STATEMENTS

Reconsidering the Length of Program Accreditation

Craig K. Svensson, PharmD, PhD,a Marilyn K. Speedie, PhD,b Jeanette C. Roberts, PhD,c

Donald E. Letendre, PharmD,d Robert W. Brueggemeier, PhD,e Jerry L. Bauman, PharmD,f

and Frank J. Ascione, PharmD, PhDg

aCollege of Pharmacy, Purdue UniversitybCollege of Pharmacy, University of MinnesotacSchool of Pharmacy, University of WisconsindCollege of Pharmacy, University of IowaeCollege of Pharmacy, Ohio State UniversityfCollege of Pharmacy, University of Illinois-ChicagogCollege of Pharmacy, University of Michigan

Submitted October 18, 2010; accepted October 20, 2010; published February 10, 2011.

Keywords: accreditation, Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education

While the accreditation of higher education institu-tions and their programs is voluntary in the United States,students’ opportunities are hindered substantially if theyattend or earn degrees from nonaccredited programs. Forexample, federal financial aid is available only to thosestudents enrolled in institutions that have been accreditedby an agency recognized by the US Department of Educa-tion. In the health professions, graduation from an accreditedprogram is generally a prerequisite for sitting for state boardexaminations required for licensure as a practitioner.

Accreditation is an important external certificationthat a program provides an educational experience thatis consistent with producing graduates prepared to enterthe workforce with the expected knowledge and abilitiesof entry-level practitioners. Recognizing that practice envi-ronments vary substantially, an accreditation agency mustensure that the educational programs it accredits are basedon current and emerging standards of practice. Accreditingagencies must, however, strike a balance between ensuringminimal competencies of a program’s graduates and allow-ing sufficient programmatic flexibility to support educa-tional experimentation and innovation.

Reaccreditation of educational programs can be ahealthy process that provides an opportunity for programsto assess carefully and strategically their progress, oppor-tunities, and challenges. It is also a time- and resource-intensive process; programs commonly devote 12 to 18months to the development of a self-study and program-matic assessment in light of Accreditation Council for

Pharmacy Education (ACPE) standards. During this pe-riod, widespread engagement in the self-study by facultymembers, students, and staff members is necessary. Thetime and resources devoted to this process often delaythe implementation of other important initiatives; thus,the frequency of reaccreditation itself can slow or mini-mize the ability of a program to implement educationaladvances. There is a need for a healthy tension between afrequency of reaccreditation that ensures that the qualityof programs does not decline and a frequency that doesnot affect programmatic advancement adversely.

As deans of pharmacy programs at institutions affil-iated with the Committee on Institutional Cooperation(CIC, encompassing the Big Ten institutions and the Uni-versity of Chicago), the authors collectively represent someof the longest established pharmacy programs in the nation,each with a program history dating between 120 and 150years. Each of our programs has achieved continuous ac-creditation since the inception of accreditation of pharmacyprograms and has a long history of leadership in educationalinnovation and advances in the profession of pharmacy. Inour annual meetings as a group of deans, we have devotedsignificant time to discussing the accreditation processfor doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) programs. Each of ushas experienced the forestalling of important initiativeswithin our colleges/schools during a period of self-studyfor reaccreditation. Our shared experiences have convincedus that it is time to reconsider the period for which PharmDprograms are accredited.

It is informative to compare the accreditation cyclesfor PharmD programs with those for other health profes-sions. Table 1 provides a comparison of the maximumlength of accreditation for compliant programs for 10different health professions, all but 2 of which (nurses

Corresponding Author: Craig K. Svensson, PharmD, PhD,College of Pharmacy, Purdue University, 575 Stadium MallDrive, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Tel: 765-494-1368.E-mail:svensson@purdue.edu

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2011; 75 (1) Article 6.

1

and physician assistants) require a doctorate-level firstprofessional degree. As shown by this data, ACPE pro-vides the shortest maximum accreditation period of anyagency accrediting a health professions program.

Are there rational reasons for a shorter accreditationperiod for PharmD programs compared to other profes-sions? One reasonably could not argue that the complexityof practice in pharmacy exceeds that of other professions,such as medicine and optometry. It would also be indefen-sible to assert that the pace of change within pharmacyexceeds that of other health professions. In short, we seeno reasonable justification for the period of accreditationfor established PharmD programs being shorter than thatof any other health professions program.

We suggest that the current ACPE policy of awardingwell-established programs the same maximal period ofaccreditation awarded to new programs be modified. Pro-grams with a long history of continuous accreditation aregranted the same accreditation length as programs thathave gone through only 1 accreditation cycle. We recom-mend implementation of a tiered system in which programswith a significant history of successful accreditation begranted longer periods between reaccreditation.

What are the risks associated with lengthening theperiod of accreditation for well-established PharmD pro-grams? The obvious risk is that a program could becomenon-compliant with accreditation standards between re-view periods. No evidence exists, however, that showsprogrammatic compliance is impacted by length of timebetween review periods. Other health professional pro-grams are managed acceptably with longer periods of

time between accreditation visits. In addition, the ACPE’snotification requirement in the event of a substantivechange in the program or its associated resources providesa process for the council to trigger an earlier program-matic review if concerns about continued compliancewith the standards arise as a result of meaningful changes.Recognizing the resources (time, energy, and dollars) re-quired to conduct a self-study and reaccreditation sitevisit, the benefits for institutions of an extended periodof accreditation should be obvious. In addition, it wouldreduce the burden on ACPE, which has been recognizablystretched with the substantial growth of new programs.An extension of the accreditation length for establishedprograms would allow the council to focus more carefullyon at-risk or noncompliant programs.

All programs operate in an increasingly resource-constrained environment. This includes reduced budgetsand increased demands on faculty time and energy. Bal-ancing the competing demands on human and fiscal cap-ital is imperative to sustain forward momentum within theprofession. The time has come to reassess the time spanbetween reaccreditation as a component of this balancingprocess. The authors advocate for an extension in the pe-riod of maximal accreditation for well-established phar-macy programs (perhaps defined as 3 or more continuousfull-accreditation cycles). We believe that such an exten-sion, perhaps combined with an approval process for spe-cific proposed mid-cycle innovations in a program, willallow programs to redirect the resources required for rou-tine reaccreditation into educational innovations, and thusaccelerate the pace of change in pharmacy education.

Table 1. Comparison of Maximum Accreditation Length for Compliant Programs (n 5 10)

Agency Profession

MaximumAccreditationLength (years)

Accreditation Council on Optometric Education Optometry 8Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education Occupational Therapy 10Accreditation Council on Pharmacy Education Pharmacy 6Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the

Physician Assistant, IncPhysician Assistants 7

American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education Veterinary Medicine 7Committee on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education Physical Therapy 10Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Nursing 10Commission on Dental Accreditation Dentistry 7Council on Podiatric Medical Education Podiatry 8Liaison Committee on Medical Education Medicine 8

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2011; 75 (1) Article 6.

2