ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR PHARMACY EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR PHARMACY EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

IOWA CITY, IOWA

THE EVALUATION TEAM REPORT

OF THE

PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM LEADING TO THE

DOCTOR OF PHARMACY DEGREE

March 10-11, 2004



DOCTOR OF PHARMACY PROGRAM

EVALUATION TEAM REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose

1

1

B. Team 1

II. FINDINGS

A. Changes Since the Last On-Site Evaluation

C. Overall Assessment

Standards for Mission, Planning and Assessment

Standards for Organization and Administration

Standards

3

4

5

6

7

7

8

9 i



Standards

Standards for Library and Learning Resources

Standards for Physical and Pharmacy Practice Facilities

PAGE

14

15

APPENDIX II: Faculty Addendum

APPENDIX III: ACPE Faculty

APPENDIX IV: Review of Published Documents

For Adequacy and Accuracy of Information

APPENDIX V: Review of Student Complaints Policy and File

18

24

26 ii



DOCTOR OF PHARMACY PROGRAM

THE EVALUATION TEAM REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose The on-site evaluation is a component of the ACPE accreditation review that results in the Evaluation Team Report to be used for purposes of considering the continued accreditation of the Doctor of Pharmacy program. The evaluation process gave particular attention to the progress made and the changes that have occurred since the last on-site evaluation, conducted September 29 – October 1, 1997, as well as to plans for continuing development.

B. Evaluation Team The evaluation team consisted of Dr. Paul G. Boisseau,

ACPE Board Member, and Executive Secretary, New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy,

Concord, NH; Dr. Joseph A. Barone, Professor and Chair, Pharmacy Practice and

Administration, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, the State University of New

Jersey, Piscataway, NJ; Dr. Marilyn Speedie, Dean, College of Pharmacy, University of

Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Mr. Don Williams, ACPE Board Member Designee, and

Executive Director, State of Washington Department of Health, Tumwater, WA; and Dr.

J. Gregory Boyer, Assistant Executive Director, Accreditation Council for Pharmacy

Education, Chicago, IL. Working with the evaluation team was Mr. Leman Olson,

Mason City, IA, representing the Iowa Board of Pharmacy.

-1-



C. Evaluation Procedure The accreditation review was based upon the

Accreditation Standards and Guidelines for the Professional Program in Pharmacy

Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree, adopted June 14, 1997, and implemented as of July 1, 2000 (“Standards 2000”). As a part of the accreditation review, the College of

Pharmacy provided a self-study of the College and the Doctor of Pharmacy program, as well as other materials, including application materials and references to online and published information such as the College and University bulletin and catalog. The onsite evaluation included interviews with the Dean, division heads, faculty, preceptors, and students. Discussions were held with the Self-Study Steering Committee; the Curriculum

Committee; the Assessment Committee; and the Executive Committee, including the

Pharmacy Directors of the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Veterans Administration

Hospitals. A survey was made of the physical facilities and other resources available to the College, including library and information resources, and computer facilities. Group discussions were held with students and with those responsible for student affairs at the

College. Individual one-on-one interviews were also held with a number of pharmacy faculty. On-site reviews were conducted at a sampling of pharmacy practice facilities in the Iowa City area that included Shepley Snyder Pharmacy, Mt. Vernon, Iowa, Family

Practice, and the Family Care Center at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa

City, Iowa. A breakfast meeting was held with faculty and preceptors who participate in the professional experience components of the curriculum from a variety of locations.

The on-site evaluation supported independent assessment of the College’s self-study and enabled review of the College’s published materials (both hard copy and electronic) in accord with the expectations of the U.S. Secretary of Education (cf. APPENDIX IV:

Review of Published Documents for Adequacy and Accuracy of Information ). A review was conducted of the College’s complaint policies and procedures, which included an inspection of the College’s complaint file. This review indicated that the complaint policies and procedures were satisfactory and that the compliant file was available for review ( cf. APPENDIX V: Review of Student Complaints Policy and

File ). A summary of the evaluation team’s findings and recommendations was presented at the conclusion of the on-site evaluation to the University President and the Associate

-2-



Provost, as well as to the Dean of the College of Pharmacy. The Evaluation Team

Report, the College’s self-study and any additional communications and/or information received from the University and/or the College will be considered by the Accreditation

Council for Pharmacy Education Board of Directors at its June 24-27, 2004 meeting. The

Accreditation Action and Recommendations of the Board will be transmitted to the institution as soon as feasible following this meeting.

A. Changes Since Last On-Site Evaluation The last full accreditation review by

ACPE was September 29 – October 1, 1997 for purposes of considering continued accreditation of the Doctor of Pharmacy program. Among the highlighted areas for focus at that time were recommendations that strategic planning should continue to be a priority for the College, the search for a new dean should be a top priority, curricular review and refinement should be an ongoing activity, the professional development of students should be given expanded attention, faculty development should continue to be supported, a plan should be developed for completing renovations to the older wing of the College facility, and additional pharmacy practice facilities should be identified.

The evaluation team observed or discussed a number of changes that have occurred since the last on-site evaluation. A summary of key changes is presented as follows:

• New dean for the College assumed office in March 1999. Additionally, a new division head for each of the three academic divisions in the College has been named since the last visit.

• A new strategic plan was finalized in 2000 and has been reviewed periodically.

• The College has restructured its professional program from a 1-5 to 2-4 (preprofessional-professional year) configuration in the six-year Doctor of

Pharmacy program.

-3-



• A new curriculum has been implemented. The curriculum, building upon strengths from the previous curriculum, supports student-centered learning and integrates course content, most notably in the Pharmacy Practice

Laboratory courses. Initial refinement of the curriculum has occurred and continued refinement is ongoing. A notable component of the new curriculum is the addition of elective course offerings, initially set at 18 hours but now 12 hours.

• The early practice experiences have been strengthened and now include service learning during the P1 year and community pharmacy experiences during the P2 year. The P3 early practice experience is a shadowing experience designed to transition the student to the advanced practice experiences in the P4 year.

• Two tuition increases have occurred to address permanent reductions in state funding.

• Renovations to the facility have been made to meet programmatic needs.

Newly renovated space includes the 2,800 square-foot Banker Student

Activity Center and the 3,500 square-foot Pharmaceutical Care Lab.

• Changes in organizational structure and leadership have occurred at the

University level. These changes include the appointment of a new University

President in early 2003, followed by a reassignment of the health sciences colleges and deans to the University Provost from the Vice President of

Health Affairs.

• The non-traditional Doctor of Pharmacy program is being phased out. No new students are being accepted into this program, and all currently enrolled students are expected to complete their course of study by September 2006.

B. Self-Study As a component of the on-site evaluation and for purposes of validation, the evaluation team spent considerable time reviewing and evaluating the self-study prepared by the College. It is the view of the evaluation team that the self-study presents a comprehensive description and an accurate assessment of

-4-


COLLEGE OF PHARMACY the College and its programs. The self-study is well organized and provides evaluations of how the professional degree program addresses the ACPE accreditation standards.

Programmatic strengths and areas in need of improvement or further development are detailed. The evaluation team concurs in large measure with the self-study, and finds it to be accurate and complete. The self-study represents involvement from across the

College in the information gathering and draft-review stages. The full faculty reviewed the final of three drafts during a recent faculty retreat. While there were many authors of the various sections in the self-study, the mark of a skilled editor is noted in the document and there is attention to detail. Students were involved in preparing and reviewing the self-study, and they reported to the evaluation team that their inputs were highly valued.

Without exception, all faculty members acknowledged that the self-study accurately reflected both the College’s strengths and areas for improvement, and all felt they had more than adequate opportunity to provide input and to offer suggestions. The evaluation team commends the College on its self-study and strongly encourages the

College to make use of the information and findings presented in the report to inform and guide strategic planning and goal setting.

C. Overall Assessment The evaluation team found the Doctor of Pharmacy program at the University of Iowa College of Pharmacy to be in compliance in large measure with the ACPE accreditation standards (Standards 2000). The program has a strong curriculum that is monitored continuously and modified thoughtfully when deemed necessary. The time since the last on-site accreditation visit has been marked by significant changes. The College enjoys a dedicated faculty, working together to implement the new curriculum. The College enjoys a strong history of providing quality pharmacy education and there is a dedication among those in leadership and those on the faculty to continue this tradition through the adoption and refinement of the new curriculum.

-5-



D. Programmatic Strengths The College of Pharmacy and its Doctor of Pharmacy program exhibit a number of characteristics that deserve commendation and recognition as strengths. A summary of these characteristics is presented as follows:

• There is strong leadership provided by the Dean, Associate Deans, and the

Division Chairs.

• The necessary faculty members are in place for meeting programmatic needs and for providing quality didactic and experiential education.

• There is a commitment to continuous quality improvement characterized by willingness to undertake the necessary introspection to identify areas in need of improvement and to consider possible initiatives to achieve needed improvement. A programmatic strength is the willingness to make the changes when necessary, as evidenced by the curricular refinements.

• There are strong positive relationships with the Veterans Administration

Hospital and the University of Iowa Health Center. Additionally, there are collaborative relationships across other programs within the University.

• The College has a strong focus on community practice and on the development of pharmaceutical care at these sites. The College enjoys an adequate number of experiential sites to meet programmatic needs, as well as loyal and energetic volunteer faculty to provide the experiential instruction.

-6-



E. Comments and Recommendations The evaluation team also offers the following Comments and Recommendations, organized in accord with Standards 2000, as a means of facilitating the continuing development of the College and the Doctor of

Pharmacy program:

STANDARDS FOR MISSION, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT

• The College has a history of being driven by its strategic plan and has made periodic assessments to determine progress towards achieving the plan. The evaluation team concurs with the recommendation in the self-study that the findings from the self-study be central to future planning efforts.

• The Executive Committee should exert a more concerted effort to establish and communicate yearly goals and action plans to achieve various components of the strategic plan. Highlighting incremental gains and establishing greater accountability for achieving strategic objectives are suggested.

• There is an Assessment Committee committed to and advocating for the assessment activities at the College, and there are a number of assessment initiatives in place. There appears to be misunderstandings by some faculty as to the scope and complexity of the assessment program that is necessary. The

Assessment Committee is encouraged to provide clarity in this regard, recognizing that the assessments must be realistic, dynamic, and tailored to meet the needs of the program. Clarity is also needed around what roles the

Assessment Committee and the Curriculum Committee each will have in the capture, analysis and use of the assessment data.

• Student representation on the Assessment Committee is recommended.

• The College is commended on steps taken to educate its faculty about assessment, noting that two teams have attended the AACP Institute. Continued attention towards developing a culture of assessment is warranted.

• As they develop the systematic plan for assessment, the Assessment Committee is encouraged to consider how the end-of-year, the graduate exit, and the alumni

-7-


COLLEGE OF PHARMACY assessments will be used. These surveys should be reviewed to ensure that all questions included are appropriate and in keeping with the systematic assessment plan.

• The evaluation team suggests that the College of Pharmacy and the other health sciences schools explore the possibility of establishing some level of central assistance and collaboration for the various assessment efforts taking place.

STANDARDS FOR ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

• The evaluation team commends the Dean for his leadership during a financially challenging time. In faculty interviews, the Dean was said to be an ‘implementer of change’ and a ‘visionary.’ His management style was noted to be inclusive and attentive to faculty views and suggestions for change. It is evident that the Dean has made some very difficult and unpopular decisions, yet it was noted by a number of faculty members during discussions that the Dean’s decisions were always made in the best overall interest of the College.

• The organizational structure at the College appears to be serving the College well.

During the visit, the evaluation team noted concerns regarding the ‘division’ versus ‘department’ designation, which was also noted in the self-study. The divisions were observed to be functioning generally as departments, with significant autonomy given to each division chair to organize and manage his group.

• The College enjoys strong research collaborative relationships across the

University.

• It was reported to the evaluation team that significant gains have been made in the recent past regarding the relationship between the College of Pharmacy and the

Veterans Administration and University of Iowa Hospitals. The College is commended for its part in building these relationships. One area that requires attention is that of tenured College faculty members without established clinical practices at some institutions who precept students and rely on other health care

-8-


COLLEGE OF PHARMACY professionals to provide much of the hands-on supervision of students without a formal assignment of responsibility for the student. Formalized relationships are necessary to strengthen supervision, provide role models, establish accountability, and better assess student achievement during the advanced practice experiences.

STANDARDS FOR CURRICULUM

• The Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum is a solid, strong curriculum. The evaluation team commends the College for making significant curricular changes with as little disruption as possible.

• The addition of elective hours is an important improvement in the curriculum.

The procedure for determining whether a course offered outside the College of

Pharmacy satisfies the elective requirements should be improved to ensure consistency. Additionally, it is recommended that official and timely documentation containing details of all courses meeting the elective requirements, including data of approval, be made available to students. Such a listing would eliminate duplicate reviews by College officials, and also simplify the selection process for students. Such a listing many reduce the current confusion as to what courses can serve as electives and what courses cannot. If such a listing already exists, greater awareness of it is needed.

• The Curriculum Committee should review available College of Pharmacy electives and determine topics for which electives should be developed. These areas should be assigned to faculty for implementation.

• Because there is a need for students in their community care component of the introductory practice experience (IPE) to have new experiences, students should not be placed in their place of employment for the IPE. Additionally, there is student misunderstanding as to exactly the purpose of the IPE community experience (particularly among students with significant retail pharmacy experience) and clarification of the objectives of the experience is warranted.

Standards 2000 do not allow students to be paid during their experiential

-9-


COLLEGE OF PHARMACY experiences to ensure the student/preceptor and employee/employer roles are not compromised. Compliance with this standard is needed.

• It is necessary to evaluate the student and preceptor assessment data from the IPE program across the three years to ensure that programmatic goals are understood and achieved. The evaluation team recommends that the objectives of the service-learning component of the IPE be better communicated to students.

• The evaluation team supports the decision to end the non-traditional Doctor of

Pharmacy program and acknowledges the thoughtful and careful manner in which it is being phased out.

• There is a need to link more closely the Professional Experience Program (PEP)

Committee and the Curriculum Committee. Additionally, better communication is needed between these committees and the Assessment Committee to ensure efficiency and to avoid duplication of effort.

• An area of the curriculum that needs attention is that of courses taught outside the pharmacy program yet core to its curriculum. Students are very vocal on this issue, noting in particular the Pharmacology/Toxicology course. The students even offered thoughtful solutions for improving the situation, such as team teaching arrangements. The evaluation team acknowledges the difficulty in addressing this long-standing matter, but also believes this to be one of the most important issues facing the College. Core components of the curriculum for which the College has no control or even input cannot continue. At a minimum, corrective steps must be taken that allow the College to provide input into course content and to monitor relevant instructor and course assessment data. The evaluation team does not suggest bringing such courses in-house, but to allow the current situation to exist indefinitely is not acceptable and improvements must be made.

• In both faculty and preceptor discussions, concerns were raised about the writing skills of students. While students’ presentation and verbal communications skills were given high marks, their writing skills were said to need improvement. The

College is encouraged to explore ways to address this concern.

-10-



STANDARDS FOR STUDENTS

• Students are involved in a number of committees including the Self-Study and

Curriculum Committees. Students report their input is welcomed and given consideration.

• There are a variety of student professional and social organizations at the College.

Faculty members are encouraged to provide stronger support to these organizations through their direct involvement as advisors and with their attendance at organization-sponsored activities.

• The evaluation team supports the decision to add student interviews to the admission process. The team notes the care taken to implement the interview component of the admissions process by providing training, using three individuals to interview each applicant, and evaluating the consistency of interviews through analysis of interview statistics.

• For academic year 2003-2004, there were 451 complete applications, 140 admitted and 104 matriculated students. For academic year 2004-2005, there were 450 complete applications, 238 interviews, and 126 admitted students (with

50 alternates). The College is encouraged to include as a component of its systematic assessment plan an evaluation of its entry criteria for comparison against selected variables of academic performance.

• The College values diversity, and a statement addressing diversity is now included in the College’s mission statement. The evaluation team encourages the

College to establish a plan for increasing diversity that is realistic given the overall make-up of the state’s population and the level of out-of-state tuition. The

College has fewer students with previous degrees than might be expected. Given the barriers imposed by the population mix in the state and expense of out-of-state tuition, recruiting students with previous degrees from within Iowa seems a reasonable way to bring greater diversity in intellectual and life experiences to the

College.

-11-



• Academic advising at the College needs improvement. This need was noted in the self-study, and confirmed by the evaluation team during discussions with both students and faculty. Students report knowing an advisor is assigned to each student, yet many students did not know their advisor and/or had never consulted the advisor. There is certainly a ‘not my responsibility’ mindset on the part of select faculty regarding the need to initiate contact with the advisee. A fresh look at advising is needed. The evaluation team recommends involving both faculty and students in evaluating and developing a better approach.

• Another area in need of attention is that of providing students with information about pharmacy career opportunities. It was reported that a useful introductory course to the profession was dropped when the new curriculum was adopted, and a void exists in acquainting students to the many opportunities in pharmacy.

Student organizations and various courses do provide such information, however a more organized and structured approach in meeting this need is suggested.

• Student affairs is supported by extremely dedicated individuals and operates with staffing that can only be described as ‘lean.’ The evaluation team commends this office for its dedication, but cautions that meeting student needs long term with the current staffing levels will be difficult at best, particularly now that this office has assumed responsibility for the admissions function.

• The College is congratulated on its record of student progression.

• Preceptors providing instruction during the P4 year uniformly reported that students are now better prepared for the experiential year than they were before the new curriculum was implemented.

• The evaluation team encourages that the role of students be evaluated in the

Academic Performance Committee and suggests that students be actively involved in all functions of the committee, including cases of academic dishonesty from which students currently are excluded.

• The evaluation team suggests the College consider a structured student-faculty experience that establishes a one-on-one relationship. Activities to consider include debriefing sessions after the IPE or other learning experiences, career

-12-


COLLEGE OF PHARMACY planning discussions, and research projects. The goals of such a program would be multiple, including building stronger student-faculty interactions, providing more structured mentoring to students, and laying the foundation for positive, long-term relationships with the College.

• Attention should be given to enhancing the communications links with the students. The evaluation team is aware of an e-mail newsletter that students receive, but students did not mention it during discussions as being an important or useful vehicle. The evaluation team suggests a focus group of students be convened to explore reasons this tool is not more highly valued.

STANDARDS FOR FACULTY

• A noted strength of the College of Pharmacy is its dedicated faculty. The current faculty is appropriately balanced with long-serving members and other members newer to academia. Each group brings important benefits to the other, and the

College is encouraged to take advantage of and promote these benefits. The mentoring of more junior faculty in both the teaching and research aspects of their position should not be overlooked.

• The College has 34 tenure track FTE and 16.75 clinical track FTE, organized in three departments as follows: Clinical/Administrative (17 tenure tract FTE /

16.75 clinical tract FTE); Medicinal & Natural Products (7 tenure tract FTE / 0 clinical tract FTE); and Pharmaceutics (10 tenure tract FTE / 0 clinical tract FTE).

Currently there are three vacancies with active searches.

• It was noted by both faculty and students that faculty are approachable, supportive and helpful when students seek them out. It was noted by certain faculty that generally the College faculty is more accessible and willing to assist than in the past, yet there remains a need for continued improvement in this regard. Each faculty member is encouraged to give consideration to this observation.

• The evaluation team commends the College on its faculty evaluation program.

The program is understood by the faculty and viewed as a process that provides

-13-


COLLEGE OF PHARMACY clarity regarding the requirements for success. The process involves an annual faculty self-assessment and a performance evaluation and goal setting discussion between the faculty member and the relevant division chair. The level of clarity, routine, and expectation observed in the faculty evaluation activities is the level to be sought in other assessment activities at the College.

• Mentoring of junior faculty cannot be overlooked, particularly in this environment that requires research performance for success. Mentoring of both research activities and of teaching is important to assist new faculty in striking the appropriate balance so they achieve their promotion and tenure objectives while providing quality instruction to students.

• The evaluation team notes the minimal level of staffing in the Pharmacy Practice

Lab and suggests the College explore ways to provide additional support to this sequence of courses. One possible remedy would be to employ residency students as course assistants to ease the in-class duties of the course instructors, who currently have significant personal instruction time with students. It is unlikely that the course instructors will be willing to continue preparing for their labs during evening and weekend hours as is now required. A more sustainable long-term solution is needed.

STANDARDS FOR LIBRARY AND LEARNING RESOURCES

• The College is well supported by the Hardin Library for the Health Sciences.

There is a cooperative, outreach program provided by the library that augments the in-house staff librarian at the College of Pharmacy. Activities of this outreach program include providing instruction in drug information courses, retrieving drug information for faculty and students, and participating in the College’s

Curriculum Committee.

• The College is to be commended for funding an in-house College of Pharmacy librarian who is readily available to provide assistance to pharmacy students and faculty.

-14-



• Recent budget cuts in library expenditures at Hardin must be carefully monitored to ensure the necessary reference materials and journal titles are available.

• Monitoring the technology needs at the College is essential to meet the needs of students, classroom instruction, and research. The University policy of ‘three year refresh’ on computer equipment serves the College well. The evaluation team noted the satisfaction among students regarding computer availability, laptop checkout, and PDA instruction and availability.

STANDARDS FOR PHYSICAL AND PRACTICE FACILITIES

• The Pharmacy Practice Lab is very impressive and the College is commended for the thought given to its layout. Conducive to both individual and group activities, this teaching space serves students well.

• The College has adequate lecture space to accommodate its class of approximately 105 students per class. Students voiced annoyance at the microphones in the lecture halls as always needing batteries, noting the microphones never work. Further inquiring of the faculty on this matter suggests the problem may actually be the speaker’s inappropriate use of the equipment.

Regardless, there is the need for corrective action.

• The evaluation team compliments the College on the overall appearance and cleanliness of the College facility.

• The College enjoys a number and a variety of sites for providing the pharmacy practice experiences. The College should continue to monitor and develop these sites. Members of the evaluation team were impressed with the level of instruction provided at the experiential sites visited during the site visit and also with the instruction described during a breakfast with volunteer preceptors. The evaluation team described the experiential sites visited as model sites, noting in particular the pharmaceutical care practices that are remarkable in their quality and quantity. Preceptors were found to be dedicated and very loyal to the

College.

-15-



• To facilitate instruction using small group learning projects and discussions, there is a need for a large classroom with movable seating.

STANDARD FOR FINANCIAL RESOURCES

• The College has weathered and is continuing to weather a very difficult financial situation. The current Dean has been forced to make difficult, and in many cases, unpopular decisions. He is to be commended for his leadership during this period. The evaluation team notes certain references in the self-study concerning the lack of transparency in budgeting and financial matters at the College, but upon further inquiry there appears to be adequate and appropriate information sharing in a fast-changing environment. The College personnel in recent years have been good financial stewards, willing to make the necessary decisions and sacrifices to improve the College’s financial health. In this challenging financial environment, curricular revision occurred yet programmatic quality has been sustained. It is unlikely that any future pressures on the College budget can be sustained without compromising quality. Supplementing the current revenue is essential if the College is to progress, perhaps even sustain, its level of quality.

• Exploring the opportunities to increase the contributions made by the service units is highly encouraged. Greater visibility and activity of the service units can have positive impacts for the College, among them enhancing revenue through overhead contribution, strengthening the College’s reputation which will enhance faculty recruitment and retention, and creating opportunities for collaboration between the teaching/research faculty and service unit staff. The College would be well served to develop a comprehensive plan addressing ways to capitalize on the opportunities the service units can present.

• The development plans and the Dean’s involvement in these activities are critical to the future of the College. A comprehensive development plan complete with fundraising targets would well serve the College. Additionally, plans should include staffing to enhance the level of support of alumni and external affairs.

-16-



APPENDIX I

STUDENT ENROLLMENT

2003-2004 Academic Year

Professional Program

1 st Professional Year

2 nd Professional Year

109

107

3

4 rd th

Professional Year

Professional Year

TOTAL

101

99

416

Non-Traditional & Post BS Pharm.D. 8

-17-



APPENDIX II

FACULTY ADDENDUM

KEY UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION

David Skorton, M.D. President

Interim Provost Patricia Cain, J.D.

KEY COLLEGE OFFICERS

Associate Dean

Associate Dean

Michael Duffel, Ph.D.

Bernard Sorofman, Ph.D.

FACULTY

CLINICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PHARMACY

FULL TIME

Barry Carter, Professor & Head; Pharm.D., Medical College of Virginia (1980).

Paul Abramowitz, Professor; Pharm.D., University of Michigan (1979); R.Ph., IA, MN, OH.

Bruce Alexander, Associate Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Minnesota (1976);

R.Ph. IA.

Karen Baker, Associate Professor (CAP /Dentistry); M.S., University of Iowa (1981).

Mary Berg, Professor; Ph.D., University of Kentucky (1978); R,Ph. NE.

Nancy Bonthius, Assistant Professor; Pharm.D., University of Iowa, (1990).

John Brooks, Associate Professor; Ph.D., University of Michigan (1993).

Lucinda Buys, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., Creighton University (1989);

R.Ph. NE, IA.

-18-



Christine Catney, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Iowa (1996).

Elizabeth Chrischilles, Professor (CAP/ Public Health); Ph.D., University of Iowa (1986).

Jay Currie, Associate Professor; Pharm.D., University of Iowa (1984); R.Ph. IA.

William Doucette, Associate Professor; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin (1993).

Vernon Duba, Assistant Professor (Clinical); M.A., University of Missouri (1987).

Vicki Ellingrod-Ringold, Assistant Professor; Pharm.D., University of Minnesota (1994);

R.Ph. MN, IA.

Erika Ernst, Associate Professor; Pharm.D., University of Southern California (1992);

R.Ph. CA, IA, NV.

Michael Ernst, Assistant Professor; Pharm.D., University of Iowa, (1997); R.Ph. IA.

Karen Farris, Associate Professor; Pharm.D., University of Michigan (1993).

Lawrence Fleckenstein, Professor; Pharm.D., University of California (1972).

Lucinda Harms, Instructor (Clinical); B.S., University of Iowa (1983); R.Ph. TX, IA.

Ronald Herman, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Ph.D., University of Iowa (1992); R.Ph. TX, IA.

Tina Hisel, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Iowa (1998); R.Ph. IA.

James Hoehns, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Iowa (1994).

Sandra Johnson, Assistant Professor (Clinical); M.S., University of Iowa (1987).

Vicki Kee, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., Samford University (1999);

R.Ph. AL, KY, TN.

Michael Kelly, Associate Professor (Clinical); M.S., University of Iowa (1989).

Bradley Laible, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., South Dakota State (2001).

Craig Logemann, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., , University of Minnesota (1995).

Cindy Marek, Associate Professor (Clinical) CAP /Dentistry; Pharm.D., University of Iowa

(1996); R.Ph. IA.

Deanna McDanel, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Iowa (2001); R.Ph. IA..

Randal McDonough, Associate Professor; Pharm.D., University of Iowa (2000); R.Ph. IA, IL.

Gary Milavetz, Associate Professor; Pharm.D., University of Minnesota (1980); R.Ph. MN, IA.

-19-



David Min, Associate Professor; M.S., University of Minnesota (1989).

Daryl J Murry, Associate Professor; Pharm.D., University of Iowa (1991); R.Ph. IA.

Erin Newkirk, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Wisconsin (2001);

R.Ph. IA, WI.

Paul Perry, Professor; Ph.D., University of Pacific (1973).

Beth Phillips, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Kansas (1994);

R.Ph. IA, IL.

Bradley Phillips, Associate Professor; Pharm.D., University of Southern California (1993).

James Ponto, Professor (Clinical); M.S., University of California (1978).

Jeffrey Reist, Instructor (Clinical); B.S., University of Iowa (1982).

Hazel Seaba, Professor (Clinical); M.S., University of Iowa (1971); R.Ph. IA.

John Swegle, Assistant Professor (Clinical); Pharm.D., University of Iowa (1996): R.Ph. IA.

Julie (Ganther) Urmie, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin (1999); R.Ph. WS.

PART TIME

William Miller, Professor; Pharm.D., University of Kentucky (1971).

MEDICINAL AND NATURAL PRODUCTS CEHMISTRY

FULL TIME

Kevin Rice, Professor & Head; Ph.D., University of Iowa (1987).

Charles Barfknecht, Professor; Ph.D., University of Kansas (1964).

Zhendong Jin, Associate Professor; Ph.D., Purdue University (1995).

Robert Kerns, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., University of Iowa (1996).

Horacio Olivo, Associate Professor; Ph.D., Virginia Technological University (1992).

Thomas Prisinzano, Assistant Professor; Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealth University (2000).

-20-



John (Jack) Rosazza, Professor; Ph.D., University of Connecticut (1968).

R. Eric Edens, Assistant Professor; M.D., University of Iowa (1994).

Andrew Robertson, Associate Professor; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin (1988).

PHARMACEUTICS

FULL TIME

Craig Svensson, Professor & Head, Ph.D.; State University of New York; (1984).

Maureen Donovan, Associate Professor; Ph.D., University of Michigan (1989); R.Ph. MN.

Douglas Flanagan, Professor; Ph.D., University of Michigan (1971).

Lee Kirsch, Associate Professor; Ph.D., Ohio State University (1982).

Vijay Kumar, Associate Professor; Ph.D., Concordia University (1981).

Rolland Poust, Professor; Ph.D., Purdue University (1971); R.Ph. PA.

Peter Veng Pedersen, Professor; Ph.D., Sydney University (1977).

Dale Eric Wurster, Professor; Ph.D., Purdue University (1979).

PART TIME

Lloyd Matheson, Associate Professor; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin (1970); R.Ph WI.

-21-



APPENDIX III

ACPE FACULTY RESOURCE REPORT

University of Iowa

College of Pharmacy

Section A

Pharmacy Faculty 01-02 02-03 03-04

FTE (filled/vacant) Filled Vacant Filled Vacant Filled Vacant

Clinical & Administrative Pharmacy 27.4

Medicinal & Natural Products

Chemistry.

4 28.1 4 31 0

6 1 1 1 7 1

9 1

Total FTE (filled/vacant) 43.4

5 45.1

6 48 2

Total Student FTE

(professional years only)

438 426 426

Section B

Pharmacy Faculty 01-02 02-03 03-04

Total Resignations

Total Retirements

Total New Hires

Total Newly Approved Positions

1

0

4

0

2

0

5

2

0

1

0

1

-22-



APPENDIX III

(continued)

ACPE FACULTY RESOURCE REPORT

University of Iowa

College of Pharmacy

Section C

Practice Experience Instructors 01-02 02-03 03-04

% of experiential rotations precepted by full-time faculty

% of experiential rotations precepted by contract/volunteer instructors

31% 28% 25%

69% 72% 75%

-23-



APPENDIX IV

REVIEW OF PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS

FOR ADEQUACY AND ACCURACY OF INFORMATION

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Secretary of Education firmly believes that an accrediting agency should have a responsibility for assuring adequate and accurate public disclosure by educational institutions and programs. This expectation is reflected in Criterion 602.18 of the

Secretary's Procedures and Criteria for Recognition of Accreditation Agencies, which holds accrediting agencies responsible for reviewing elements of institutional or program integrity as demonstrated by the adequacy and accuracy of disclosure of information that does not mislead the public. The types of information specified for inclusion in this review are: a) the institution's or program's resources, admission policies and standards, academic offerings, policies with respect to satisfactory academic progress, fees and other charges, refund policies, and graduation rates and requirements; b) the institution's or program's educational objectives and data regarding educational achievement; and c) employment statistics regarding recent graduates. Because such information is vital to students making educational decisions, the Secretary believes that an accrediting agency cannot be considered a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered if it does not play an oversight role in this area.

PROCEDURE AND FINDINGS

The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education utilizes a checklist to facilitate standardized review of the published documents made available by colleges and schools of pharmacy. The checklist is completed by evaluation team members in conjunction with the on-site review. The information obtained from this checklist is used to assist the evaluation team in making its overall assessment regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information provided.

As a component of the on-site evaluation and review process, the College of Pharmacy at

The University of Iowa provided the evaluation team with copies of documents that described the College and its professional programs. Based on a review of these documents, the evaluation team finds that the information disclosed to the public

(especially prospective students) is adequate, generally accurate, and not misleading.

-24-



APPENDIX V

REVIEW OF STUDENT COMPLAINTS POLICY AND FILE

In accordance with the requirement of the United States Department of Education criteria for recognition of accrediting bodies, ACPE reviewed the recently developed policy on student complaints at the University of Iowa College of Pharmacy. The policy has been published and is available to students. The necessary complaints file is maintained.

Inspection of the file revealed three formal complaints are in active review.

-25-

ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR PHARMACY EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Related documents

Products

Support

ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR PHARMACY EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib