programming for Annual Meeting

4. Develop mid-term (February) and annual (July) reports for inclusion in the COS reports to the Board of Directors.

All of the charges above will be addressed together. Following initial full committee conference and committee survey, individuals were divided into (3) subcommittees to address each of the charges outlined above. The first subcommittee (opening/closing/plenaries) have solidified speakers for each of these important sessions. The subcommittee for School Posters decided on the theme of “Building the Pharmacy Pipeline”. It was sent out in late 2015 to all colleges/schools encouraging submissions for Spring 2016. Finally, the special/mini-session subcommittee has completed their reviews of approximately 200 proposals that were submitted. The subcommittee will be meeting in Anaheim, CA (late January 2016) to select final proposals to be included in the 2016 AACP Annual Program.

UPDATE:

The programming committee met in Anaheim and selected the final special and mini-sessions for the July AACP meeting. A total of 19/83 (23%) of special sessions were accepted and 25/160 (16%) of mini-sessions were accepted. Thus, it again was a very competitive process. Following these selections, AACP staff finalized other programming slots and released schedule in May 2016 for membership.

With the increase in both mini-session and special session proposal submissions, coupled with the limited programming space, the 2015-16 Annual Meeting Program Committee looked at exploring ways to maximize program offerings for membership. In addition, concerns have been raised both informally by membership and through annual meeting evaluations that the quality of some programming could be enhanced. Important to this discussion is recognizing the current process that is undertaken for approval of Section, SIG, special, and mini-session proposals. Section / SIG programming does not formally undergo external review (outside individual Section/SIG membership), but rather when submitted is automatically accepted and included into final meeting programming. On the other hand, all special and mini-sessions undergo a comprehensive review process by members representing a broad range of expertise.

To address these concerns, the Program Committee developed a new process for approval of Section/SIG programs that will hopefully help streamline the process and enhance the quality of programs. The process has briefly been described below:

• • All Sections / SIG program proposals (each with a special identifier) will be submitted at the same time as all mini and special sessions (mid-Fall).

• • All proposals will be reviewed by AACP Programming Committee utilizing a standardized rubric that is currently under revision (final version completed by 2016 annual meeting).

• • AACP Program Committee will select top programs proposals (final number will vary depending on number of slots available). Any top proposals that have been tagged with a special identifier as Section / SIG program will automatically become a part of annual meeting program and count toward Section (2 programs) and SIG (1 program) allocation.

• • After AACP Program Committee selections, a remaining list of quality programs will be sent to individual Section / SIG program committees to select from. Each Section will have opportunity (but not required) to select up to one or two additional programs and SIG up to one program depending on how many were already pre-selected by AACP Program Committee in first phase of process (up to but not exceeding their allocation).

• • The Program Committee is also exploring ways to further enhance the assessment of Annual meeting programs to assist in monitoring the success of the program selection process. Close coordination with staff responsible for continuing education process will be critical.

Note: Please see new recommended AACP Annual Program Review and Selection Process overview immediately below:

AACP Annual Program Review and Selection Process

Over the past year, several entities have been reviewing the Program submission process for AACP annual meeting. These include the Argus Commission (made up of past presidents), COS Task Force, AACP Programming Committee, and COS administrative leadership team. These entities were asked to determine whether changes should be made to the process in light of the following:

(a) Special and mini-session program submissions were at an all-time high this year. For special sessions (90-minutes) – 19 / 83 (23%) were selected for Annual Meeting and 25 / 180 (14%) of mini-sessions.

(b) New SIG applications (approximately five in last couple of years) and interest of some SIGS to become Sections has been increasing. At this time, the governance structure is being reviewed and thus no changes to SIGS or Sections have been made until decisions on governance are finalized. Modifications would result in need for more programming slots based on current structure.

(c) Concerns with quality of Section / SIG programming has been raised. In current model, all SIG (one program) and all Section (2 programs) are automatically approved and do not undergo formal review. This year, all Sections/SIGS (who submitted programming on time) received “formative” feedback on the quality of their presentations.

(d) Based on “a-c” above, the recommendations had been from last year’s Program Committee to consider reduction in SIG and/or Section programming to allow for more general programs from members to be accepted and to help address the quantity/quality issue of programs.

With consideration of the items (a-d) above, each committee/task force met to discuss strategies. Based upon their discussions the following recommendations have been made:

(a) If Sections / SIGs are interested in submitting programming for annual meeting, proposed programs will be reviewed by AACP Program Committee, just like all other Special and Mini-Sessions currently are. To allow for this, all Section/SIG programming must be submitted by Special/Mini-Session deadline. All programming must meet quality standards to be considered.

(b) AACP programming rubric will be revised to provide more rigorous review of submissions and to allow for better differentiation between poor, good, and great programs. Rubric revisions are in progress.

(c) Improved assessment of Annual meeting programs to evaluate if new process is working. This is still under development but will include individual presentation and overall annual program evaluations.

Table 10.

Program Committee’s New Annual Meeting Session Submission Timeline

Table 11.

2015-2016 AACP Program Committee

D. Nominating Committee

Charges:

1. Prepare and present a slate of nominees for Chair-Elect & Secretary of COS.

In late 2015, Steve Stoner, University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC), was elected to the position of Chair-elect of the Council of Sections. The committee will reconvene in the spring to establish a slate of candidates for both the Chair-elect and Secretary-Elect of the Council of Sections.

UPDATE: The nominating committee met and discussed the candidates for both Chair-Elect and Secretary of the COS in May 2016. The final slate of candidates for the Fall 2016 election are: Jennifer Danielson and Arbi Nazarian for Chair-Elect; and Karen Nagel and Jeffrey Evans for Secretary.

2. Develop mid-term (February) and annual (July) reports for inclusion in the COS reports to the Board of Directors.

Table 12.

Nominating Committee Members

E. Quorum: Jill Fitzgerald (Chair), Arbi Nazarian, and Steve Stoner.

SECTION III: Section Reports

A. Administrative Services Section Report – 6/20/16

Name of Committee: Programming Committee

Chair of Committee: Jill Morgan (University of Maryland)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1

Develop the 2016 AACP annual meeting programming.

The committee has finalized the program and it will kick off with a Sunday session starting at 1:00 pm titled “Work/Work Balance and Faculty Workload Models”. This will be followed by the Section business meeting at 2:45. The programming committee and section leadership had discussions with the AFO-SIG and AACP staff to try and minimize overlap of programming and maximize attendance and participation at all programming. We thank both groups for offering alternate solutions to try and meet this goal. The committee will also present “Legal Issues Frequently Faced by Academic Pharmacy Administrators: Research, Interactive Cases and Application” at 8:00 am Monday morning. The committee each year attempts to choose topics that will have broad appeal as evidenced by the standing room crowds at last year’s programming.

Charge #2

Identify areas for future programming - webinars and annual meetings.

After further discussions with Cheryl Holcomb from the University of Kansas in an attempt to create a webinar from her presentation last year, she indicated that her administration wanted to copyright her presentation. Consequently, we were unable to use that as a webinar. The new committee members will once again be tasked with exploring webinar topics as they also explore possible topics for next year’s meeting.

Name of Committee: Nominations Committee

Chair of Committee: Renae Chesnut (Drake University)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Develop slate of officers for Chair-elect election for the Nov. election.

This charge was completed as discussed in the last report.

Charge #2: Develop a slate of officers for Chair-elect and secretary positions for the 2016 annual meeting approval and the Nov. 2016 election.

An email blast has gone out to request nominations and the committee has also reached out to individuals as a follow up. The committee is currently reviewing the nominations and will present a slate at the annual members meeting.

Name of Committee: Resolutions Committee

Chair of Committee: Kathy Webster, KGI

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Identify resolutions for any AACP policy changes.

Charge #2: Review any resolutions proposed to determine the impact on the Administrative Services Section members

The committee will explore issues or potential resolutions for presentation to either the section or the AACP as a whole. No issues identified at this time. We currently do not have any issues identified.

Name of Committee: Strategic Planning Committee

Chair of Committee: Jill Morgan, University of Maryland

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Develop a draft strategic plan, considering the AACP and COS strategic plans.

An updated plan was recently circulated by AACP to review and comment on. The committee will have additional comments to present and start working on based on the adoption of the draft AACP strategic plan.

Name of Committee: Communications Committee

Chair of Committee: Becky Ceraul, University of Maryland

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Develop strategies to promote the section

Charge #2: Determine the best ways to include networking activities within the section.

The committee continues to communicate and promote the section via a newsletter. The recently distributed newsletter had a focus on the student affairs SIG and discussed some words of wisdom from the Interim Meeting and updates for the annual meeting to encourage participation.

We continue to have monthly calls with the Chair of all committees and executive officers of this Section. This seems helpful to keep us on track and to communicate within our Section. We also joined the AFO-SIG at the Interim meeting for dinner sessions to help promote and network within the section and plan on doing the same at the annual meeting whenever possible.

B. Biological Sciences Section – 6/20/16

Below are reports from various committees within the Biological Sciences Section.

Program Committee

The programming committee is in the process of finalizing the section program for the upcoming annual meeting. The first of the two programs this year will be dedicated to showcasing the research of the 2015 NIA recipients, via presentations by the recipients themselves (three will be selected). The second program is on Implementing Active Learning Strategies to Enhance Students’ Retention, Application and Integration Skills. The titles are “Recipients of the 2015 AACP New Investigator Award” and “Implementing Active Learning Strategies to Enhance Students’ Retention, Application and Integration Skills”.

Nominating Committee

Due to the resignation of the Chair-Elect Designate (2016) Dr. Jennifer Gooch from Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine - School of Pharmacy, the nominating committee solicited “new” nominations. Elections took place, and the incoming chair-elect designate will be Daniel Kennedy, Western New England University College of Pharmacy. The nominating committee is in the process of soliciting nomination for Chair-Elect Designate 2017.

Strategic Planning Committee

The section continues to work on realizing and implementing section’s the strategic plan. We had two subcommittees currently working on addressing the three areas of “Critical Needs” identified in the strategic plan. One of the committees (led by Dr. Ashim Malhotra) have organized and held a webinar on May 19, titled “How to Find and Apply for Corporate and Foundation Funding Opportunities”, which was open to all section members. The second subgroup focused on critical issue 1, pertaining to “How do we engage members?” and developed the following recommendations:

Biological Science Section’s Strategic Plan Critical Issue I Subcommittee Report.

Committee: Lila P LaGrange; Daniel Brazeau; Rahul Rajesinh Deshmukh and Manas Mandal (chair)

Critical Issue I: How do we engage members?

The Biological Sciences Section is advocating its support for the goals and related strategy to increase membership, involvement of the members specifically with Biological sciences Section and attendance of the members at the AACP meetings including the annual meeting. The following are the suggested detail action plan for the Association to consider. The Section Critical Issue I Subcommittee thanks you for your consideration of this request.

Goal 1.1 Increase Biological Science Section membership.

Strategy 1: Actively recruit new members to the section.

As with most professional societies there is much to be gained from participating in the annual meetings as well as throughout the year. A quick visit to AACP’s website (http://www.aacp.org) will show the many benefits and resources available to society members. In addition, becoming an active member of AACP’s Biological Sciences section provides specific benefits to faculty including:

• 1. Opportunities to establish and extend networks with other scientists in the academia and profession. Colleagues who can be of immense help in faculty development, mentoring and collaboration.

• 2. Opportunities to both disseminate and acquire novel cutting-edge pedagogy related to professional and graduate education. The Biological Sciences section provides many chances to promote and communicate your noteworthy or best practices in life sciences education.

• 3. Opportunities for research collaboration and funding, including

  • • AACP’s New Investigator Award (NIA) program
  • • Scholar-in-Residence Programs
  • • Education Scholar program - Teaching Excellence and Scholarship Development Resources for Health Professions Educators
  • • Members have access to extensive databases of other funding/fellowship opportunities

• 4. Opportunities to become more familiar with Colleges of Pharmacy structure, operation and accreditation processes. Often these issues are not familiar to Basic Science faculty.

• 5. Membership provides entry to further leadership opportunities in AACP and also opportunities for development of institutional leadership qualities.

Strategy 2: Provide incentive to join AACP Biological Section that encourages new membership and increases overall membership.

Biological Science Section is one of the newest special interest group formed within AACP that intend to serve as a platform for Basic Science faculty of the Pharm D program from Colleges of Pharmacy. Faculty from several different disciplines such as biochemistry, chemistry, pharmacology and microbiology-immunology constitutes the membership of this section. With a newly established section within AACP, special emphasis and policies encouraging increase in membership is required. However, to formulate such a policy we must understand the barriers to achieve this goal. A preliminary inquiry into AACP membership and annual meeting attendees’ background and interest indicates that administrators and pharmacy practice faculty constitutes majority of the AACP membership and annual meeting attendees. Basic science faculty in traditional research intensive College of Pharmacy (COP) obtains discipline-specific professional society membership and attends annual meeting of that professional society. The rational lies in professional networking, peer review of research through poster and podium presentation and increasing visibility in their area of expertise. A faculty from research intensive COP may not comprehend the value in joining AACP and attending AACP annual meeting with specific interest in Biological Science Section. However, faculty from non-research intensive COP or faculty engaged more in Biological Science teaching may be interested in joining AACP, Biological Science Section and attending the annual meeting if offered with appropriate incentive and values for their time and limited resources.

Therefore, to increase the AACP membership in Biological Section and attendance of the annual meeting we propose the following incentives. We believe that these two incentives will create values attracting new membership and subsequent annual meeting attendance through reduction in costs.

1. Offer extension of full waiver of AACP annual dues for a new member for the second year. Alternatively, offer extension of waiver of AACP annual dues at a 50% level for the second year for a new member regardless of years on faculty rank.

2. Offer multi-year discount on annual membership fees for a current faculty with good standing or for a new faculty joining AACP, Biological Section.

Goal 1.2. Increase attendance at annual meetings.

Strategy 1. Reduce the cost of attending the annual meeting.

The Biological Sciences Strategic Plan Task Force developed an action plan for this specific goal, and it was approved by the membership following the 2014 AACP annual meeting. The action plan includes several recommendations to increase Biological Science Section members at the annual meetings, which include the following: to 1) reduce or eliminate registration fee for first-time attendees at the annual meeting, 2) provide group registration discounts for faculty attending the annual meeting from the same institution, such as AAPS offers, and 3) offer low cost alternate housing for attending the annual meeting. Each recommendation is further discussed below.

• 1. The Section proposes that first-time attendees at the AACP annual meeting, regardless of rank or years of faculty experience, have the registration fee waived. The Section acknowledges the current benefit of a 2-year complimentary membership to AACP for first-year faculty, but this proposal would extend this benefit such that new members, regardless of years on faculty, would have the opportunity to experience the annual meeting and increase the potential for involvement in the Section(s) and the Society. It is proposed that this early exposure and involvement with their respective Section upon their membership to AACP would increase their regular attendance at the annual meeting subsequently.

• 2. The Section proposes that registration discounts be offered to faculty attending the annual meeting if a specific number are from the same institution. For example, if the policy is created for groups of five or more, then institutions in which five or more faculty are attending the AACP annual meeting, their registration fees would be discounted by a certain percentage.

• 3. The Section proposes that additional and alternate housing options be offered through AACP reducing the cost of meeting attendance. These options would be in addition to the main meeting and/or convention hotel and would also include pre-negotiated room rates and online room reservation links through the AACP annual meeting website.

Strategy 2. Increase graduate student membership in AACP, and/or participation at meetings. To increase graduate students’ membership and enhance participation at the AACP meetings including annual meeting specifically in the ‘Biological Sciences’ section, the following proposals are made:

• 1. Reach out aggressively to recruit new members from the College of Medicine and College of Pharmacy graduate (PhD) students by informing and educating on the scopes of AACP.

• 2. Offer free annual membership for the first year, and discounted rates for subsequent years to the graduate students from College of Pharmacy and College of Medicine with research expertise in Biological Sciences.

• 3. Offer travel fellowships to such graduate students to attend and present research at the AACP annual meeting.

• 4. Offer various tools such as links on the AACP website for career development to the graduate students for employment at the Colleges of Pharmacy.

• 5. Offer various workshops/sessions and webinars for career development in academic pharmacy and opportunities within AACP.

• 6. Create recruitment opportunities for the graduate students by hosting recruiting events with academia, industry and regulatory agencies at the annual meeting.

• 7. Create zonal chapters for Biological sections section of AACP and offer faculty member ‘mentorship’ to the students in need.

The membership of the Strategic Planning Committees remains unchanged.

Task Force

Our AJPE task force continues to make progress with regards to developing a manuscript exploring two ideas: 1) how can CAPE domains be incorporated during teaching of pharmaceutical sciences in the classroom setting and in basic science research?; and 2) how can we achieve effective and standardized assessment of these educational goals across various pharmacy schools?

An additional member, Dr. Jennifer L Mathews, ST. JOHN FISHER COLLEGE | Wegmans School of Pharmacy was recruited. The task force have been meeting regularly (e-meetings).

Membership of the task force is as follows:

1. Ashim Malhotra, Member of Biological Sciences Section, Pacific University (Chair of Task Force)

2. Fadi Khasawneh, Chair of Biological Sciences Section, Western University of Health Sciences

3. Indra Reddy, PhD - Dean, Irma Lerma College of Pharmacy, Texas A&M Health Science Center

4. Michael Fulford, PhD - Associate Dean of Assessment, University of Georgia (Assessment Rep)

5. Daniel Brazeau, PhD - Past Chair of Biological Sciences, Director of Pharmacogenomics, University of New England.

6. Srinivas Tipparaju, Associate Professor, University of South Florida

7. Jennifer L Mathews, Associate Professor, ST. JOHN FISHER COLLEGE.

C. Chemistry Section - 6/21/2016

The Section of Chemistry had 40 members volunteer for service on committees at the National Meeting held in July of 2015. The following committees are listed with their respective chairs and charges:

Awards Committee

Giuseppe Gumina, Presbyterian University, CHAIR

Vickie Roche, Creighton University

Paulo Carvalho, Notre Dame of Maryland University

Susan Mercer, Lipscomb University

Charges: Administer Section award (James E. Wynn Memorial Award) and identify nominees for society awards.

Outcome: The committee selected Dr. Thomas Lemke, Professor Emeritus at The University of Houston College of Pharmacy as the recipient of this year’s award.

Nominations Committee

Shridhar Andurkar (Midwestern - Chicago) Chair

Charges: Solicit nominees for Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Section of Chemistry

Outcome: The committee selected Dr. Susan Mercer, Lipscomb University and Giuseppe Gumina, Presbyterian University, as the two candidates slated for the ballot for the Section of Chemistry Chair-Elect Designate.

NIA Committee

David Colby (Mississippi), Chair

The sections received 14 Letters of Intent with 10 proposals ultimately submitted; currently under review. A total of 30 reviewers were enlisted to review applications.

Charges: Conduct review and score NIA proposals for section.

Outcome: Dr. Anand Sridhar, Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, St. John Fisher College of Pharmacy, was the sole NIA award recipient for the Section of Chemistry.

Programming Committee

Marc Harrold, Chair: Duquense University

Brian Henriksen, Manchester Univesity

Cory Theberge, University of New England

Henry North, Harding University

David Weldon, Loma Linda Univeristy

Charges: Develop programming for the 2016 AACP Annual Meeting

Outcome: Three sessions are slated for the National Meeting, and include:

1.) Chemistry Section: Business Meeting

2.) Chemistry Section NIA Mini Symposium

3.) Chemistry Section, Special Session: Mechanisms for Pharmacists-New Anti-coagulation reversal agents and existing sunscreens.

Strategic Planning Task Force

Andrew Webster (Belmont), Chair

Charges: Implement Section of Chemistry Strategic Plan

Outcomes: Work by committee in progress.

D. Continuing Professional Development Section - 6/21/2016

The CPD Section has moved forward on a number of initiatives. The following list highlights several items.

• 1. After many years of discussion, the section name was changed to Continuing Professional Development to more clearly reflect what members actually do.

• 2. The following awards will be given by the Section at the AACP Annual Meeting

  • a. Scholarship of CPE: Arijan Mestrovic and Mike Rouse for their publication entitled “Pillars and Foundation of Quality for Continuing Education in Pharmacy,” published in AJPE.
  • b. Innovations in CPE: Erin Albert for “21 Flavors: Ideas on how we might increase medication adherence”.

• 3. The Section continues to work on review of the strategic plan.

• 4. Section programming will again focus on CPD with sessions entitled:

  • a. Continuing Professional Development and Continuing Education in Colleges of Pharmacy-Moving Toward a Full Integrated CPD Model
  • b. Continuing Professional Development for Preceptors: Teaching by Modelling Self-Directed Lifelong Learning

• 5. The Section continues to encourage the Council of Sections and Board to consider ways to modify NIA criteria to allow for faculty in sections like CPD where involvement in this area tends to be later in a career, but is definitely a new area as a faculty member.

E. Experiential Education Section - 6/20/16

For length reasons, I have reduced the text of this report to highlights only. Please know that we have a very involved, lively, and busy bunch of committee chairs and members who all do great work. I want to thank all of these individuals for keeping our section running and moving forward.

Inquiries for AACP staff liaison(s) to our section appear in yellow highlight.

In addition to the report below, I would like to report on the progress of a special task force established this year: Task Force on Common Competencies for Core APPEs. As you may recall, this task force was requested by ACPE and charged with developing common competencies for the 4 core APPEs. The task force was appointed in December and they got to work drafting. We chose to focus on competencies that make these 4 experiences unique, rather than competencies are likely to be already assessed across experiences at all schools (eg., communication, professionalism, drug information skills). We established a large task force to make sure we had good representation geographically and by type/size of schools. Our intention is get buyin and ownership from as many section members as possible. This is an opportunity to craft our future rather than have it dictated to us by our accrediting body.

In March, we circulated draft competencies to the section membership. We have received very little feedback about them, so the task force is planning to devote 45 minutes to facilitated discussion about the competencies at the EE Section Business Meeting in July. After we gather input there, we will revise the competencies and distribute for a final comment period. We plan to have something ready to adopt in the fall. We want the entire section to vote in some way on them to make sure there is buyin.

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Programming Committee

Chair of Committee: Wes Nuffer (Colorado)

The committee has planned two programs for the annual meeting:

Sunday, July 24

1:00-2:30 PM: Team Player Preseason Training—Practical Implementation Strategies for Interprofessional Education in Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences

Monday, July 25

10:00 AM—Noon: Formalizing Preceptor Training: Is It Time For a Preceptor Teaching Certificate?

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Resolutions Committee

Chair of Committee: Janet Cooley (Arizona)

Committee members reviewed the 2015 House of Delegates updates and Section Bylaws and made the following comments:

1. EE Standing Rules of Procedure on 2^nd page, section 3.4.A third sentence from the bottom of this section, reads “The Chair shall assume the duties..” There appear to be some extra spaces after the word “event” and before the word “the”.

2. COS Standing Rules on page 4, section 5.4, one half should be hyphenated or typed as two separate words.

3. General statement: As a new academician, I was surprised to read the formal name of our AACP Section as “Teachers of Exp. Ed.” I always thought it was “Section of Experiential Education” which is much easier to say than the formal name.

We asked AACP staff about guidance about a potential name change (see #3 above). Is this possible? We have many in our section who are staff, not teachers, so we feel our name should reflect our membership. We'd like to have a vote at the business meeting in July—please advise.

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Nominations Committee

Chair of Committee: Lynn Stevenson (Auburn)

Chair-Elect Candidates:

• • MaryAnn Skrabal (Creighton University)

• • James Scott (Western University of Health Sciences)

Secretary Candiates:

• • Angela Brownfield (UMKC)

• • Meghan Bodenberg (Butler)

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Awards Committee

Chair of Committee: Kelli Coover (Creighton)

Excellence in Experiential Education Award, 2016

• Terresa A. O’Sullivan, University of Washington

Excellence in Experiential Education Scholarship Award, 2016

• Wesley Nuffer, Eric Gilliam, Michael McDermott, and Christopher J. Turner (2015). Sustainability of a Practice-based Interprofessional Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experience Course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education: Volume 79, Issue 5, Article 62.

Others nominated:

• 1. Ashok Philip, Mark Stephens, Sheila L. Mitchell, and E. Blake Watkins. Design and Implementation of a Laboratory-Based Drug Design and Synthesis Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education: Volume 79, Issue 3, Article 43.

• 2. Erika Cretton-Scott, Danielle Cruthirds, Lori Coward, Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy, for “Incorporation of hands-on Sterile Technique instruction in an IPPE,” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2015; 79 (2) Article 28.

• 3. Jennifer Danielson, Karen Craddick, Dayl Eccles, Abigail Kwasnik, and Teresa A. O’Sullivan. A Qualitative Analysis of Common Concerns about Challenges Facing Pharmacy Experiential Education Programs. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education: Volume 79, Issue 1, Article 06.

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Membership Committee

Chair of Committee: Kimberly Norman (Nebraska)

The committee tested the use of the new membership profile system and roster. The committee identified some challenges using the new profile system and membership roster to locate members of the section. After correspondence with AACP it was determined that the new profile system and membership roster is working correctly.

Recommendations:

• • Friendly reminders are added to the registration process for all meetings/conferences to prompt members to update their profiles.

• • Friendly reminders are added to Newsletters and job postings sent out to familiarize members with the new membership profile system and roster.

• • EE Membership committee should forgo maintaining additional spreadsheets and making calls to respect the privacy of those that have removed profile information deliberately.

• • EE Section leaders encourage their members to utilize the new membership profile system.

The committee is supportive of the new AACP Connect system and would like to express interest in being an “early adopter” section for using it. How might we volunteer for that? By doing so, some of challenges this committee was dealing with for the past 2 years may be addressed. The committee asks that all section leaders be involved in providing input about how their section may use the new system and what challenges it will address for their members.

Lastly, we would like to request that we engage new members by generating an email to first-time faculty members in the section (below). How and how often might such a list of new members be generated for such an email introduction?

Dear AACP member,

I have been informed that you are a new faculty member within the Experiential Education Section of AACP. I would like to welcome you and invite any questions that you may have on how to get involved in the EE section, as well as encourage you to peruse the AACP website to learn more about our section. Please check out our newsletters, webinars, and much more at http://www.aacp.org/governance/SECTIONS/experientialeducation/Pages/default.aspx.

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Scholarship Committee

Chair of Committee: Lindsey Welch (University of Georgia)

This committee reviews the literature comprehensively every year and adds to a growing list of important and relevant articles relating to experiential education. Their list (posted on the EE webpage) is an excellent source of published results about EE program administration and learning that any faculty member involved in EE should be aware of and use regularly. We have a growing number of published works in our field which we can use for data driven decisions.

This committee also tracks and records all of the inquiries sent out to the section so that those searching for collaborators on specific topics/projects can find out who to network with. We are excited that the new AACP Connect system will facilitate this function for us in the future. (hint: our section is keenly interested in being an “early adopter” of this new system)

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Webinar Committee

Chair of Committee: James Scott (Western U)

The Experiential Education Section delivered two webinars this year.

• • January 28^th, 2016 by Dr. Toyin Tofade, with a title of “The Why’s and How’s of a Comprehensive Preceptor Development Program”

• • March 15^th, 2016 (collaboration between our section and the Assessment SIG) by Drs. Beth Martin and Michael Peeters, with a title of “Applying Validation Principles to Assessments in Experiential Education”

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Abstract Committee

Chair of Committee: Jennifer Danielson (University of Washington)

We had an unprecedented surge of volunteers for the abstract committee (over 200 volunteers). I had to turn people away. Thanks to the many committee members for their hard work on reviewing abstracts.

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Newsletter Committee

Chair of Committee: Nicole Culhane (Notre Dame of Maryland)

The committee published two newsletters this year (January and May). See EE section webpage for a copy. Topics/themes were: CAPE Domain 4 Outcomes in EE and Preceptor Development.

Name of Committee: Experiential Education Webpage Task Force

Chair of Committee: Maryann Skrabal (Creighton University)

This committee has worked for two years to reorganize the EE section webpage. They had a great plan, but after meeting with Terry Ryan learned that their recommendations will not be able to be implemented because AACP is not going to devote any more resources to the old website. AACP is beginning the process for building an entirely new website, so we will need to wait for that to occur. We hope, however, that our recommendations can serve to inform the website revision process.

Name of Committee: Task Force on Intentional IPE in EE

Chair of Committee: Joe Zorek (Wisconsin) and Gloria Grice (St. Louis COP), Co-Chairs

This committee was especially productive this year…they offered joint webinar with Curriculum SIG: Kahaleh A, O’Neil C, Umland E, Farland M, Danielson J. Assessment of IPE Initiative: Structure, Process, Outcome (Part 2). AACP Webinar, Curriculum SIG/EE Section, January 21, 2016.

This committee developed and conducted a survey of EE Directors about the amount and types of intentional IPE occurring at pharmacy schools across the country. They are in the data analysis phase of this project now. They also conducted a thorough literature review on IPE in EE and plan to include this work in white paper. The white paper will also include a toolkit of sorts for the kind and types of preceptor development programs needed to implement IPE in EE.

Name of Committee: Task Force on Bridging to Assessment to EE Task Force

Chair of Committee: Vincent Dennis (Oklahoma) and Greg Young (Lipscomb U)

This committee collaborated with the Webinar Committee and the Assessment SIG to offer a joint webinar on assessment in EE. (see webinar committee above)

In addition to this webinar, this committee will continue this next year to look into other issues that blend EE with assessment as we all seek to implement validated assessments as directed by ACPE.

Name of Committee: Task Force on Leadership Development in EE

Chair of Committee: Jennifer Danielson (U Washington) and Susan Vos (Iowa), Co-Chairs

The committee planned the AACP Spring Institute on EE: Leading Edge: Transforming Experiential Education. The Institute (in May 2016) had ∼195 attendees and represented 45 schools. An encore institute is planned for October for which we already have 20 more schools signed up.

The committee also looked into resources and training available for leadership for EE section members. While we explored the idea of offering a ALFP-like program, we decided against it. We feel the leadership training and opportunities already offered by AACP are probably sufficient if our members take advantage of them. We do not want to duplicate efforts. We think a list of books/publications that section members may find useful for developing leadership will facilitate individuals’ development.

F. Library and Information Science Section – 6/20/2016

• a. Awards Committee

  Leslie Bowman (chair)

  • Applications for the Sewell Memorial Fund Stipend were due 5/6; the committee is currently reviewing applications for librarians to attend the AACP annual meeting this year.

• b. Communications Committee

  Skye Bickett (chair)

  • The PharmLib Wiki is continually undergoing review, and changes will continue to be made as necessary throughout the year.
  • The committee discussed the usefulness of the upcoming implementation of Connect. A demonstration was set up and attended by several members. It was decided that this tool could be used for much of what the committee planned to do with networking and the newsletter.

• c. Membership Committee

  Jill Nissen (chair)

  • The membership chair reached out to 54 pharmacy liaison librarians at institutions not represented in the Section. In addition, she identified and reached out by email to 111 AACP members who identified as having the special area of responsibility as Drug Information/Poison Control, but are not currently Section members. As the Section is comprised of both librarians and pharmacists interested in informatics and drug information, it is reasonable to reach out to those members and introduce them to the Section and its activities. The chair then searched the AACP Roster by discipline for those members who identified with “Library and Information Science” as their discipline, and identified 18 past members and people in librarian positions in pharmacy schools who were not listed as members of the Section. Most were not affiliated with any section or SIG. The chair reached out to those AACP members and invited them to join the section. Total number of persons contacted = 173.
    No progress to report on the mentoring program.

• d. Nominating Committee

  Christina Seeger (chair)

  • Nominees for the 2016 elections, with biographical sketches, will be sent to AACP for the election slate deadline and presented to section membership at the LIS Annual Business Meeting in July.
• e. Professional Resources Committee

  • Basic Resources List Editors – Sharon Giovenale and Bill Lundmark

    • The Basic Resources list January 2016 edition was published on the AACP website. The June edition is in progress. William Lundmark, Jr has accepted a new position and has resigned as the Co-editor of the Basic Resources list. A search for a new Co-editor is underway.
  • Core Journals List – Rob Beckett

    • The Core Journals List has been updated and is currently under peer review by subject matter experts. The up-to-date list will be shared at the Annual Meeting following minor changes that will be made in June after the peer review is complete.

• f. Programming Committee

  Skye Bickett (chair)

  • Submitted programming for the annual meeting was accepted and is listed within the program list available on the annual meeting website.

• g. Resolutions Committee

  Rob Beckett (chair)

  • The committee members were informed of the potential change to the election procedure (since AACP moved the election dates), but no action has occurred yet. The need to update the Section’s Standing Rules will be discussed at the Annual Meeting.

G. Pharmaceutics Section – 6/20/16

Nominating Committee

• Chair: M. Delwar Hussain, California Health Sciences University

• Charge: Solicit nominations and present a slate of nominees for chair-elect and secretary of the Pharmaceutics Section

• Progress & Remaining Work on Charges: Charge is complete. Nominations were received and the committee selected two candidates for the office of chair, to be voted on in November by section membership. Scott Asbill from Presbyterian was elected. The charge of the committee is complete.

NIA Review Committee

• Chair: M. Delwar Hussain, California Health Sciences University

• Charge: Review proposals submitted for NIA. The charge of the committee is complete.

Abstract Review Committee

• Chair: Karen Nagel, Midwestern University Chicago College of Pharmacy

• Charge: Review abstracts submitted for presentation at the AACP annual meeting. The charge of the committee is complete.

Programming Committee

• Chair: Catherine White, University of Georgia

• Charge: Planning programming sessions for AACP Annual Meeting.

• Progress & Remaining Work on Charges: Several session options were discussed at the 2015 Annual Meeting section business meeting, and the committee followed up on these options and submitted the following two proposals. The charge of the committee is complete.

• 1. Title: Translational Pharmaceutics: Impact on the Practicing Pharmacist Program Description: This program will introduce translational pharmaceutics and discuss the impact on the practice of pharmacy. Presentations will include an overview of translational pharmaceutics and a more in depth presentation on pharmacometrics at the bedside. Participants will work in groups on an assigned topic. They will determine the translation aspects of that topic and discuss how that information could be threaded through the PharmD curriculum. Program Design: The program will have 2 speakers (1 hour) and a 30 minute active learning session.

• 2. Title: Case Study Workshop Program Description: Speakers will provide an overview of the process of how to write an integrative case study, introduce and discuss grading rubrics for case studies, and discuss the use of case studies across several courses within the same semester. Participants will then work in groups (pharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics, compounding, calculations, biotechnology) to develop a case study outline and discuss problem solving aspects of the case. Group members will then shift to new groups consisting of one member of each of the pharmaceutics specialties listed and will rework their case study to encompass more than one aspect of pharmaceutics. Program Design: The program will have 2 speakers (45 minutes) and a 45 minute active learning session.

Strategic Planning Initiative-Concepts (SPI-Concepts) Committee

• Chair: Rahmat Talukder, University of Texas - Tyler

• Charge: 1. Establish a list of essential pharmaceutical concepts in the PharmD curriculum, and 2. establish a minimum number of Pharmaceutics credits required in the PharmD curriculum.

• Progress & Remaining Work on Charges: The committee work is still in progess.

Strategic Plan Initiative-Clinical (SPI-Clinical) Committee

• Chair: Charles C. Collins, East Tennessee State University

• Charge: Align pharmaceutics concepts with clinical aspects of the PharmD curriculum.

• Progress & Remaining Work on Charges: The committee work is still in progess.

Strategic Planning Initiative-AAPS (SPI-AAPS) Committee

• Chair: Omathanu Perumal, South Dakota State University

• Charge: Increase involvement with AAPS to promote collaboration

• Progress & Remaining Work on Charges: The committee work is still in progess.

H. Pharmacy Practice Section - 6/21/2016

STANDING COMMITTEES:

Awards Committee

Leslie Hamilton, PharmD, BCPS, BCCCP (University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Identify, mentor, and nominate section members for appropriate awards in the Association.

• • Charge complete

Charge #2: Solicit nominees for AACP Awards from Section members, gather the required supporting information, prepare nominations for submission and submit materials to the Section Chair prior to November 1st.

• • Charge complete

Charge #3: Develop and implement, in collaboration with AACP staff, a plan for lifetime achievement award for Section members that can be awarded periodically to Section members. Plan to award at 2016 Annual Meeting (submit award winner before May 1, 2016).

• • Charge complete

Charge #4: Maintain current list of past AACP award recipients, highlighting Section affiliation of previous winners, and coordinate the placement of this information on the Section web page with AACP staff and Section Secretary.

• • Responsible= Leslie Hamilton

• • Charge in progress

Charge #5: Develop a procedure to receive nominations and award up to three Pharmacy Practice Section committee and task force service awards to be recognized annually at the AACP Annual Meeting – Pharmacy Practice Section business meeting.

• • Charge complete

Charge #6: Submit an interim and an annual report for inclusion in the Section business meetings

• • Charge complete

Communications Committee

Nicholas M. Fusco, PharmD, BCPS (University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Implement proposal developed in 2014-2015 for a section newsletter, with first publication in April 2016.

• • Published first Newsletter April 6, 2016

• • Charge complete, with plans for biannual newsletter publication (Fall/Spring)

Charge #2: Evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of social media recommendations to engage Section members and provide additional recommendations to support and enhance section communication and section member engagement.

• • Charge complete

• • Recommendations

  • ○ Sites such as Twitter/Facebook appear to be most valuable, but sometimes information that is posted is not always “useful” to users (i.e. users end up having to go to AACP website, or other resources, to get answers to their questions).

    • ▪ Facebook has analytic ability (termed “Insights” within Facebook) that allows you to see the # of people particular posts have reached, the # of shares/comments on a particular post and which posts are overall performing the best.

      • • May be worthwhile to review this data to see what type of posts members are interacting with most as a way to globally determine which are most useful
      • • Could use this data to create content that users would more likely interact with.
  • ○ Sites such as YouTube and Flickr appear to have low usage

    • ▪ 139 YouTube subscribers
    • ▪ 15 Flickr followers
    • ▪ Media posted to these sites could potentially be posted to other sites (e.g. pictures to Facebook, rather than Flikr) as a way of consolidating the number of sites
    • ▪ Links to videos should be provided in Facebook/Twitter posts more frequently to advertise the availability of such content
    • ▪ Overall, committee would recommend assessing whether it is worth the time/effort of maintaining these site compared to their overall usage
  • ○ LinkedIn, as a professional networking site, appears to be functioning well, with ∼5,000 followers
  • ○ AACP may benefit from consolidating their efforts major sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and channeling all postings through them, rather than fragmenting them across 6 different platforms
  • ○ Consider linking sites together (Facebook to Twitter and vice versa) to allow posts to be shared across platforms without having to manually post to site individually.

Charge #3: Monitor Section use and value of the listserv and section web page and recommend improvements as needed.

• • Responsible = Nicholas Fusco

  • ○ Charge in progress, monitoring ongoing

Charge #4: Submit an interim and an annual report for inclusion in the Section business meetings (due December 15, 2015 and May 16, 2016).

• • Charge complete

Faculty Development Committee

Matthew Pitlick, PharmD, BCPS (St. Louis College of Pharmacy)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Investigate and recommend mentoring best practices to engage AACP members including, but not limited to, “short term” mentoring programs such as a teaching boot camp or academic research training, webinars regarding specific mentoring areas and a mentoring best practices toolkit.

The Faculty Development Committee came to consensus focus on academic research training and mentoring as best now for webinar development. SoTL in specific, as there is a need and section focus. After collaboration with program committee, this would be under their purview as possible development for live programing. After much discussion and investigation the committee does not believe a boot camp to be feasible at this time given lack of resources, lack of infrastructure, and failed attempts in the past by other organizations. The committee does believe a toolkit such as a bibliography/references or best practices review article is a viable option.

Recommendations: Continue development webinar and/or live programming in SoTL. Complete a best practices review article and/or collect bibliography/references and make available on section webpage.

Charge #2: Collaborate with the Program Committee to develop webinars or live programming for areas identified for faculty development in 2014-2015 survey including themes that build upon (a) SoTL, (b) IPE, (c) active learning strategies in the large classroom setting, (d) assessing co-curriculum, (e) ACPE accreditation best practices (webinar request form required; Annual Meeting program submission deadline January 4, 2016).

Webinar speakers and moderator have been identified, but awaiting section/AACP approval. Committee member Katherine Carey (Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences), has been leading this charge and would like to continue on this project and on the committee. However, she will be on maternity leave until the end of September. Chair highly recommends she continue.

Recommendation: Continue development and completion of webinar regarding assessment of co-curriculum

Charge #3: Complete the publication submission and subsequent revisions to AJPE that reports the findings from the review and summary of current standards for progression of part time and auxiliary/adjunct faculty in promotion and advancement in the academic environment and implement methods to engage this group to promote AACP membership.

The manuscript was rejected by AJPE with suggestions on edits. These edits are currently underway and plan to resubmit fall 2016. The original manuscript was sent with Faculty Development Committee Report 2014-2016. Consider charge complete.

Charge #4: Develop a new faculty orientation toolkit (including teaching, scholarship and service), with potential collaboration with the Programming Committee for a boot camp at the AACP Annual Meeting Annual Meeting program submission deadline January 4, 2016).

The committee does not believe a boot camp to be feasible at this time given lack of resources, lack of infrastructure, and failed attempts in the past by other organizations. The committee suggests a more unique toolkit of a series of 15-20 minute podcasts about different aspects of faculty (including innovation, SoTL, pedagogy, or series of “how to do it”). To get an even better idea of content need could survey newer faculty about suggested content/topics and also could work on a bibliography/references about new faculty orientation best practice. There is quite a bit of information on the section website currently, but needs to be better organized and accessible (fewer clicks) which, I believe, AACP is currently doing.

Recommendation: Continue development and production of toolkit

Faculty Development Committee (continued)

Charge #5: Submit an interim and an annual report for inclusion in the Section business meetings (due December 15, 2015 and May 16, 2016).

• Report submitted.

Membership Committee

Katie J. Suda, PharmD (University of Illinois at Chicago)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

The committee started the year with a different set of charges. Secondary to lack of consistency between the Section and AACP, the Committee Chair (Suda), the Section Chair (Byrd) and AACP (Terry Ryan) convened to select a new set of charges. The new charges, selected in February 2016, are listed below with work conducted thus far. We recommend continuing work on these new charges in the 2016-2017 year.

Charge #1 Assess the engagement of junior faculty in AACP.

a. Evaluate faculty rank of committees/sigs leadership in AACP.

The work of the committee thus far has focused on what AACP already has implemented.

The group reviewed the faculty rank on the committees and task forces within the practice section. Appears that involvement in the committees is well balanced between Assistant, Associate, and full Professor, and administrative representation (faculty with an administrative title). The awards committee appears to be more fully stacked with upper level faculty, but this is probably appropriate because you need to know people to nominate them (and perhaps evaluate them as well).

b. Suggest naming committee vice chairs and encouraging junior faculty as vice chairs.

The subcommittee is in full support of this line item. We will discuss with the section chair.

c. Provide opportunities/what are the opportunities for ‘micro-involvement’ in AACP by junior faculty (e.g., abstract review, ACCP student CV review)

The subcommittee developed a list of opportunities to engage junior faculty in AACP. Recommend including this list (or something similar) on the website, and also potentially recommend to AACP to distribute the list to those that participate in the annual meeting mentorship program as a discussion item between the mentor/mentee pairs. The list could also be distributed to members who would qualify as new and junior faculty. (NOTE: The list is limited to the section and the association, did not yet look at different sections, or other pharmacy organizations.)

AACP Opportunities for Junior/New Faculty Involvement:

• ▪ Attend the annual meeting (July)

  • ▪ Participate in the mentorship program (sign up when registering)
  • ▪ Participate in Teachers Seminar (separate registration)

• ▪ Submit for poster, roundtable, or session at the annual meeting

• ▪ Attend the interim meeting (February)

• ▪ Volunteer to review abstracts for the section for the annual meeting (March)

• ▪ Join special interest groups (SIGs) (can join as many as you wish at any time)

  • ▪ Sign up for a committee – each SIG has committees; sign up to receive the emails/digests; calls will come out around the time of the annual meeting

Membership Committee (continued)

• ▪ Join up to two sections (can joint at any time)

  • ▪ Volunteer for a committee – will send out a call for volunteers; section chair makes committee appointments; even if not selected the first year keep volunteering

• ▪ Participate in webinars

• ▪ Submit a New Investigators Award application (Fall)

• ▪ Sign up to be a reviewer for the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

• ▪ Submit nomination to serve as school faculty delegate

Charge #2 Evaluate the annual meeting mentoring program:

a. Obtain additional information on this program

People signed up for the mentoring program on the AACP annual meeting registration page. Logistically for the 2016 annual meeting, signing up for this program will have to be done this way as well. AACP understands that if an administrative assistant registered the faculty, it may be missed. The mentoring program was on the first page of the registration form – there will be a brief description of the program on the first page of the form. AACP tries to match mentors to mentees based on practice area, but there are limitations (don’t have an even # volunteering between disciplines and only have limited information available on the attendees – AACP has the primary discipline – try to give mentees with more faculty experience, get a mentor that is a long-term faculty, younger mentor will typically get new faculty mentee [e.g., length of faculty service]). Last year AACP had more mentees in pharmacy practice than mentors, there were some mentees matched with a basic science mentor. AACP did a brief survey to everyone that participated; they did get some good suggestions on how to improve the program, but generally received a lot of positive feedback. They did receive some comments on the matching and on the mentor/mentee flaking out. AACP will add some initial communications after the attendee signs up and after matching and include suggested topics. Last year the mentoring program was new so notification of the program was done based on the registration form, but this year AACP is hoping to include the program on the registration form. It was included in the email communications on the annual meeting (where they list features of the meeting), e-alerts. AACP has not targeted communication to persons with abstracts accepted yet and have not looked into this, but this could be worthwhile. (Persons with accepted abstracts are likely to attend.) Katie worked with Debbie Byrd to send information on the program to the other committee chairs. The mentoring program does not interface with the Walmart Scholars program.

b. Request evaluations of the program or a list of attendees to assess effectiveness

Katie S. requested this information from Terry Ryan at AACP. He replied that he will need to continue to do some follow-up to approve this request.

c. Encourage the membership committee to participate as a mentor and/or mentee

Information was sent to the AACP practice section chairs and the Membership Committee. Unfortunately, the information on this program is buried under the meeting FAQ section. At this time, this charge is in a holding pattern until we receive additional information from Terry Ryan.

Charge #3. Assess how COP engage faculty in AACP.

a. Selection of delegates and involvement of delegates at the school level (e.g., regular report at faculty meeting)

Membership Committee (continued)

b. How do schools engage faculty in AACP (e.g., free membership, funding to attend annual meeting)?

It was recommended to develop a survey designed to assess how Colleges/Schools of Pharmacy engage and encourage faculty involvement in AACP. The goal of the survey is to identify successful efforts and explore potential opportunities for Colleges/Schools of Pharmacy to engage and encourage faculty involvement in AACP. The emailed survey is targeted to the AACP Faculty Delegate at each College/School.

c. AACP provides a free membership the first two years someone is faculty. Has the effectiveness of the free two-year membership program been evaluated?

AACP is starting to look into this, but has not completed their evaluation yet. Their first group of members just completed their free two-year membership in 2015. AACP did look at renewal rates within the group and did identify a slight increase in the two-year free membership as compared to one-year free membership. It is possible that this committee could help with this evaluation.

Nominating Committee

Steven C. Stoner, PharmD, BCPP (University of Missouri, Kansas City)

Progress/Remaining Work on Committee:

A total of four email reminders were sent out to Pharmacy Practice group within the Council of Sections. A total of two formal nominations were received. The Committee met on 4/29/16 at 1:30 pm CST and discussed the nominees. The committee voted unanimously (some members via email that were not present on the live call) to forward the names of Dr. Adam Pate and Dr. Lakesha Butler for the Pharmacy Practice Chair-elect position.

Program Committee

Michael Neville (Wingate University School of Pharmacy)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Collaborate with the Faculty Development Committee to develop section programming for the 2016 AACP Annual Meeting. Consider themes that build upon (a) SoTL, (b) IPE, (c) active learning strategies in the large classroom setting, (d) assessing co-curriculum, (e) ACPE accreditation best practices, (f) new faculty boot camp (Annual Meeting program submission deadline January 4, 2016).

• ● Annual meeting programming has been finalized with 8 speakers (Brian Cross, Katherine O’Neal, Amber Smith, Candice Garwood, Sean Kane, Adam Persky, Michael Neville, and Terry Schwinghammer) and will address broadly 2 categories (Billing for pharmacy services & Teaching/Faculty Development) These were decided upon based on previous committee meetings and discussions.

• ● The committee decided that with the breadth and types of themes presented in the charge that presenting in a Pecha Kucha style format may be ideal to cover material in a succinct and productive manner.

• ● Meetings with individual speaker groups (Billing & Teaching/Faculty Development) have been ongoing and presenters are updated and on the same page.

• ● Spoke with Matt Pitlick and decided that potential for collaboration was probably more reasonable and likely for a joint webinar over annual meeting programming.

Charge #2: Develop section programming for the 2016 ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting. Consider themes that build upon (a) wellness and health promotion, (b) IPE and/or (c) grant writing skills.

The Programming for the 2016 ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting has been accepted. This is collaboration among the ASHP Section of Clinical Specialists and Scientists Education Steering Committee and the AACP Pharmacy Practice Programming Committee. The programming is scheduled for Monday, December 5, 2016 from 2-3:30pm in Las Vegas. The title is Interprofessional Education: Preparing Students for Team-Based Care.

Charge #3: Collaborate with the Faculty Development Committee to develop and implement one to two webinar programs focusing on faculty development related issues and working toward promotion (i.e. focusing on teaching, scholarship, practice and service), and themes that build upon (a) SoTL, (b) IPE, (c) active learning strategies in the large classroom setting, (d) assessing co-curriculum, (e) ACPE accreditation best practices (webinar request form required).

Collaborated with Lakesha Butler from the Scholarship and Research Committee, the idea was to create a list of interdisciplinary funding opportunities to be included in the April Section Newsletter and a webinar on successful funding for interdisciplinary research related to clinical activities or in the classroom;

Also collaborated with Matt Pitlick from the Faculty Development Committee regarding the programming committee for the annual meeting.

Charge #4: Maintain the inventory of Section programming for use by subsequent Program Committees in collaboration with Section Secretary.

This information is available on the AACP website (Governance → Sections → Pharmacy Practice Section → Reports / Minutes)

Charge #5: Submit and interim and an annual report for inclusion in the Section business meetings (due December 15, 2015, and May 16, 2016).

Report submitted

Resolutions Committee

Sarah E. McBane PharmD, CDE, BCPS (University of California, San Diego)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Solicit resolutions from Committee and Section members and educate Section on process for submission. Collaborate with Strategic Plan and Bylaws Committee on this charge.

No resolutions received from Section membership. Reached out to Strategic Plan and Bylaws committee, no resolutions from that source.

Charge #2: Review all proposed resolutions for adherence to revised Section procedures.

No proposed resolutions received.

Charge #3: Draft a summary of proposed resolutions with rationale, and send to Section Listserv at least two weeks prior to business meetings of the Section or prior to electronic voting.

N/A

Resolutions Committee

Charge #4: Present resolutions to members at Business meetings and coordinate electronic voting on resolutions with AACP per revised Section rules.

N/A

Charge #5: Submit an interim and an annual report for inclusion in the Section business meetings (due December 15, 2015 and May 16, 2016).

Report drafted submitted.

Scholarship and Research Committee

Lakesha Butler, PharmD, BCPS (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville)

Progress/Remaining Work on Committee:

Charge #1: Develop new initiatives as a means to increase Pharmacy Practice Section funding for interdisciplinary research proposals.

• • Committee started a list of interdisciplinary funding opportunities to be submitted and featured in the next Section newsletter

• • The committee discussed hosting a webinar highlighting interprofessional scholarly work. The committee would like to have 2-3 speakers who have successfully received funding for interdisciplinary research projects addressing didactic, experiential, co-curricular and/or clinical practice. The webinar will discuss where to start with interdisciplinary research, how to bring in the right collaborators and provide words of wisdom on working with interprofessional teams. Lakesha Butler and Gary Milavetz will work together to develop the webinar and solicit possible speakers and moderator. Michael Neville and Debbie Byrd agreed with the topic and stated that we have money in the budget to host 2 webinars per year. The webinar will be held off until the beginning of the school year in August or September.

• • Charge in progress

Charge #2: Administer a survey to past NIA applicants to determine needs, particularly for mentoring.

• • Christina and Sweta developed survey utilizing some questions from last year’s committee members for past NIA PP applicants to determine their needs, particularly for mentoring. All committee members reviewed the survey draft and provided comments and edits prior to submission for IRB approval. Lakesha contacted Kristen Block (AACP) to request the names and contact information of all NIA applicants from PP Section over the last 5 years. Kristen Block provided contact information for 104 applicants from 2011 up to 2015. Christina and Sweta cross-referenced the contact information provided with the AACP database to confirm accuracy and to ensure use of the most up-to-date information. Sweta utilized her institution (Mercer University) to assist in obtaining IRB approval and launching of the survey. The survey was launched on May 9, 2016 and sent to all 104 previous applicants via an email notification. The survey will be left open for 4 weeks depending on response rate and a reminder will be sent in 1 week and in 3 weeks. It is desired to have the results of the survey prior to the Annual meeting so that the formal mentoring process (discussed below in Charge #3) can be implemented at the Section Business Meeting in July. A copy of the survey questions is attached.

Scholarship and Research Committee (continued)

Charge #3: Develop a list of criteria for NIA faculty mentors and initiate a process to apply for and assign faculty mentors to faculty developing and submitting NIA applications focused on interdisciplinary research.

• • Steve developed criteria and a process for assigning faculty mentors to section members developing and submitting NIA applications. The draft was reviewed by the committee members and the final draft was forward to the Section Chair for approval. The final document is attached. The committee is requesting that a signup be done at the Section business meeting for interested mentors and mentees. The committee feels that mentors do not necessarily have to have grant writing experience but they could have experience serving on grant review panels. Signup can also be available online for section members who are not attending the annual meeting in July. The committee will work to assign mentor-mentee pairs based on the developed process and assignments will be sent out via email in August.

• • The same process may be utilized by the Faculty Development Committee in the future to develop a mentorship program for any faculty desiring mentorship. Lakesha will discuss with Matthew Pitlick (faculty development chair).

• • Charge is in progress

Charge #4: Develop recommendations for a Section Sabbatical Program for Scholarship based on results of survey.

• • Last year’s committee developed a survey to help determine the need for a Section Sabbatical Program for Scholarship. The survey was piloted among committee members in February and feedback was provided. The final draft was approved by the committee and expedited IRB approval was received from SIUE (Lakesha’s institution). The survey was sent to all Section members utilizing Qualtrics on 2/26/16 and was open until 3/31/16. Results: A total of 177 participants started the survey, however 128 participants completed the entire survey. Most participants were interested in a sabbatical program but have not pursued it. Most would prefer a sabbatical of 6 months duration. A summary report of the results and implications is attached. The committee recommends that a sabbatical program be created. The policy and procedures need to be developed. The committee also recommends offering a webinar to familiarize faculty with the process of a sabbatical and how to create a plan for a successful sabbatical. Additionally, the committee recommends that a national policy on sabbatical leaves for faculty including best practices for process and outcomes be developed for member institutions.

• • Charge in progress

Charge #5: Recommend a strategy to showcase resident, fellow, and graduate student scholarship/research. Consider pilot initiatives that could use technology to achieve this charge.

• • The committee started working with AACP’s Terry Ryan on creating a virtual poster session using a webinar format. Poster would be provided and the presenter would discuss the poster. Approximately 5 posters could be presented during an hour webinar. Concerns were previously discussed about the attendance rate especially if only 1 or 2 of the 5 posters were of interest. Also participants may not be interested in sitting through a description of 5 different posters. This is the only platform that can be accommodated by AACP. It was suggested that each webinar have a theme to encourage the participation of only those interested in the theme presented. The committee will need to decide a timeline and the details for these poster webinars.

Scholarship and Research Committee (continued)

• • Steve took the lead on developing a special section proposal for AJPE to feature the work of residents, fellows and graduate students. The final proposal was submitted to Gayle Brazeau (editor of AJPE) last year with follow up twice this year. The editor discussed the idea with her associate editors and staff. AJPE will offer a new category of “brief reports” starting in January 2017 that she feels would be a good fit for residents and fellows. The category will provide an option for smaller papers and projects.

• • Charge in progress

Charge #6: Identify strategies to increase awareness regarding the Scholarship of Engagement within the Section.

• • The committee will plan to submit interdisciplinary funding opportunities in the next Section newsletter. The committee suggested that a newsletter be released in May so that programming or abstracts that will be presented at the annual meeting and are pertinent to our section can be included.

• • Charge in progress

Strategic Plan and Bylaws Committee

Erika L. Kleppinger (Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Conduct a review of the existing Pharmacy Practice Section Strategic Plan and identify what goals and objectives have been successfully achieved and those that remain.

Last year the committee members reviewed the existing Pharmacy Practice Strategic Plan by reviewing the goals and indicating the progress that has been made on each of the action items. The committee reviewed the document in January during a conference call and determined that committee/task force chairs could be asked for additional input.

Charge #2: Initiate a process to develop a new Pharmacy Practice Section Strategic Plan that covers the time period of 2015-2020 and includes goals, objectives, and action steps with responsibility recommendations.

The committee determined that the existing strategic plan could be updated instead of starting from scratch with a new strategic plan. First committee chairs would be asked to review the existing strategic plan and recommend additions/deletions based upon their work. Then, the most active members of the section (such as leadership, committee chairs, and committee members) could be surveyed on the highest priority objectives. Finally, an open forum could be held to obtain input from section members at large. This could be a conference call, webcast, or at the annual meeting.

Charge #3: Develop a process that ensures any new strategic initiatives are properly aligned with the strategic initiatives of the Councils of Sections and the Academy.

The committee will review the current AACP Council of Sections Strategic Plan for 2015-2018 and incorporate pertinent strategic initiatives into the updates to the Pharmacy Practice Section strategic plan. The AACP academy strategic plan will also be reviewed by the committee once it is available.

Charge #4: Recommend bylaw changes within the Section as warranted.

No bylaw changes have been recommended this year.

Charge #5: Develop mechanisms for Section members to provide input into progress reports and future strategic plans.

The committee suggests that an annual review of the existing strategic plan should be completed by this committee. This would most likely occur in the summer/fall when committee work for the previous year has been completed. After the strategic plan has been updated, the committee will discuss mechanisms for completing progress reports and seeking member input annually.

TASK FORCES:

Advocacy in Pharmacy Practice Task Force

Julie Kissack (Harding University College of Pharmacy)

Progress/Remaining Work on Committee:

The committee met once in the spring semester. No action was taken to address the charges.

Student and Resident Engagement Task Force

Jaclyn Boyle, PharmD, MS, BCPS (Northeast Ohio Medical University)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Charge #1: Establish workgroups with ASHP and ACCP to discuss and implement a standardized approach to Teaching and Learning Curricula (TLC) recommendations from 2014-2015.

Since the interim report, task force member Jackie Boyle contacted Mike Maddox at ACCP; Janet Silvester at ASHP to determine best contacts for workgroup formation. Task force member Seena Haines discussed that ACCP has recommendations for rubrics of TLC programs– (both PGY1/PGY2) – Jackie Boyle contacted Jane Engel from ACCP and it was confirmed that the work of the educational affairs committee produced a self-assessment rubric for TLC programs that will not overlap with this workgroup’s survey evaluation. Tim Ulbrich convened a second meeting of this group in February 2016 to frame the survey questions around a self-assessment of TLC curricula based on the 2012 AACP White Paper and 12 components of TLC curricula. Demographic data such as number of residents, resources available to support program, and a general landscape of TLC programs will be explored by this work. This workgroup will also explore evaluating online TLC programs. The survey is currently under revision and will be submitted to Northeast Ohio Medical University’s IRB. Action items for next year include continuing the charge of this workgroup and further coordinating with ASHP and ACCP on this charge. This charge is approximately 20% complete.

Charge #2: Publish model curriculum developed for student pharmacists interested in academic pharmacy (e.g. academic teaching rotations).

Since the interim report, this group is working on a second publication and additional deliverable of an academic preparation toolkit and career planning tools, as well as recommendations. Survey respondents from the aforementioned publication in AJPE were invited to share syllabi, course materials, rubrics, and other academic preparedness items within Dropbox. The group hopes to work with AACP to find a way to distribute materials widely to the academy. Participants at the annual meeting session will be invited to submit their materials as well. This charge is approximately 50% complete.

Charge #3: Collaborate with the Student Involvement Task Force and AACP Staff to implement strategies for AACP to engage student pharmacists, pharmacy residents, and graduate students within the Section.

Update from interim report:

• • Group to decide which initiatives to move forward with for 2016-2017 academic year:

• • Create a series of YouTube videos for students/residents related to academic pharmacy.

• • Explore the idea of regional student chapters vs. colleges/school specific chapters to minimize administrative support needed. PPAG has done this successfully. Will need to consider structure/function of regional chapters if we decide to go forward with this effort.

• • Explore the idea of combining virtual poster session with webinars if possible.

• • The task force would like more guidance from AACP regarding this charge.

This charge is approximately 25% complete.

Charge #4: Submit an interim and an annual report for inclusion in the Section business meetings (due December 15, 2015 and May 16, 2016).

Reports submitted. This charge is complete.

Section Development Task Force

Charles T. Taylor, PharmD, BCPS (Northeast Ohio Medical University)

Progress/Remaining Work on Committee:

Charge: Provide recommendations for ongoing development of the section. The report resulting from this task force will be presented to current section leadership and the Strategic Planning and Bylaws Committee for implementation and incorporation into the strategic plan.

The Task Force met via teleconference on April 20th and May 10, 2016. The recommendations from the 2014-2015 Section Development Task Force were reviewed and discussed. Comments from this discussion are provided below.

Recommendations for Ongoing Section Development:

1. Advance strategies to enhance recruitment and admission of students.

• • The number of applications and applicants to schools of pharmacy have declined for the past few years. The 2015 AACP Fall report describes a 0.6% decrease in first year enrollments, even though the enrollment for all professional years increased by 0.6%. The AACP Fall Reports have substantial data on the number of applications and enrollments that describe the admission climate at schools and colleges.

• • The credentials that make pharmacy students qualified applicants also make them competitive in other disciplines beyond medicine and nursing, our traditional competitors – PA and NP schools are of particular concern. Additionally, the emphasis on STEM careers, especially for women and underrepresented minority students, is an additional drain on potential applicants for pharmacy.

• • As stated in last year’s reports, the number of high school graduates is declining, further eroding the traditional pool of applicants. The demographics of high school graduates is also changing, reflecting the changes in the demographics in the country as a whole.

  • ○ (http://www.nacubo.org/Research/Research_News/Demographic_Shifts_in_High_School_Graduate_Populations.html)
  • ○ http://www.usnews.com/news/college-of-tomorrow/articles/2014/09/22/college-of-tomorrow-the-changing-demographics-of-the-student-body

• • The general public does not fully understand the opportunities that a pharmacy career offers and pharmacy itself often paints a negatives picture of job prospects and career satisfaction. Pharmacy faculty often lack an accurate understanding of the overall job market for college graduates and do not understand that even when compared to the past, the current rates of pharmacist employment and salary for entry level positions far exceeds the opportunities available to almost all other new graduates. Pharmacy faculty can either help or hurt the messaging about the realities of the job market, career opportunities and residency placement based on their experiences and level of understanding of the facts.

• • Many pharmacy schools are adopting holistic admissions procedures. It is an opportunity to consider applicants that previously would have been screened out as not meeting a set academic standard, but possess other attributes that may provide other reasons for believing the person could be successful. Additionally, it could eliminate applicants that may be highly qualified academically, but do not possess other attributes that may be required to be a successful professional pharmacist. There is also not a single definition for holistic admissions and there can be misunderstanding by faculty about the quality of students admitted under such procedures. There is some data showing the positive impact of holistic admissions procedures in attracting and admitting a qualified and diverse student body, but there is not much data specific to pharmacy and outcome data is also lacking.

  • ○ http://www.nimhd.nih.gov/news/holisticStudy.html
  • ○ https://www.jbhe.com/2014/10/a-holistic-admission-process-produces-better-results-for-health-profession-schools/

• • The increasing needs that undergraduate college students have for English language remediation, study skill development and management of chronic medical conditions is well documented and the same issues are more present among pharmacy students than in the past. The skills that schools and faculty advisors need to support incoming students are more complex and more time intensive. Faculty advising often falls disproportionately to pharmacy practice faculty. Faculty advisors may not be equipped for these more complex demands.

• • Stress on faculty related to budgetary problems from unfilled classes, perceptions about the quality of the student body and expectations to support students in a more intense manner than in the past.

• • The Student Services SIG has been discussing these issues extensively over the past few years and have developed strategies to enhance the applicant pool and also publicize the great opportunities that a pharmacy career offers. The specifics of these strategies are not likely understood by the average pharmacy practice faculty member.

Recommended Actions:

• • Offer programming to develop faculty advising skills to support the contemporary students’ needs

• • Provide accurate information and talking points about the reality of the job market, applicant pool size and qualifications and career opportunities so that faculty and better understand these issues and message students and other audiences accurately about the pros and cons of about the profession.

• • Gain a better understanding of the work of Student Services SIG and serve as a resource when marketing plans about the profession of pharmacy are developed in alignment to AACP’s new strategic plan.

Note: The following are issues included in the 2015 Section Development Task Force report which should continue to be addressed.

• • Considering technical standards to clearly inform potential students about requirements and responsibilities before accepting admission to a college of pharmacy: This is an area that has a strong impact on pharmacy practice departments. This issue is increasingly important issue as it relates to ADA and disabilities that we can accommodate. AMA has had good papers lately surrounding working with students with hearing impairments. Schools can use support in this area.

• • Addressing the growing need to improve the applicant pool for admission to colleges of pharmacy: With ACPE increasing the request for assessment of non-cognitive skills as part of admission and progression, the use of testing such as Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) is under increased review. The PCAT Advisory Committee is currently exploring the possibility of developing a situational judgment test that could be included in the PCAT or offered to schools as an additional assessment that can be used in the admissions process. Also, in terms of recruitment, there is a greater need to consider the branding and the marketing of pharmacy programs, whether the entry-level program, residencies, or fellowships. Changing demographics of high school population is another part of this discussion – the high school pool is shrinking.

• • Cost of Education: With tuition increases at a constant rate, student debt also continues to increase. This is becoming increasingly important as the current surplus of pharmacy school graduates may be driving salaries down significantly. The surplus/ lack of surplus of pharmacists is a pretty controversial issue - see 2013 AJPE Articles 90 and 91 Statement.

2. Develop future academic pharmacy practice leadership.

• • Schools of pharmacy are disproportionally increasing the number of clinical to non-clinical faculty hires as a result of many factors that include but are not limited to: increased percentage of curricular delivery being pharmacy practice related; changing budget models; increased emphasis on Doctor of Pharmacy degree completion.

• • Shift in focus of faculty hiring results in non-tenured clinical faculty appointments and fewer hiring of Ph.D. pharmacy faculty members with pharmacy practice experience.

• • In the 130+ US School of Pharmacy, there are over 30 estimated openings for Dean positions and anecdotal reports of low total applicant pools. The same impact can be seen in the hiring of pharmacy practice chairs. Traditionally these positions have targeted those with Ph.D. training in pharmacy.

• • The low number of dean and department chair faculty candidates may be the result of either a lack of qualified applicants or a lack of interest or a lack of appeal to the next generation of pharmacy leaders. The traditional career path to become a dean has been to be promoted through the academic rank system and eventually targeting leadership position in the middle to latter phases of an academic career.

• • Larger percentage of available faculty lines targeting non-tenured pharmacy practice appointments. Reduced “traditional” applicant pool for pharmacy leadership positions, including department chairs and deans. Need for increased education, training, and mentorship for leadership roles and the changing pool of potential applicants for the future.

Recommended Actions:

• • Complete and synchronize with the council of faculties, a needs assessment of faculty attitudes regarding what they view as important qualities and qualifications of a department chair and dean, as well as interest in pursuing leadership positions.

• • Describe the current number of vacancies for deans and pharmacy practice department chairs and describe the current academic backgrounds of deans and pharmacy practice department chairs.

• • Target programming for developing leadership for deans and pharmacy practice chairs with non-traditional Ph.D. backgrounds.

3. Facilitate a New Research Funding and Faculty Engagement Paradigm.

When this topic was first addressed by the Section Development Task Force in 2014-15, the initial issue that was addressed related to declining available grant funding and state funding (for public universities) in a time when research expectations were seemingly increasing for many faculty members. While this still remains an issue, the Section Task Force needs to evaluate the issues of funding more globally, to better understand and address how funding issues may be impacting Pharmacy Practice Faculty Members particularly as the forms of research continue to evolve into areas such as teaching, outcomes, health services, etc. A synopsis of the current higher education funding issues that impact Pharmacy Practice Faculty Members is as follows:

• • Declining state funding continues to be an issue in colleges/schools of pharmacy located in state universities, resulting in them becoming more tuition driven.

• • Funding has become a particular challenge for those universities which have a significant research mission, with student tuition often funding faculty research that is not supported by external funding.

• • There is increased competition for research funding (particularly Federal Funding), and this represents a major challenge for pharmacy practice faculty members in positions that require funded research.

• • Current concerns about the high (and increasing) costs of higher education will likely limit the ability of colleges/schools to continue to increase tuition.

• • The declining ratio of applicants to available seats in pharmacy schools may significantly reduce college/school available resources, as a result of colleges/schools not being able to fill all the seats in their classes or by creating pressure for lower tuitions in order to improve competitiveness for students.

• • Some universities are experimenting with new budgeting models, where the resources allocated to colleges/schools are dependent on metrics such as credit hours taught, tuition generated, and income from entrepreneurial activities.

• • Available time for faculty members to engage in research/scholarly activities that are not funded from grants/contracts may be significantly reduced. The workload activities of faculty members may become less aligned with the college’s/school’s requirements for promotion and tenure. Faculty workload distributions may become more weighted to activities that generate income for the college/school, though opportunities could be created for faculty to engage in more entrepreneurial activities that generate revenue, such as

  • ○ Increased teaching loads
  • ○ On-line courses
  • ○ Compensation for clinical services (particularly if provider status become more prevalent)
  • ○ Other consultative services

Recommended Actions:

• • Conduct educational programming for section members related to current financial issues in higher education. This programming can assist Section Members with understanding the financial environments in the universities in which they work.

• • Advocate for alignment of incentives to the promotion and tenure guidelines so that policies encourage scholarship and reward items such as commercialization or private funding gained to advance research endeavors.

• • Encourage AACP to develop programming that will assist faculty members in becoming more entrepreneurial.

Note: The following are issues included in the 2015 Section Development Task Force report which should continue to be addressed.

• • A new funding paradigm for basic research, particularly in pharmacy practice: Universities continue to attempt to increase start-up packages for research for new faculty members, including pharmacy practice faculty. Funding to support these faculty members continues to decline, either federal funding due to budget cuts, or continued declines in funding from state legislatures. New and innovative funding models for research are needed, and soon. This issue relates to the types of parent institutions in which pharmacy schools are located, which can be categorized as: 1) Research Universities, 2) Emerging Research Institutions, and 3) Teaching-focused institutions. It may be helpful for Section leaders to review the 2013-2014 Council of Deans Committee and Task Force Report Task Force On Assisting Schools Of Pharmacy Of Emerging Research Universities, which identified some of the challenges facing schools of pharmacy that are located in universities that are trying to build a greater research focus and ways that AACP can provide assistance.

4. Foster the Evolution, Infrastructure, and Evaluation of Interprofessional Education.

Previous Task Force Report addressed the potential challenge of identifying willing collaborators from other health professions school and their availability, as well as how to move initial pilot activities to larger scale projects that applied to all students. However, equally as important besides implementation, is assessment and evaluation of these programs, in terms of their impact on student, as well as patient outcomes.

• • Interprofessional education is now a component of accreditation standards across health professions. For some institutions this may be an unfunded mandate without resources to adequately manage the efforts across colleges.

• • As faculty’s workload activities will become more weighted to the area of interprofessional education (especially for pharmacy practice faculty), their efforts in scholarship and research in this area should also be encouraged and proportionally increased.

• • Research in the area of interprofessional education is evolving. This may become an area of potential for faculty in acquiring Federal and States research funding, especially in view of other areas of research funding continue to decline. However, in order to be successful in this kind of research endeavor, faculty member needs to have leadership skill in acquiring partnership with other health professions, as well as team management skills.

Recommended Actions:

• 1. To develop program that assist faculty in developing, managing and evaluating programs to enhance interprofessional collaboration in education.

• 2. Advocate and develop program that assist faculty in the development of interprofessional patient care model. This will further expend opportunities to incorporate interprofessional education.

• 3. Help identify research funding sources in interprofessional education.

• 4. Contribute to the development and dissemination of metrics/evaluation parameters for interprofessional education

• 5. Develop programs that continue to improve faculty’s outcome research skills.

• 6. Develop a strategy to pro-actively identify innovations in interprofessional education, and disseminate lessons learned to pharmacy faculty members.

Note: The following are issues included in the 2015 Section Development Task Force report which should continue to be addressed.

• • Interprofessional Education: Further clarity will be required from ACPE as to what the expectation will be in terms of pharmacy’s participation. The availability of willing collaborators from other health professions schools will clearly impact how colleges of pharmacy will approach this initiative. A big challenge will be in moving these initial activities from the pilot stage, which may involve a few students, and scaling it up to a level so that all student pharmacists will have the opportunity to receive some form of interprofessional experience.

Areas Requiring Further Evaluation and Input:

The following are important areas that the Committee feels will have impact on the Pharmacy Practice Section. However, there is significant work among existing committees within the academy which will greatly inform future recommendations to the Pharmacy Practice Section. The two areas are briefly outlined below:

• • Co-Curriculum Development & Management. The delineation of professional activities and alignment of teaching strategies for co-curriculum elements will be essential for pharmacy practice.

• • 2014-2015 Task Force - Preparing pharmacy graduates to be more “practice ready”: As discussed at the ACPE Invitational Conference, and at the AACP Council of Deans Task Force on “Healthcare Transformation’s Impact on Pharmacy Education, the issue is what learners should be able to do at the time of graduation, as they will need to have a skill set to deliver direct patient care or patient-centered care. At present, there is no clear definition of these terms in the practice of pharmacy. This may lead to positions by professional pharmacy organizations to believe that residencies and/or board certifications are essential to provide direct patient care, while others may believe that every pharmacy graduate is able to provide direct patient care. Residencies will be unable to train and prepare residents and specialty residents to this level as the number of residencies will not expand very rapidly in the future. 2014-2015 TF Comments: This continues to be an important issue. Specific areas to explore include: more innovative ways to include students in academic/clinical practice partnerships, more opportunities early in pharmacy education (Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences), how this relates to admissions, diversity of applicants/student body and issues related to differences in student body and faculty, and faculty interaction with students with psychosocial issues.

Recommendations compiled from:

2014-2015 Section Development Task Force Report

Environmental scan to identify other relevant issues

Health and Wellness Task Force

Susan P. Bruce, PharmD, BCPS (Northeast Ohio Medical University)

Charges:

• 1. Summarize “best practices” and exemplary models for engaging student pharmacists in wellness and disease prevention activities.

• 2. Recommend strategies for incorporating wellness and health promotion within pharmacy curricula.

• 3. Recommend strategies to create a healthier campus environment to role- model health promotion and wellness.

• 4. Submit an interim and an annual report for inclusion in the Section business meetings.

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

During the second half of the year, task force members reviewed the data received through survey administration. The group worked collaboratively prepared a manuscript describing the process taken to address the charges, including specific recommendations as requested in charges 2 and 3. Upon submission of the final report and draft manuscript, the work of the task force is complete.

Classroom Engagement Best Practices Task Force

Mike Gonyeau (Northeastern University Bouve College of Health Sciences School of Pharmacy)

Progress / Remaining Work of Committee:

Chair resigned. No progress on charges.

I. Social and Administrative Sciences Section - 6/21/2016

Submitted by David Holdford, Section Chair

1. What has been done since the last report?

See #2 and #4

2. If any decisions/recommendations have been, what are they? (Please repeat these even if they are included in the February report.)

An ad hoc committee was identified the following top 5 priority topic areas for SAS education, collaboration, and research: Pharmacy Manpower, Assessing the Impact of Pharmacists, Science of Safety, New Pharmacy Business Models, and Interprofessional Education.

The ad hoc committee, the Building Research Team Task Force/Committee, and the Membership Analysis Committee have all been disbanded after completing their charges or reaching a point where the purpose was no longer clear.

Decisions have been made to move forward with developing new SAS awards and with piloting a new Research Mentoring Committee.

3. Are there any recommendations that require COS or Board of Directors action?

None

4. For each COS Task Force and Section Task Forces and Committees, is their work complete or does more need to be done.

Committees and Progress

Ad Hoc Committee to Develop Section Priorities

Completed its charge and disbanded.

Programming Committee: Chair John Bentley,

Completed all program planning for the annual meeting. Charge will be completed after the annual meeting.

Curriculum Committee: Chair Linda Gore Martin,

No changes. Work still in progress.

Abstract Committee: Chair Leticia Moczygemba. The committee received and reviewed 82 abstracts submitted by members to the Social and Administrative Sciences Section. Each volunteer reviewer in the section completed 8 to 9 abstracts reviews and submitted their results to AACP. Charge completed.

Research Mentoring Committee: Chair Sally Huston. No change. Work still in progress.

Awards Committee: Chair Pam Heaton. The committee met and wrote criteria for four new SAS research awards to be possibly awarded in 2016-2017: Best SAS Research Paper, Best SAS Poster, Best SAS Publication Award for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, and Sustained Research Accomplishments of SAS faculty. Charge for the year completed.

Nominations Committee: Chair Kim Plake. No change. Work still in progress.

Building Research Team Task Force/Committee

Completed its charge and disbanded.

Membership Analysis Committee

The Membership Analysis Committee has been disbanded until further notice.

5. Any other additional information that the Chairs feel is important for everyone to know.

No.

Appendix A.

Scholarly Teaching Task Force Rubric

Appendix B.

Section-SIG Relationship Task Force Survey Results

Appendix C

Biological Science Section

Strategic Plan Critical Issue I Subcommittee Report

• Biological Science Section’s Strategic Plan Critical Issue I Subcommittee Report.

• Committee: Lila P LaGrange; Daniel Brazeau; Rahul Rajesinh Deshmukh and Manas Mandal (chair)

• Critical Issue I: How do we engage members?

• The Biological Sciences Section is advocating its support for the goals and related strategy to increase membership, involvement of the members specifically with Biological sciences Section and attendance of the members at the AACP meetings including the annual meeting. The following are the suggested detail action plan for the Association to consider. The Section Critical Issue I Subcommittee thanks you for your consideration of this request.

• Goal 1.1 Increase Biological Science Section membership.

• Strategy 1: Actively recruit new members to the section.

• As with most professional societies there is much to be gained from participating in the annual meetings as well as throughout the year. A quick visit to AACP’s website (http://www.aacp.org) will show the many benefits and resources available to society members. In addition, becoming an active member of AACP’s Biological Sciences section provides specific benefits to faculty including:

• 1. Opportunities to establish and extend networks with other scientists in the academia and profession. Colleagues who can be of immense help in faculty development, mentoring and collaboration.

• 2. Opportunities to both disseminate and acquire novel cutting-edge pedagogy related to professional and graduate education. The Biological Sciences section provides many chances to promote and communicate your noteworthy or best practices in life sciences education.

• 3. Opportunities for research collaboration and funding, including

• • AACP’s New Investigator Award (NIA) program

• • Scholar-in-Residence Programs

• • Education Scholar program - Teaching Excellence and Scholarship Development Resources for Health Professions Educators

• • Members have access to extensive databases of other funding/fellowship opportunities

• 4. Opportunities to become more familiar with Colleges of Pharmacy structure, operation and accreditation processes. Often these issues are not familiar to Basic Science faculty.

• 5. Membership provides entry to further leadership opportunities in AACP and also opportunities for development of institutional leadership qualities.

• Strategy 2: Provide incentive to join AACP Biological Section that encourages new membership and increases overall membership.

• Biological Science Section is one of the newest special interest group formed within AACP that intend to serve as a platform for Basic Science faculty of the Pharm D program from Colleges of Pharmacy. Faculty from several different disciplines such as biochemistry, chemistry, pharmacology and microbiology-immunology constitutes the membership of this section. With a newly established section within AACP, special emphasis and policies encouraging increase in membership is required. However, to formulate such a policy we must understand the barriers to achieve this goal. A preliminary inquiry into AACP membership and annual meeting attendees’ background and interest indicates that administrators and pharmacy practice faculty constitutes majority of the AACP membership and annual meeting attendees. Basic science faculty in traditional research intensive College of Pharmacy (COP) obtains discipline-specific professional society membership and attends annual meeting of that professional society. The rational lies in professional networking, peer review of research through poster and podium presentation and increasing visibility in their area of expertise. A faculty from research intensive COP may not comprehend the value in joining AACP and attending AACP annual meeting with specific interest in Biological Science Section. However, faculty from non-research intensive COP or faculty engaged more in Biological Science teaching may be interested in joining AACP, Biological Science Section and attending the annual meeting if offered with appropriate incentive and values for their time and limited resources.

• Therefore, to increase the AACP membership in Biological Section and attendance of the annual meeting we propose the following incentives. We believe that these two incentives will create values attracting new membership and subsequent annual meeting attendance through reduction in costs.

• 1. Offer extension of full waiver of AACP annual dues for a new member for the second year. Alternatively, offer extension of waiver of AACP annual dues at a 50% level for the second year for a new member regardless of years on faculty rank.

• 2. Offer multi-year discount on annual membership fees for a current faculty with good standing or for a new faculty joining AACP, Biological Section.

• Goal 1.2. Increase attendance at annual meetings.

• Strategy 1. Reduce the cost of attending the annual meeting.

• The Biological Sciences Strategic Plan Task Force developed an action plan for this specific goal, and it was approved by the membership following the 2014 AACP annual meeting. The action plan includes several recommendations to increase Biological Science Section members at the annual meetings, which include the following: to 1) reduce or eliminate registration fee for first-time attendees at the annual meeting, 2) provide group registration discounts for faculty attending the annual meeting from the same institution, such as AAPS offers, and 3) offer low cost alternate housing for attending the annual meeting. Each recommendation is further discussed below.

• 1. The Section proposes that first-time attendees at the AACP annual meeting, regardless of rank or years of faculty experience, have the registration fee waived. The Section acknowledges the current benefit of a 2-year complimentary membership to AACP for first-year faculty, but this proposal would extend this benefit such that new members, regardless of years on faculty, would have the opportunity to experience the annual meeting and increase the potential for involvement in the Section(s) and the Society. It is proposed that this early exposure and involvement with their respective Section upon their membership to AACP would increase their regular attendance at the annual meeting subsequently.

• 2. The Section proposes that registration discounts be offered to faculty attending the annual meeting if a specific number are from the same institution. For example, if the policy is created for groups of five or more, then institutions in which five or more faculty are attending the AACP annual meeting, their registration fees would be discounted by a certain percentage.

• 3. The Section proposes that additional and alternate housing options be offered through AACP reducing the cost of meeting attendance. These options would be in addition to the main meeting and/or convention hotel and would also include pre-negotiated room rates and online room reservation links through the AACP annual meeting website.

• Strategy 2. Increase graduate student membership in AACP, and/or participation at meetings.

• To increase graduate students’ membership and enhance participation at the AACP meetings including annual meeting specifically in the ‘Biological Sciences’ section, the following action plans are suggested:

• 1. Reach out aggressively to recruit new members from the College of Medicine and College of Pharmacy graduate (PhD) students by informing and educating on the scopes of AACP.

• 2. Offer free annual membership for the first year, and discounted rates for subsequent years to the graduate students from College of Pharmacy and College of Medicine with research expertise in Biological Sciences.

• 3. Offer travel fellowships to such graduate students to attend and present research at the AACP annual meeting.

• 4. Offer various tools such as links on the AACP website for career development to the graduate students for employment at the Colleges of Pharmacy.

• 5. Offer various workshops/sessions and webinars for career development in academic pharmacy and opportunities within AACP.

• 6. Create recruitment opportunities for the graduate students by hosting recruiting events with academia, industry and regulatory agencies at the annual meeting.

• 7. Create zonal chapters for Biological sections section of AACP and offer faculty member ‘mentorship’ to the students in need.

Administrative Board, Chairs, and Chair-Elects, and Staff

ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD

Immediate Past Chair: Craig D. Cox (Texas Tech): craig.cox@ttuhsc.edu

Chair: Edward M. DeSimone (Creighton): edesimon@creighton.edu

Chair-Elect: Schwanda K. Flowers (Arkansas): SKFlowers@uams.edu

Chair-Eelct Designate: Steven C. Stoner (UMKC): StonerS@umkc.edu

Secretary: Jill Fitzgerald (Connecticut): jill.fitzgerald@uconn.edu

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRS OF ACADEMIC SECTIONS

Administrative Services: Renae J. Chesnut (Drake): renae.chesnut@drake.edu

Biological Sciences: Arbi Nazarian (Western): anazarian@westernu.edu

Chemistry: David A. Colby (Purdue): dacolby@olemiss.edu

Continuing Professional Education: Jacob P. Gettig (Midwestern): JGetti@midwestern.edu

Experiential Education: Lynn Stevenson (Auburn): TLS0002@auburn.edu

Library and Information Science: Christina M. Seeger (Incarnate Word): seeger@uiwtx.edu

Pharmaceutics: M. Delwar Hussain (Texas A&M): DHussain@chsu.org

Pharmacy Practice: Steven C. Stoner (UMKC): StonerS@umkc.edu

Social and Administrative Sciences: Kimberly S. Plake (Purdue): kplake@purdue.edu

CHAIRS OF ACADEMIC SECTIONS

Administrative Services: Eric Johnson (Oklahoma): Eric-Johnson@ouhsc.edu

Biological Sciences: Fadi T. Khasawneh (Western): fkhasawneh@westernu.edu

Chemistry: John M. Rimoldi (Mississippi): jrimoldi@olemiss.edu

Continuing Professional Education: Timothy E. Welty (Drake): timothy.welty@drake.edu

Experiential Education: Jennifer M. Danielson (Washington): Jendan@uw.edu

Library and Information Science: Sherrill J. Brown (Montana): sherrill.brown@umontana.edu

Pharmaceutics: Karen M. Nagel-Edwards (Midwestern): knagel@midwestern.edu

Pharmacy Practice: Debbie C. Byrd (Tennessee): dbyrd4@uthsc.edu

Social and Administrative Sciences: David A. Holdford (Virginia Commonwealth): daholdfo@vcu.edu

CHAIRS-ELECT OF ACADEMIC SECTIONS

Administrative Services: Jill A. Morgan (Maryland): jmorgan@rx.umaryland.edu

Biological Sciences: Timothy J. Bloom (Campbell): tjbloom47@gmail.com

Chemistry: Mark Harrold (Duquesne): harrold@duq.edu

Continuing Professional Education: Trina J. von Waldner (Georgia): tvonwald@uga.edu

Experiential Education: Wesley A. Nuffer (Colorado): wesley.nuffer@ucdenver.edu

Library and Information Science: Skye Bickett (Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine): skyebi@pcom.edu

Pharmaceutics: Catherine A. White (Georgia): cwhite@mail.rx.uga.edu

Pharmacy Practice: Michael W. Neville (Wingate): m.neville@wingate.edu

Social and Administrative Sciences: John P. Bentley (Mississippi): phjpb@olemiss.edu

STAFF

Melinda D. Colon: Staff Liaison to the COS: mcolon@aacp.org