American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2013; 77 (8) Article S8.

AACP REPORTS
Report of the 2012-2013 Academic Affairs Standing Committee:
Revising the Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE)
Educational Outcomes 2013
Melissa S. Medina, EdD, Chair,a Cecilia M. Plaza, PharmD, PhD,b Cindy D. Stowe, PharmD,c
Evan T. Robinson, PhD,d Gary DeLander, PhD,e Diane E. Beck, PharmD,f Russell B. Melchert, PhD,g
Robert B. Supernaw, PharmD,h Victoria F. Roche, PhD,i Brenda L. Gleason, PharmD,j
Mark N. Strong, PharmD,k Amanda Bain, PharmD,l Gerald E. Meyer, PharmD, MBA,m
Betty J. Dong, PharmD,n Jeffrey Rochon, PharmD,o and Patty Johnston, RPhp
a
College of Pharmacy, The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
b
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, Alexandria, Virginia
c
College of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
d
College of Pharmacy, Western New England University, Springfield, Massachuesetts
e
College of Pharmacy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
f
College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
g
School of Pharmacy, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri
h
School of Pharmacy, Wingate University, Wingate, North Carolina
i
School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska
j
St. Louis College of Pharmacy, St. Louis, Missouri
k
Northern Navajo Medical Center, Indian Health Service, Shiprock, New Mexico
l
The Ohio State University Health Plan, Inc., Columbus, Ohion
m
Jefferson School of Pharmacy at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
n
School of Pharmacy, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
o
Washington State Pharmacy Association, Renton, Washington
p
Colony Drug and Wellness Center, Beckley, West Virginia

Background and Charges The purpose of this Report is to provide an overview

Started under the then Center for the Advancement of the process undertaken by the CAPE Panel to revise
of Pharmaceutical Education, Educational Outcomes the CAPE Educational Outcomes. The revised CAPE
were first developed and released in 1994 and then re- Educational Outcomes themselves will be presented in
vised in 1998 and 2004.1,2 The Educational Outcomes their entirety in a separate publication in the Journal.4
were intended to be the target toward which pharmacy
curricula should be aimed. Previous revisions were in Methodology
response to changes in both practice and higher educa- In keeping with the composition of previous CAPE
tion. The 2010-11 Academic Affairs Standing Commit- Panels, both academics and practitioners were invited
tee recommended that the Association reconvene a Panel to join the Panel. Letters of invitation were sent to each
to examine the affective domain since the current and pre- member organization of the Joint Commission of Phar-
vious iterations of the Educational Outcomes focused pri- macy Practitioners (JCPP) to appoint a representative
marily on the cognitive domain.3 Then President Brian L. from their membership to serve on the CAPE Panel.
Crabtree in Spring 2012 charged that the now Center for The remaining Panel was selected from the AACP mem-
the Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE) Panel bership to represent academic pharmacy. The Panel was
be reconvened with consent of the AACP Board of Direc- selected and balanced on type of institution, discipline,
tors to undertake a revision of the CAPE Educational Out- role, practice type, and geographic distribution among
comes. President J. Lyle Bootman continued this charge other factors to ensure a representative group. The mem-
and appointed the CAPE Panel to meet in lieu of the bers of the CAPE Panel and their respective affiliations
2012-13 Academic Affairs Standing Committee. are listed in Table 1.
1
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2013; 77 (8) Article S8.

Table 1. CAPE Panel Members

AACP Appointees JCPP Appointeesa
Melissa S. Medina, EdD, Chair (The University of ACPE Appointee: Victoria F. Roche, PhD (Creighton
Oklahoma, College of Pharmacy ) University, School of Pharmacy and Health Professions)
Cecilia M. Plaza, PharmD, PhD, Staff Liaison (American ACCP Appointee: Brenda L. Gleason, PharmD (St. Louis
Association of Colleges of Pharmacy) College of Pharmacy)
Cindy D. Stowe, PharmD (University of Arkansas for APhA Appointee: Mark N. Strong, PharmD (Northern
Medical Sciences, College of Pharmacy) Navajo Medical Center, Indian Health Service)
Evan T. Robinson, PhD (Western New England University, AMCP Appointee: Amanda Bain, PharmD (The Ohio State
College of Pharmacy) University Health Plan, Inc.)
Gary E. DeLander, PhD (Oregon State University, ASHP Appointee: Gerald E. Meyer, PharmD, MBA (Thomas
College of Pharmacy) Jefferson University, Jefferson School of Pharmacy)
Diane E. Beck, PharmD (University of Florida, NABP Appointee: Betty J. Dong, PharmD (University of
College of Pharmacy) California-San Francisco School of Pharmacy)
Russell B. Melchert, PhD (University of Missouri-Kansas NASPA Appointee: Jeffrey Rochon, PharmD (Washington
City, School of Pharmacy) State Pharmacy Association)
Robert B. Supernaw, PharmD (Wingate University, NCPA Appointee: Patty Johnston, RPh (Colony Drug and
School of Pharmacy) Wellness Center)
a
Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners (JCPP) appointees were nominated from the following JCPP members: the American Association
of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), the American College of Clinical Pharmacy
(ACCP), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), the American Society of Health-
System Pharmacists (ASHP), the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations
(NASPA), and the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA).

The first meeting occurred May 1-2, 2012, in a joint finding the appropriate balance of detail in the outcome
session with colleagues from the Interprofessional Edu- statements, while attending to minimizing redundancy in
cation Collaborate (IPEC) to gain input about the future order to facilitate assessment. Including too much detail
directions of competencies among the various health pro- would be overly prescriptive for programs, while too little
fessions. IPEC representation included the Association detail may not offer programs enough guidance. Finally,
of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), American As- the last theme addressed the importance of writing mea-
sociation of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM), surable, evidence-based outcomes aimed at the level of
American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), an entry-level generalist practitioner.
and the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Representatives from the CAPE Panel attended the
as well as a patient care advocate. Four general areas of “Listening Session” held at the 2012 AACP annual meet-
guidance for the CAPE revisions emerged after the IPEC ing in July. The feedback received supported and validated
session and further Panel deliberation: the discussion from the initial CAPE Panel meeting in
d Include an affective domain that addresses personal May. Six CAPE Panel members also participated in
and professional skills, attitudes and attributes re- the ACPE September 2012 Summit titled, “Advancing
quired for the delivery of patient care, Quality in Pharmacy Education: Charting Accreditation’s
d Frame outcomes that are forward thinking and as- Future” and shared pertinent information with the remain-
pirational, yet achievable and measurable, ing CAPE Panel. The Summit further validated the Panel’s
d Continue the commitment to a firm grounding in plans for the CAPE revision.
the science of the profession, and CAPE Panel members read through an extensive se-
d Align the outcome statements with other health ries of background readings and worked through smaller
professions in core content and language. group assignments in preparation for convening October
29-30, 2012. During the October meeting a conceptual
Three additional themes emerged that focused on framework was developed with 4 broad domains and as-
the structure of the CAPE document. The first theme fo- sociated subdomains shown in Table 2 and Table 3. The
cused on including a preamble to provide insight about domains and subdomains were designed to offer struc-
the background and intent of the revisions and a glossary ture, limit redundancy, and maximize the development
to define key terms and increase clarity and consistency in of evidence-based measurable outcome statements. Fur-
interpretation of key terms. The second theme related to thermore, they were created to intersect and were not
2
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2013; 77 (8) Article S8.

Table 2. Four Domains and What They Mean

Domain Meaning
Foundational knowledge d Knowledge domain
d The foundational scientific principles of pharmacy practice
d Permeates all domains
Essentials for practice and care d Skill domain
d The “what” of pharmacy practice
d Unique core roles expected of pharmacists
Approach to practice and care d Skill domain
d The “how” to approach pharmacy practice
d Core skills necessary for pharmacists that are consistent with other
healthcare providers
Personal and professional development d Affective domain
d The mindset needed for pharmacy practice that brings knowledge
and skills together
d Behaviors and attitudes necessary for pharmacists that are consistent
with other healthcare providers

intended to be viewed as isolated outcomes. The Panel tional Outcomes were presented at the AACP Annual
also consciously embedded concepts from CAPE 2004 meeting in July 2013.
into this revision, especially in the Essential for Prac-
tice and Care domain. From October to December, that CAPE 2013 Moving Forward
Panel was divided into workgroups to review subdo- The CAPE 2013 Educational Outcomes makes it
main concepts, define terminology, and identify perti- clear that a singular focus on preparation in the sciences
nent literature. and the cognitive domain is not sufficient educate phar-
A series of weekly CAPE panel webinars were held macists to function as part of an interprofessional team
in January through April 2013. The focus of these webi- and to practice at the highest level to improve patient
nars was to write learning outcome statements and exam- outcomes. Attention must be paid to the skills needed
ple student learning objectives for each subdomain. The to educate, collaborate, and communicate with diverse
conceptual framework and progress was presented at audiences, as well as to the importance of leadership,
the February 2013 AACP Interim Meeting. May through self-awareness, professionalism, and innovation. Re-
June 2013, Panel members worked on finalizing the examination of programmatic educational outcomes in
background, preamble, educational outcome statements, context of this revision should include attention to admis-
glossary, and references. The final CAPE 2013 Educa- sions as this examination is critical to assure candidates

Table 3. The Subdomains and What They Represent

Domain Subdomains and Meaning
Foundational knowledge d Learner (Learner)
Essentials for practice and care d Patient-centered care (Caregiver)

d Medication use systems management (Manager)

d Health and wellness (Promoter)

d Population-based care (Provider)

Approach to practice and care d Problem solving (Problem Solver)

d Educator (Educator)

d Patient advocacy (Advocate)

d Interprofessional collaboration (Collaborator)

d Cultural sensitivity (Includer)

d Communication (Communicator)

Personal and professional development d Self-awareness (Self-aware)

d Leadership (Leader)

d Innovation and entrepreneurship (Innovator)

d Professionalism (Professional)

3
 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2013; 77 (8) Article S8.

are prepared to advance in all essential domains of the REFERENCES

professional program. CAPE 2013 will help to inform the 1. Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. Educational Outcomes 1998.
AACP taskforce looking at revising the PCAT exam to Alexandria VA: Center for the Advancement of Pharmaceutical
Education Outcomes; 1998. http://www.aacp.org/resources/education/
broaden the knowledge, skills, and attitudes examined,
cape/Documents/CAPE%20Outcomes%20Document%201998.pdf.
which is similar to academic medicine initiatives. 2. American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. Educational
Overall, the CAPE 2013 Educational Outcomes Outcomes 2004. Alexandria VA: Center for the Advancement of
define the curricular priorities of Doctor of Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Education Outcomes; 2004. http://www.aacp.org/
programs and inform other health professions of those resources/education/Documents/CAPE2004.pdf.
priorities, inspire and guide curricular revision and inno- 3. Mason HL, Assemi M, Brown B, et al. Report of the 2010-2011
Academic Affairs Standing Committee. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(10):
vation, serve as the target for curriculum mapping, and
Article S12.
function as a core component of a comprehensive assess- 4. Medina MS, Plaza CM, Stowe CD, et al. Center for the
ment plan to assure achievement of the outcomes by the Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE) educational
end of the professional program. outcomes 2013. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013. In press.