Objective. To qualitatively analyze free-text responses gathered as part of a previously published survey in order to systematically identify common concerns facing pharmacy experiential education (EE) programs. Methods. In 2011, EE directors at all 118 accredited pharmacy schools in the US were asked in a survey to describe the most pressing issues facing their programs. Investigators performed qualitative, thematic analysis of responses and compared results against demographic data (institution type, class size, number of practice sites, number and type of EE faculty member/staff). Expert and novice investigators identified common themes via an iterative process. To check validity, additional expert and novice reviewers independently coded responses. The Cohen kappa coefficient was calculated and showed good agreement between investigators and reviewers.Results. Seventy-eight responses were received (66% response rate) representing 75% of publicly funded institutions and 71% of schools with class sizes 51-150. Themes identified as common concerns were site capacity, workload/financial support, quality assurance, preceptor development, preceptor stipends, assessment, onboarding, and support/recognition from administration. Good agreement (mean percent agreement 93%, ƙ range50.59-0.92) was found between investigators and reviewers. Conclusion. Site capacity for student placements continues to be the foremost concern for many experiential education programs. New concerns about preceptor development and procedures for placing and orienting students at individual practice sites (ie, "onboarding") have emerged and must be addressed as new accreditation standards are implemented.

Objective. To assess financial, personnel, and curricular characteristics of US pharmacy practice experiential education programs and follow-up on results of a similar survey conducted in 2001. Methods. Experiential education directors at 118 accredited US pharmacy colleges and schools were invited to participate in a blinded, Web-based survey in 2011. Aggregate responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and combined with data obtained from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy to assess program demographics, faculty and administrative organizational structure, and financial support. Results. The number of advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) sites had increased by 24% for medium, 50% for large, and 55% for very large colleges and schools. Introductory pharmacy practice experience (IPPE) sites outnumbered APPEs twofold. The average experiential education team included an assistant/associate dean (0.4 full-time equivalent [FTE]), a director (1.0 FTE), assistant/associate director (0.5 FTE), coordinator (0.9 FTE), and multiple administrative assistants (1.3 FTE). Most faculty members (63%-75%) were nontenure track and most coordinators (66%) were staff members. Estimated costs to operate an experiential education program represented a small percentage of the overall expense budget of pharmacy colleges and schools. Conclusion. To match enrollment growth, pharmacy practice experiential education administrators have expanded their teams, reorganized responsibilities, and found methods to improve cost efficiency. These benchmarks will assist experiential education administrators to plan strategically for future changes.