Authors
Michelle Seegert, Kirk E Evoy, Stacy Brown, B DeeAnn Dugan, Adegoke Adeniji, Ana Maria Castejon, Megan Ehret, Christopher M Herndon, Russell B Melchert, James D Nash, Chau Nguyen, Miranda Reed, Warren E Rose, Kimberly K Scarsi, Sharon See, Kyle Turner
Published in
American journal of pharmaceutical education. Pages 102116. Oct 30, 2026. Epub Oct 30, 2026.
Abstract
Experiential education (EE), including Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences (IPPEs) and Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences (APPEs), traditionally comprises approximately 30-39% of most Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) curricula. This article discusses the pros and cons of revising PharmD education such that EE represents at least 50% of the curriculum, a question debated as part of the Academic Leadership Fellows Program (ALFP).
The pro perspective highlights the growing complexity of pharmacists' roles, alignment with evolving accreditation expectations, declining NAPLEX pass rates, and the potential for innovation in experiential learning. The con perspective raises concerns about inconsistent site quality, resource constraints, and the potential unintended consequences of increasing experiential hours without system-wide reform.
Determining the optimal proportion of EE in the PharmD curriculum requires balancing the evolving demands of pharmacy practice with institutional capacity and resource constraints. In determining the construct and amount of EE in the curricula, the Pharmacy Academy and accreditors should collaboratively define and support rigorous, sustainable models of high-quality experiential learning that reflect institutional variation, preceptor capacity, and program flexibility.
PMID:
42962895
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 31 Oct 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 8
- Comments 0