Harold L Kirschenbaum1, Tina Zerilli. 1. LIU Pharmacy, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA. Harold.kirschenbaum@liu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the manner in which colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico assess full-time faculty preceptors. METHODS: Directors of pharmacy practice (or equivalent title) were invited to complete an online, self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Seventy of the 75 respondents (93.3%) confirmed that their college or school assessed full-time pharmacy faculty members based on activities related to precepting students at a practice site. The most commonly reported assessment components were summative student evaluations (98.5%), type of professional service provided (92.3%), scholarly accomplishments (86.2%), and community service (72.3%). Approximately 42% of respondents indicated that a letter of evaluation provided by a site-based supervisor was included in their assessment process. Some colleges and schools also conducted onsite assessment of faculty members. CONCLUSIONS: Most colleges and schools of pharmacy assess full-time faculty-member preceptors via summative student assessments, although other strategies are used. Given the important role of preceptors in ensuring students are prepared for pharmacy practice, colleges and schools of pharmacy should review their assessment strategies for full-time faculty preceptors, keeping in mind the methodologies used by other institutions.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the manner in which colleges and schools of pharmacy in the United States and Puerto Rico assess full-time faculty preceptors. METHODS: Directors of pharmacy practice (or equivalent title) were invited to complete an online, self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Seventy of the 75 respondents (93.3%) confirmed that their college or school assessed full-time pharmacy faculty members based on activities related to precepting students at a practice site. The most commonly reported assessment components were summative student evaluations (98.5%), type of professional service provided (92.3%), scholarly accomplishments (86.2%), and community service (72.3%). Approximately 42% of respondents indicated that a letter of evaluation provided by a site-based supervisor was included in their assessment process. Some colleges and schools also conducted onsite assessment of faculty members. CONCLUSIONS: Most colleges and schools of pharmacy assess full-time faculty-member preceptors via summative student assessments, although other strategies are used. Given the important role of preceptors in ensuring students are prepared for pharmacy practice, colleges and schools of pharmacy should review their assessment strategies for full-time faculty preceptors, keeping in mind the methodologies used by other institutions.
Authors: Ayse A Atasoylu; Scott M Wright; Brent W Beasley; Joseph Cofrancesco; David S Macpherson; Ty Partridge; Patricia A Thomas; Eric B Bass Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Laura B Hansen; Marianne McCollum; Susan M Paulsen; Thomas Cyr; Catherine L Jarvis; Glenda Tate; Ralph J Altiere Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Jennifer M Trujillo; Margarita V DiVall; Judith Barr; Michael Gonyeau; Jenny A Van Amburgh; S James Matthews; Donna Qualters Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 2.047