Would the ARC-PA accept a signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the affiliation agreement as an exhibit to the MOU between both parties, to demonstrate at the first provisional site visit that the program has sufficient clinical sites?

The ARC-PA "Equity in Practice" presentation (https://www.arc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/PAEA-2024-EJC.pdf) references that "PA programs may use different terminology to address DEI at their institution based on state laws. • Examples include, Access & Opportunity, Health Disparities, Culture & Experience."

Is this statement also applicable to recent interpretations of Federal Law (the Dear Colleague letter referenced above)? That is, a program can present an an action plan relevant to Standard A1.11 that uses different terminology acceptable to the Federal government that does not explicitly include "diversity", "equity" or "inclusion"?

Can you please specify how soon before students begin their rotations that these clinical agreements must be signed?

I'm currently on my 5th rotation and my program still has not secured my ER rotation, it has changed my clinical sites several times in-state, and is relocating me to another state for my 6th and 7th rotations. Sites are secured last minute and I still don't know if I will have to move again for my last rotation.

Moving across states and in-between rotations is time-consuming, stressful, expensive and inconvenient. My program makes no apologies for the inconveniences and sticks to their argument that students agreed "to move for clinical rotaions" when they accepted their seat in the program. Concerned students avoid communicating with the clinical team as faculty members are quick to write students up for profesionalism violations when students inquire for site status updates.

Can a program continue to operate with poor transparency, a disregard for timeliness, last minute contract agreements and still be considered ARC-PA compliant?

Students have been threatened by the program director with retaliation. He has made statements that if they were to complain to the dean or others about their concerns he can impact their ability to progress in the program, their future careers (ability to sit for the PANCE, delay paperwork for licensure or credentialing). Students have taken action within the University system to no avail. People are concerned about retaliation from the program director/university. How does ARC-PA handle complaints? What is the procedure? Will the person making the complaint have their identity be shielded (not shared with the program or university) during the investigation?

A prior padlet response stated that learning outcomes must address all age groups in B3.03(b) but clarified that technical skills are not expected for each age group. Does this response also apply to the other B3.03 sub-standards?

B3.06a: 'physicians who are specialty board certified in their area of instruction'

B3.06b: NCCPA certified PA's

B3.06c 'other licensed health care providers qualified in their area of instruction'.

Please confirm that the following examples satisfy the certification requirements of the B3.06 sub-standards for a general surgery SCPE:

B3.06a: A physician preceptor has an active and in-date ABS (American Board of Surgery) certification.

B3.06b: A PA preceptor has an active and in-date NCCPA certification.

B3.06c: A FNP (Family Nurse Practitioner) has an active and in-date AANP(American Association of Nurse Practitioners) certification and meet program criteria for 'qualified in area of instruction'.

a) program faculty that include the program director, principal faculty, medical director, and

instructional faculty, and

b) at least three FTE principal faculty (Those faculty working at least 50% FTE with primary academic responsibility

assigned to the PA program who report to the program director), of which two FTE principal faculty must be PAs who are

currently NCCPA-certified.

I am curious if this is at all times? For example, during the Fall and Spring semesters we have 4.0 FTE. During the summer, we have 2.5 FTE as we have lower teaching workload during summer months.

Thank you for support and input in this matter.

I have a question about student attrition. We are a 27-month program. Our students matriculate in August and graduate in December. We have three students who will graduate in May. They were initially scheduled to graduate in the fall of 2024 but were delayed due to a leave of absence or the need to repeat a rotation. I have two questions:

1. Should we update our class of 2024 attrition table once they graduate in May? 

   Or

2. Should these three students be considered part of the class of 2025? If so, once they graduate in May, should we update our attrition table to list them as part of the class of 2025?

Thank you!

Can you please clarify the vague inclusion of "etc" in the Standard with what it specifically requires?

- "f) estimates of all costs (tuition, fees, etc.) related to the program,"?

If at curriculum meetings, the PD and majority of principal faculty decide on design of curriculum and evaluation/assessment of students to meet outcomes, does this standard allow for implementation? Our program faculty are represented by a contractual agreement. In this contract faculty academic freedom which I would take to mean you can choose textbook, decide on style of lecture, etc. However, when it comes to the program (PD and faculty) responsible for curriculum, should an instructor be able to sway from agreed items and call academic freedom.

With this in mind, if a program uploads an LOI for a Healthcare system that for example, offers the availability of 1 rotation/month in Family Medicine, Pediatrics, and Surgery but the program is only going to utilize Surgery, is the expectation of the ARC-PA that the program only reports out the availability of rotations they are going to utilize OR should the availability in the portal match the LOI regardless of program intent to use?

For example, a dermatology site that performs Mohs procedures and meets the defined LO's in the surgical elective (pre, intra-op, post op) syllabi would, by definition, be in an operating room setting yet that same rotation could also be used for an open elective providing outpatient and procedural dermatologic care. Would I consider this site both as meeting B3.04c and d or can one experience only be accounted for one way?

Given how much dialogue there was around this, can you please expand on how a program can show compliance with B4.03a in the clinical year without a "skills passport"?

Medical Knowledge, Interpersonal skills, Clinical & Technical skills, Professional behaviors, and Clinical reasoning/Problem solving? This is in addition to other LOs that the preceptor is evaluating the student on.

There also is a section for the preceptor to provide written comments on the student for this broad assessment.

- What is meant by the highlighted? Is "this data" just the first scores to be released by NCCPA, or the 5-year average, which is typically released in January? If a cohort begins taking the PANCE in September, when would the report be due?

My SCPE courses have learning outcomes that I can link to all forms of evaluations. However, I also have videos, reading assignment and specific quizzes related to these in which is assigned to the student. Do I need to have instructional objectives for each piece? In didactic, I of course have them for each lecture or activity completed. In the clinical year I am not sure how to address this as it would be so extensive to have instructional objectives for each?

Recently, our program director communicated details regarding the PAEA End of Curriculum (EOC) Exam, noting: "The program is working hard to identify testing locations as close as possible to each student’s rotation #7 sites... our sites are all over the country and testing locations must be live proctored in a site with reliable internet access. With approval from the Dean, it is considered reasonable for a student to be required to drive up to 3 hours to a testing site."

The program’s facilitation of proctoring logistics raises a concern regarding educational equity and access. Requiring students to travel up to 6 hours round-trip to complete an exam that significantly impacts graduation eligibility appears misaligned with the expectation of equivalent student experiences. This concern is especially pronounced for students with approved testing accommodations, who are required to complete the EOC exam over two consecutive days, thereby compounding the logistical and financial burden.

How does a student request a reevaluation of the current testing location "policy" to ensure compliance with accreditation standards and a commitment to equitable student access and experience?

How should we calculate the percentage of SCPEs and SIMs? Is this correct: The average number of hours each student spends in each SCPE specialty per clinical year (say it's 1200 (150 hours x 8 rotations)) + SIM (20 hours) = 1220 (1200+20). So, SCPEs are 98.4% (1200/1220), and SIMs are 1.6% (20/1220).

Thank you!

Does the Annual Report use the ARCPA distance education definition in the Standards Glossary (if 50% of the course is taught by distance education), or is it “any distance learning,” as the Entry-Level Manual states? It seems like the answer is if there is "any" distance education, but I want to confirm. We are a single campus.

Thank you!

2) Do we need to include the Instructional Faculty salaries in our Faculty Salaries and Benefits? If so, do we also include their clinic salaries?

Will the annual report return to the original December due date for the next reporting cycle, or will it stay on an April deadline moving forward?

Should we update the Final Preceptor Evals NOW to 100% match the revised course learning outcomes (this is a change for students who have already completed those rotations) or should we wait until the next iteration of the courses (start of next clinical year) to be consistent with all learners?

a) clinical and technical skills,

b) clinical reasoning and problem-solving abilities,

c) interpersonal skills,

d) medical knowledge, and

e) professional behaviors

OR is it just that the curriculum as a whole has to cover all 5 domains?

Currently, we formally assess each site every 3 years, which is based on a policy we created in 2022. In the past, we’ve sometimes assessed at the umbrella organization level (e.g., the health system as a whole) rather than each individual physical location. Is it acceptable under ARC-PA standards to evaluate the organization this way, or should we be assessing each location separately?

The form we use for assessments includes items such as:

• Practice discipline of the site, Patient Type Seen, Access to personal study or break room, Whether students can meet learning objectives with access to physical facilities, patient populations, and supervision, Clinical Settings

Are these items something we are required to reassess every certain number of years through an in-person or virtual site evaluation, or is it acceptable to verify them once through an initial site onboarding form or preceptor agreement, then rely on student feedback to monitor sites moving forward?

Thank you!

PLO 2: Demonstrate the ability to perform a thorough history and physical exam that leads to the acquisition of data to formulate accurate differential diagnoses. CTS, CRPB, IP, MK, PB

Also, can you recommend good resources for writing professionalism, learning outcomes, and objectives?

·         Methods of assessment/evaluation provide the student with descriptive information about the assessment/evaluation and will include more than a listing of assessment items (i.e. test 1, test 2). Examples of descriptive information would include type of questions (multiple choice, T/F, essay), method of delivery (electronic, proctored, live, oral exam, practical exam), and approximation of number of questions (i.e. 50-100 questions per exam).

·         The description of each assessment allows the reviewer to identify how the assessment aligns with the instructional content, instructional objectives, and learning outcomes.

Stnd B2.19

Course

Learning outcomes

Thank you!

g) outline of topics to be covered that align with learning outcomes and instructional objectives,

If I have a LO in EM that says: Demonstrate the ability to effectively deliver accurate patient education for: a) Acute patient encounters b) Emergent patient encounters, is it implied that a student and preceptor should know the difference?

1. How does the ARC want Pass/Fail grades reported in the accreditation application, particularly Appendix 14D for provisional programs.

2. Is there a risk that a remote reviewer or site visitor would view the absence of letter grades negatively when the course uses a Pass/Fail scheme?

Can midwives serve as preceptors for the Women's Health rotation and complete the SCPE student evaluate?

What about NPs, RNs, LPNs, PTs, OTs and RTs?

Is there a minimum degree, certification or licensure for the aforementioned health care providers? Please clarify acceptable and unacceptable qualifications.

Thank you!

when developing instructional objectives for a SCPE can you have a broad knowledge objective that relates to the topic list. Demonstrate knowledge of the etiology, pathophysiology, symptoms, physical signs, differential diagnosis, diagnostic work-up, management (to include pharmacologic treatment), patient education, potential complications, and prognosis of conditions that commonly present in patients in the Internal Medicine setting to include: (See Topic List Or do we need to list this in more than one instructional objective.

Also, for diagnostics can you list Recommends appropriate cost-effective diagnostics for patients seeking care for conditions listed on the PAEA internal medicine topic list.  Or do we have to break it down and list specific diagnostics that may be seen during the SCPE?

We do not have a deceleration policy, although one student's progress through the program might be considered deceleration. A student matriculated in 2021, anticipated graduation in 2023, but took an LOA after the first semester due to COVID. The illness occurred during the first semester. They finished the first semester, but after receiving final grades, they realized how much the illness had negatively impacted their grades; for example, they earned a grade of “F” in one course and a “C” in another. They returned in Fall 2022, retook only the course they had failed "F" (successfully), and will graduate with the class of 2024. Thank you.

Board certified in family medicine working in emergency medicine as the ER Director at a critical access facility; over 20+ years of experience in ER.

Board eligible physician in ENT serving as a preceptor in ENT.

Can you provide any examples of compelling reason that have been accepted by the Commission before?

But then can we have a definition of continued strength if for example course effectiveness has been above 4.5/5.0 for 3 years in a row?

Program or curriculum strength has to be defined based on 3 or more data points?

• Financial resources

• Human resources

• Physical resources

• Technology resources and support

• Safety and security, and student services (defined in the glossary as: academic advising, tutoring, career services, financial aid, student health, computing and library resources and access)

• Support for faculty development, clinical site development, curriculum design and course selection, program assessment, and program diversity, equity, and inclusion

Since the App B is basically assessing the sufficiency of the overall institutional resources does the Program have to triangulate 2-3 data points to assess each of the items above individually OR does the program triangulate all the required items (physical resources, financial resources, human resources, etc) to conclude if the overall institutional resources are sufficient. I hope you understand what I am trying to communicate.

Thank you.

On preceptor and student evaluation forms, is it ever acceptable to have a "NA'" option?

"The Program examined academic performance data, focusing on whether receiving a grade of C or below, or needing to remediate a DY course, impacted CY outcomes and PANCE outcomes. This included specific analyses of CY outcomes—particularly grades of C or below and remediations—and PANCE outcomes, noting if students passed or failed on the first attempt."

The Program analyzed the data as above and arrived at conclusions that just addressed the data from the students receiving a C or below. For example: While all students with a C or below in the DY successfully completed the CY, the presence of Grades of C or below in the DY correlates with a somewhat lower pass rate on the PANCE.

We had a consultant review our report and we were told that there was no comparison data in the report of students who did not receive a C or below ( students with grades higher than a C)

However the whole point of the Program's analysis was to look at students with C or below and the effect these grades would have on the CY and PANCE outcomes.

Is our process satisfactory for ARC-PA, or do we need to add what the consultant suggested?

In the appendix instructions, it mentions analysis of student remediation data and asks how many students repeated rotations. It also asks how many students has the program identified deficiencies in knowledge and skills during rotations such that the correction of these was necessary to continue in the program. For our program, these are two different categories. I want to ensure we are analyzing and providing the correct data.

1. For repeated rotation, this is usually a small number of the class who fail a rotation and are required to repeat. This is the same number that we are reporting on and analyzing in (number of final C or below grades within this appendix).

2. Students we identify as having a knowledge or skill deficiency typically relates to limited medical knowledge and are students who fail an exam. Students who fail an EOR exam are required to repeat it to show competence before we report or provide a grade, and it must be passed before moving forward in the program. This is a larger number of students and different from those who repeat an entire rotation.

I want to make sure that I am clarifying those are two different categories and analyzed differently.

The next section of that appendix states. "If any students repeated or remediation didactic courses as indicated in the above two questions, include remediation data and outcomes." Is this a typo, should it state "clinical" courses? Or are we to report on students who remediate in the clinical phase and also had failed didactic courses and report on those?

The final question is for clarification is related to the number of final clinical rotation grades of C or below. We use a pass-fail scale (honors, high pass, pass, and fail). I am interpreting this to mean we are reporting on students who fail the rotation course grade. As opposed to looking at the number of students who fail an exam, remediate it, and pass the course. That number of students and data set is different. I want to ensure I am interpreting that correctly; the intent is to only report on those who fail the course.

Thank you!

Ex:

Safety and Security - 53% (Average of % below)

-Item 1 related to safety and security (from Survey 1) 50%

-Item 2 related to safety and security (from Survey 1) 50%

-Item 3 related to safety and security (from Survey 2) 60%

When the program analyzes quantitative data and qualitative data from Survey 1 and Survey 2 would this methodological triangulation be acceptable by ARC-PA?

Should a program use multiple assessment methods to evaluate each CLO that way we can be reasonably sure they've met the learning outcome or is one assessment method for each CLO sufficient?

Thank you!

What guidance would you provide for critical analysis of a program goal if it is answered with one data point?

Thanks!

Also can you comment on the following: If a program states on their website under Admission Requirements that students have to complete 400 hours of direct patient care experience but in another section of the website (FAQs) it explains that students are evaluated based on the level of education required to perform the profession, the quality of the experience, and the amount of experience and the admissions rubric for these elements is tiered scoring, does the tiered scoring need to be shared with the student (not the number of points given, but that students can get a higher score with more than the minimum number of hours or hours doing work as an EMT versus a medical assistant)? Should the program be defining for the students which healthcare experiences would be scored similarly or are students expected to innately know that an ENT would be higher than an MA?

Similar situation in relation to hours required for shadowing a PA. Program requires a minimum of 10 for example and student earn a score of 1, but if they do 40 hours they get 2 points per the rubric that is not available to the student. The tiered scoring is not stated on the website either.

If these are examples of not defining, publishing, consistently applying and making readily available to prospective students, admission and enrollment practices that favor specified individuals or groups (A3.13a) and this is how the program is making admission decisions, would there be noncompliance of B3.14 also?

Do admission practices have to be equitable to all students?

For example, if the program requires a grade of C or better in all prerequisite courses within 10 years of matriculation and the specific list of courses is provided on the website, but some students are given waivers for this admissions requirement by the program is this in compliance with ARC?

Part II: Do guest lecturers need to be evaluated each time they give a lecture for the program, or can this evaluation be completed, for example, on a rotating basis or every other year (Context: We use a lot of guest lecturers who have been with the program for some time; students get burned out on completing evaluations.)

We have an applicant with an advanced chemistry degree who had AP Chemistry accepted at their UG institution to replace "general chemistry 1 and 2" (our pre-reqs). However, they went on to take multiple higher level chemistry courses, all with As.

Can we accept his organic chemistry courses (the next level) as his "chemistry" requirement or do you have any advisement on how we should approach this?

We have a question about how critical care fits into this. Our course learning outcomes can be met with critical care. Our question is about the preceptor themselves. There is a PA in the team who is supervised by two physicians. One is AOA board certified as "critical care-internal medicine".

Can we use this site to satisfy this standard?

How are programs expected to stay current with these evolving interpretations or Commission decisions? Is it anticipated that we routinely monitor every post on this site? At the end of the day, I am committed to meeting the standards and doing what is best for my students; however, the evolving interpretations shared in this forum make it increasingly difficult to determine what compliance even entails.

Do we need to upload Affiliation Agreements into the Portal for sites that are currently marked as "Inactive"?

Thank you!

PA program. If a student matriculates into the program and withdraws within a few weeks of beginning, does this still count as attrition?

Thank you.

additional action is needed at this time."

If the acceptance of a report does not imply the program is now in compliance, how can a program know with certainty that they are in compliance and avoid a citation in the future?

Thank you!

For a developing program at the site visit if we have enough slots for each student (i.e., we are taking 36 students and have 36 women's health rotations) does this meet the standard?

I have some questions regarding our learning outcomes and objectives for our behavioral health rotation that I hope you can answer. Sorry, there are multiple questions! Thank you!

Learning Outcomes Questions:

1. Is it correct to state “common acute and chronic psychiatric conditions” in a learning outcome versus listing some acute and chronic conditions?

2. Is it correct to use the term “technical skills” for a behavioral health rotation, or is something like “diagnostic screening” correct?

Learning Outcome: “Utilize knowledge and technical skills (diagnostic screenings) to formulate evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for common acute and chronic psychiatric conditions.”

3. Is “physical examination” the correct term to use for a behavioral medicine rotation, or is something like “psychiatric examination” better?

Learning outcome: “Formulate a comprehensive and focused history and physical examination for acute and chronic behavioral health conditions of adolescents, adults, and geriatric patients.”

Learning Objectives Questions:

4. Is it correct to state “common psychiatric conditions” in a learning objective, or should we list some common psychiatric conditions because it is an objective?

Learning objective examples:

· Recognize characteristic signs and symptoms of common psychiatric conditions to aid in the development of a comprehensive differential diagnosis.

· Recognize characteristic signs and symptoms of common psychiatric conditions to aid in the development of a comprehensive differential diagnosis.

5. General question: We mention the specific setting “behavioral Medicine” in a few of the learning outcomes and objectives, but not all. Is that acceptable?

At the top of the Student Learning Outcome section, we state:

“Please refer to the following link for a full list of Behavioral Health topics covered. The outcomes and objectives below relate to those topics: 

https://paeaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/imported-files/eor-psych-topiclist-20200309.pdf 

For the core tasks and objectives applicable across all specialties, please refer to: 

https://paeaonline.org/assessment/core-tasks-and-objectives 

At our institution, clinical faculty generate revenue through faculty practice. A portion of this revenue (40%) is retained by the university, and a portion of that is then returned to the program via the Faculty Income Plan (FIP). This FIP account is used to fund expenses such as licensure, CME, and travel.

However, these funds exist only if faculty are actively practicing. In essence, it is faculty effort and revenue, not direct institutional budgeting, that sustains this support. While the university argues that the return of these funds to the program reflects institutional support (as they are not required to share any of the 40% at all), I am unsure if this arrangement satisfies the intent of the new standard.

In your interpretation, would the use of a fund like FIP, sourced from faculty clinical income and only available when faculty practice, meet the requirement that the sponsoring institution provides sufficient resources for licensure and CME support? Or would this be viewed as a program-generated resource rather than true institutional support?

Is it sufficient in the initial site visit process to discuss with the potential preceptor what the learning outcomes are for that specified SCPE and if their practice/site allows students to meet those LOs?

Then the program verifies that students are meeting the LOs through their defined tracking process (to inlclude a gap analysis) and compares sites and preceptors in a specified discipline for equivalency. Would this suffice?

When creating the narrative for C1.01 are you just wanting a list of how the program assesses sufficiency and effectiveness of the program for each of the substandards? For example, the overall approach to program assessment regarding committees, their assigned areas of evaluation, program benchmarks and rationales, and instruments used to assess each substandard? Should the timeline be included? How program strengths and areas of improvements are determined? Sources of triangulated data?

For C1.02a - Are we just repeating the data sources from C1.01? Or are we providing more detailed information about the instruments that were used and the data results?

For C1.02b - Do we need to reiterate the benchmarks & rationale that are mentioned in C1.01? Or should data results be analyzed here?

Any clarification you can provide is much appreciated!

Our program is currently on probation with citations areas of C1.01-C1.03 and are working toward correcting deficiencies in our self-assessment processes. Due to high faculty turnover and the previous use of an external consultant, we are facing a significant challenge: much of our historical data from the last SSR—particularly didactic and clinical year assessments—does not align with the new assessment tools and surveys we are currently using.

This disconnect makes it difficult to perform year-over-year or longitudinal comparisons, and we’re concerned about being able to identify genuine strengths and weaknesses in our program without continuing gaps in our data or reverting to previously used (and possibly inadequate) assessment processes.

My questions:

-How have other programs in similar situations addressed the issue of inconsistent or non-comparable survey tools across reporting periods?

-Is there an accepted way to transparently acknowledge this transition to the ARC-PA, while still demonstrating a robust and evolving self-assessment process?

-Are there recommendations for bridging this gap—such as mapping old tools to new ones, or creating a narrative that explains and contextualizes the change?

-How can we avoid simply “starting over” or having to rely on flawed or incomplete historical data, while also moving forward with improved processes?

A2.18 Administrative support for the program is at least 1.0 FTE dedicated exclusively to the PA program at each campus.

Could ARC-PA please provide the PA Education Community with its data, analysis, and conclusion for these standards?

Thank you!

For example, policy states after 2 failed EOR attempts, student must repeat that rotation and if students fail two rotations then they decelerate and repeat clinical year. One student was given the opportunity for a 3rd attempt due to personal circumstances the board felt like affected their testing capabilities (and to avoid deceleration as they had already failed a rotation prior to their two attempts) but another student requests the same opportunity at a 3rd attempt and the board states that the students reasoning is not a qualification to deviate away from policy.

Additionally, do these separate programs need to demonstrate equivalency across campuses to be in compliance with B1.04? Therefore, all curriculum, despite campuses, need to be the same?

Are Student Instructional Objectives required in SCPE syllabi to meet B2.02, or is it sufficient to include only Student Learning Outcomes, particularly when no faculty-led instruction is involved during the rotation?

We include IOs for organizational purposes and to support curriculum mapping (Appendix 10), but want to ensure this does not misrepresent the instructional setting. Our syllabi list a faculty member as the course instructor, though the students are working directly with preceptors who are not responsible for remediation, grading, or EOR administration — only supervising clinical instruction.

Is it appropriate to retain instructional objectives in the syllabi under these conditions, or is that unnecessary (or potentially misleading) when faculty are not directly instructing the student during the SCPE?

However, my CLOs do not have a specific LO verbiage that specify an EM course learning outcome for preventive, acute or chronic patient encounters. Instead, it's "emergency medicine patient"

Do I need to have some specific language, using 6th edition standards, that state acute patient encounters, particularly in EM? And likewise, preventive and chronic patient encounters in Internal Medicine for example? Rather than leaving them in the instructional objectives?

If we are expected to define specific criteria, how should we handle egregious findings or urgent issues that require action sooner? Would those be addressed outside of the formal SSR process, and does ARC-PA expect us to define a separate benchmark for “egregious” issues?

Finally, if we adopt a policy of watching for two-year trends before labeling something an ANI, does the evaluation committee still have the flexibility to identify an ANI earlier if triangulated data or context warrants it (would we also need a separate benchmark for that)?

If we can use these preceptors starting in September 2025 then how should this be presented to ARC-PA and still demonstrate compliance with the 5th Standards in the application we are submitting?

However, when using the Change Forms in the ARC portal, we cannot report the vacancy without also submitting a CV.

If we are still in the process of filling the position and haven't appointed a replacement, what should be submitted in the required CV field?

For an example IO: "Recognize characteristic signs and symptoms of common medical conditions to aid in the development of a comprehensive differential diagnosis"

If we put the link to the topic list at the top of the learning objectives covering the common medical conditions, does that suffice?

Or do we need to write it with examples like this:

Recognize characteristic signs and symptoms of common medical conditions, including HTN, diabetes, and CHF to aid in the development of a comprehensive differential diagnosis.

I understand that the IOs are guiding learning, but it seems like listing a few is more confusing than telling them to refer to the topic list, so nothing is left out.

Q2: If this is our instructional objective: "Select appropriate pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for common acute, preventive, and chronic conditions as part of evidence-based treatment plans" ...do acute and chronic need to be separate objectives?

Thanks

Does ARCPA require programs to have a succession plan for the PD, MD, and or faculty?

I’m also curious if the majority of programs are using Orthopedics in place of a more generalized Surgery rotation, or if most are sticking with General Surgery as the preferred placement.

Thank you for your help!

For didactic assessments, is it necessary to map individual exam questions directly to CLOs, or is it sufficient to map to the medical system, course topic, and PANCE task (which align with the instructional objectives)? Is there a requirement to list the number or percentage of exam questions tied to each CLO in the course syllabus?

For clinical assessments, specifically the preceptor evaluation, we list in the assessment table that the preceptor evaluation assesses CLOs 1–13. The evaluation itself is identical to the CLOs and is included as an appendix to the syllabus. Is it necessary to indicate in the syllabus which individual items on the preceptor evaluation correspond to specific CLOs, or is it sufficient that the instrument itself is composed of the CLOs in full?

Please clarify that when CVs are required, will a personal CV suffice or should it be on the ARC-PA CV template?

This individual would be in addition to the three (3.0) FTE other Principal Faculty.

Thank you. 

With regards to A2.07 in the sixth edition, does the standard allow a program director to also be the department chair if they are 12-months, 1.0 FTE in the department and full-time. For example, if the PD-chair also supervised the program director for the undergraduate phase of PA education?

Thank you

We current say 'Students are not required to secure or arrange their own SCPEs" (admissions page) and "Students are not required to solicit preceptors or clinical sites for rotations." (Student Handbook)

Is this acceptable? We don't want to say "STUDENTS MUST NOT RECRUIT" b/c we want to keep the flexibility of them providing contact information for a site they are hoping to work in (volunteer information).

Second-guessing ourselves. Thanks for your help. Is the emphasis on "required" or on "must not"?

According to the Site visit protocol, the list of materials available to site visitors on the shared drive should be included in the application. However, I have a citation report, not really an “application”.

My understanding is that we should have materials available that are directly related to the citation report (each citation) and the site visitor will let us know about anything additional. So we planned to have each folder labeled by citation # and have the evidence demonstrating compliance in the corresponding folder.

Are we understanding correctly?

Thank you for the clarification!

In the 6th edition standards B3.05, could you comment on the term "collectively," specifically as it relates to technical skills?

For example, if there are no technical skills identified as relevant learning outcomes during a Psychiatry/Behavioral & Mental Health Care SCPE, but technical skills are included in EM, Surgery, IM, etc., is that compliant since "collectively" the SCPEs are addressing technical skills and we could provide a course to domain map showing this? Or is the expectation that each domain is covered in each SCPE?

Thank you!

Is higher education experience limited to colleges and universities or can a academic health centers be included since they teach and hold a academic rank.

Our program supplies non-vacation release time and financial resources for principal faculty and the program director for professional development, but does not does not have a policy on funding for preceptors or instructional faculty for professional development (although we would of course accommodate their schedules to allow them sufficient time to pursue these opportunities).

Are financial resources required for non-principal faculty/PD to pursue professional development, or am I reading too far into this standard?

Thank you

Ex: B2.02 c Pathophysiology

PHYA 5400 Pathophysiology I

1) State the pathophysiological mechanisms behind common endocrine disorders such as hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, Addison's disease, and Cushing’s syndrome.

2) Remember the pathophysiology of heart disease and its relationship to systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, and endothelial dysfunction.

3) Compare the pathophysiology of obstructive lung diseases and restrictive lung diseases.

PHYA 5410 Pathophysiology II

1) Compare the pathophysiology of common neurological and degenerative diseases and their effects on patient health.

2) Recall the mechanisms underlying normal and abnormal kidney function, and identify disease states associated with abnormal kidney function. etc... Thanks!

Ie: Identify risk factors, etiology, pathologic processes, and epidemiology of the listed disorder.

Alternatively, should the above IO be developed into individual IOs?

Ie: Identify risk factors of the listed disorders.

Identify etiology of the listed disorders.

Identify pathologic processes of the listed disorders.

Identify epidemiology of the listed disorders.

Week 1: The Health History (CLO 1, CLO2)

1. Create a physical environment that is optimal for eliciting a history across all age groups, including pediatric, adult, and geriatric patients.

2. ....

3. .....

Thanks!

Example: Demonstrate respect and sensitivity to provide care that is responsive to diverse backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, practices, or healthcare needs.

We have a program-defined policy stating, “If a decelerated student joins a new cohort but is later decelerated again, dismissed, or withdraws, the attrition is attributed to the original cohort only.”

We had a student who was granted a voluntary deceleration during the first semester from the Class of 2024 to the Class of 2025.  After restarting the program, she withdrew during the first semester. 

Do we have to count her as attrition from both cohorts, or is it acceptable to count her as attrition from the Class of 2024 only (avoiding double jeopardy so to speak)?

Is our program-defined policy congruent with the ARC-PA definition of attrition?

Student 1 - Took a leave of absence for 1 year with intent to restart program with the next cohort (which was all approved). However, student then failed to complete onboarding required for next cohort and was dismissed before they could restart with the next cohort. Should they be counted as LOA or dismissed from the original cohort in the attrition table?

Student 2 - Was decelerated to the next cohort due to academics but then withdrew from the program before actually starting with the next cohort. Should they be counted as decelerated or withdrew from the original cohort?

Student 3 - Was delayed during clinical year due to SCPE failure and need to repeat rotations. Confirming we should consider them delayed from their original cohort but not count them as attrited or list them in the attrition table, since they did not join the next cohort?

Thank you!

professional behaviors. (they also do a summative skills assessment for technical skills competency) For program data it is okay to collect the overall grade for the summative OSCE, or do we need to break it down more? For example: the grade for clinical skills vs grade on clinical reasoning for example.

A designated preceptor of record must be available at all times during a student’s clinical experience. This availability includes being in close proximity and assuming responsibility for the student throughout all patient encounters, documentation, and ordering of diagnostics or therapeutics. Students are required to review each patient encounter on-site with their assigned preceptor of record, and in advance of ordering any interventions for a patient. Additionally, only preceptors of record are eligible to receive payment for precepting. This policy supports accurate documentation of student clinical activities and ensures accountability in student supervision.

• Exceeds Expectations: The student demonstrates exceptional performance with a high degree of accuracy, efficiency, and confidence.  Minimal direction or prompting is required.

• Meets Expectations: The student demonstrates appropriate performance with reasonable accuracy and efficiency. Occasional direction or prompting is required.

• Below Expectations: The student demonstrates inconsistent performance with limited accuracy or efficiency. Frequent direction or prompting is required.

• Unsatisfactory: The student demonstrates inadequate performance with significantly limited accuracy or efficiency. Constant direction or correction is required.

There has been question on this portion of A2.17 a) informs the student of the name and contact information of the principal or instructional faculty member designated to assess and supervise the student's progress in achieving the course learning outcomes.

In particular, if this means we are required to have one singular member or can have multiple instructional faculty. Especially when you consider the challenges of EM scheduling. Is the following an accurate interpretation of this standard in regards to assigning clinical instructional faculty for SCPEs?

• The singular “member” → At least one person must be designated for each site.

• The standard does not limit your ability to have multiple instructional faculty at that site, it just ensures at least one is formally identified and communicated to students. But that you can have multiple instructional faculty, as long as the student understands who is completing evaluations and responsible for them completing their course learning outcomes.

• Therefore, site visitors/reviewers would usually check that:

  1. The designated person(s) is clearly named in your documentation (site assignment sheet, orientation material, etc.).

  2. Students can readily identify this contact person(s) if asked.

Because of the structured nature of the curriculum and the rigorous academic requirements, the PA Program does not allow for a reduced course load that would lengthen the overall timeline of study. All students enrolled in the program are required to follow the prescribed course sequence as outlined. In exceptional cases, a student who is approved for a one-year leave of absence may be decelerated and permitted to rejoin the program with the next cohort.

C1.02 The program documents ongoing self-assessment of the sufficiency of program personnel by collecting data, using critical analysis to draw conclusions, and creating self-improvement action plans. These data points, at a minimum, will include:

• workload calculation for each program faculty and staff member

Is there a guide for teaching, administrative, scholarship, or service etc. per annual responsibilities, for example?

We have an affiliation agreement for a site that expired May 2025. We are in the process of renewing this affiliation agreement but it may be some time before the updated one is fully executed. We sent students to this site prior to this  affiliation agreement expiring in May 2025. Therefore, they have been an active site for us from January-May 2025. We have not sent any additional students there since the affiliation agreement expired in May 2025.

Should we continue to list this as an “Active” site, despite the affiliation agreement now being expired? We want to be able to show/reflect the number of placements we used at this site from January-May 2025 under our “Required Clinical Experience and Capacity” numbers.  

Thank you!

To clarify - do all B2 standards have to be covered/introduced prior to SCPEs/clinical rotations? Or can we include some B2 standards into the clinical curriculum on days we have students return to campus (i.e. cover palliative care topics during clinical call back days) Thank you!

Does the sponsoring institution need to pay for those resources or services directly? Or is it sufficient to make sure the program has access to those items/resources, even if its paid for by the program directly? This question is in reference to programs that rely on their tuition revenues only.

Thank you!

Can these CLOs be complex if individual IOs are more specific and are aligned with/mapped to the CLO? For instance: Utilize the patient history, physical exam techniques, and/or diagnostic test findings to develop a differential diagnosis for patients presenting with musculoskeletal diseases and conditions on the topic list.

Also, is "demonstrate" a measurable term? For example: Demonstrate knowledge of indications for and interpretation of laboratory and diagnostic studies required to assess conditions and diseases of the musculoskeletal system on the topic list.

Thank you .

Example A:

Discussing Renal this summer so one lecture was on Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease with Instructional Objectives pertaining to that specific lecture.

Then it went lecture by lecture.

Example B:

Listing renal topics and then stating the following IO's will relate to the above renal topics.

Maybe both examples are acceptable, I just wanted to clarify.

We are seeking clarification regarding the definition of “Institutional Official” as used in the A Standards. Specifically, should the Department Chair be considered an Institutional Official for the purposes of compliance with these standards, or does ARC-PA intend the term “Institutional Official” to apply only to higher-level institutional leadership (e.g., Dean, Provost, President, or equivalent)?

Within the structure of our University the Chair is appointed by the Dean of the College of Medicine. The Chair reports directly to the Dean and has monthly meetings with the Dean on behalf of our program. The Dean then reports to the Chancellor.

Thank you for your help.

For example, if there were separate IOs for essential hypertension, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, must these three also be listed in a separate table?

How specific must the list of topics be. For example, it psychotic disorders specific enough or must the list of topics include schizophrenia schizoaffective disorder,.....

Thank you

Also--in that same vein, would this apply to 20% rule of SCPEs may be remote of total rotations? Keeping in mind that my program is 9 SCPEs in clinical phase (if doing 2 out of 9 is unfortunately 22% thus over the 20% reportedly allowed).

Example: let's say we have a student very strongly interested in behavioral health and would love to do 2 BH rotations, one required and one elective. We have the most availability to place them via telehealth options. Technically one of those is elective and would theoretically need to be 50% in person, as well as falling out of range of the "only 20% of total SCPEs" may be telehealth because 2 out of 9 rotations would be telehealth.

"For institutions with more than one PA program, affiliation agreements must clearly identify the specific PA program to which the

agreement applies"

If our SCPE agreement lists all 4 of the PA programs/campuses in the AA, will this be in compliance?

Or is the intent to show that the SCPE site has a dedicated AA with only 1 Program/Campus?

In addition, is there a deadline for the notification of a decrease in financial support with regards to the start of the fiscal year?

Thank you

E1.05 does not specify whether the quarterly updates are for faculty, staff, or both. Is it just for PF/MD/PD?

Thank you

Is it possible to see the Appendices that will be required for the SSR of the 6th edition?Thanks!

Is it ok to state: Facilities and hospitals often require additional immunizations and titers which students must obtain prior to starting rotations at those sites.  Information regarding these additional requirements will be given to the students prior to starting rotations. OR do we have to list each requirement that differs from all affiliations.

2. Do we have to state that there are no additional state requirements if there is not?

3. If we allow a medical waiver for any immunization does that need to be published.

4. Do we have to state that titers are acceptable or just that we follow CDC recommendations.

c) include the terms of participation for the PA program students

The compliance document did not provide further insight, and in reading it there was discussion on the meaning of this within a SCPE agreement. We had two lines of thought brought forward in discussions:

First line of thought:

• Student will be on-site for their scheduled rotation days and hours.

• Student will be professionally dressed, in accordance with the clinical rotation guidelines for attire, and always wear their white coat, denoting they are a PA student.

• Student will arrive at least 15 minutes before their start time for the rotation, unless specified differently by their preceptor.

OR something like..

• Student will have access to the specified patient population stated in the syllabus to meet learning outcomes.

• Student will have access to physical facilities and necessary equipment to meet learning outcomes stated in the syllabus.

Would it be both?

We now have second-year PA students interested in working as lab assistants in the anatomy lab, supporting both PA and other medical programs. This role has historically been filled by other medical students through the institution's work program. Their responsibilities would include providing additional support during labs and assisting with prosections. They would not replace or substitute for core instructional faculty, nor would they be responsible for independent instruction.

Given Standards A3.04 and A3.05, would such student roles be permissible if participation is voluntary and compensated through institutional employment, and if they are not serving as instructional faculty or clinical/administrative staff?

Standard E1.09d requires that a program maintain five years of accreditation-continued status in order to seek approval for an increase in class size.

Does an on-ground, accreditation-continued program of 30 students have to maintain five years of accreditation before trying to add an additional 30 seats but in an online/hybrid format? (From 30 students on-ground to 60 student total: 30 on-ground and 30 online.)

The definition of Instructional Faculty (IF) states that these are "Individuals providing instruction or supervision during the didactic and/or clinical phases of the program at less than 50% effort (FTE) regardless of faculty status or rank.

To make sure I am understanding, by this definition, we are required to evaluate IF even if they teach for example, one lab workshop in an academic year, (less than 50% FTE) but do not have required evaluation of IF that teach greater than 50% effort (FTE)?

I was just wondering if the Standard instead meant to state that programs should evaluate all IF providing instruction for greater than 50% effort instead of less than?

Thank you!

Does the "scheduled site visit" notated in D1.01a-e refer to the Initial Provisional Site Visit (Virtual) or the Provisional Monitoring Site Visit (In Person)?

Especially given how different staff have different tasks and how we are supposed to caclulate and represent this?

-course content is the same content delivered in-person and live via remote but also recording for asynchronous viewing. This would be shown through the student learning platform.

-student experience would be the same for the in-person and live remote students as they can ask questions live. However, the asynchronous students, while not live, can ask questions via email or set up a virtual meeting with the IOR. Could this be shown through the course syllabus?

-access to instructional materials could be provided by showing the materials on the student learning platform.

Would there have to be data for this 2 week period of time (in-person vs live remote vs asynchronous) showing scores on that material?

Additionally what is meant by "consistently". This would be consistently every year but only for the first 1-2 weeks, not consistently through the curriculum.

Is the ABFM directory printout acceptable as verification for accreditation purposes, or must programs use the official ABFM paid verification service?

Thank you!

For example, if in 2023 a measure was below benchmark, it was considered a potential ANI at that time. If a modification was implemented and the issue resolved, it no longer remains an ANI in the present cycle.

In Appendix 14D, the template directs programs to list current program strengths and current ANIs. I recall that in prior versions, ARC-PA also required programs to list modifications that had been made, even from previous years. However, the current version of the appendix does not ask for that. I do address previous modifications and program changes in the narrative sections. My understanding is that modifications from past ANIs that have already been resolved should not be repeated in the ANI section of the appendix, since that section is limited to active areas below benchmark. Is this correct?

I would like to clarify a question regarding Program Director responsibilities under A2.10 as they relate to supervising staff.

Our PA Program is a Division within the Department of Family Medicine. The Department Administrator, who reports directly to the Department Chair, now has 0.2 FTE allocated to our PA Program budget. Her contributions to the PA Program include scheduling annual reviews, supporting mentoring committees, and assisting with promotion processes.

Since she reports to the Chair, he has indicated that I should not supervise her directly. Under A2.10, am I required to formally supervise her (e.g., obtain a CV, conduct an annual review, or participate in her annual review with the Chair)? My interactions with her are generally through email and Family Medicine meetings. Thank you!

Electives Syllabi: Hello, I’m trying to figure out what we need for elective syllabi learning outcomes. Does each elective need its own learning outcomes, or can we have General elective learning outcomes for all electives, or is it better to have one for Medicine and one for surgery-related electives? Below are two questions about elective syllabi answers on the Q&A board. I’ve bolded the parts of the question and answer that I’m reviewing to answer my question. Thank you!

Question 1: For clinical year syllabi, should programs have a separate syllabus for each elective rotation? For example, pediatric general surgery rotation, would we need a syllabus that is specific for a pediatric general surgery rotation? Or is a general elective syllabus sufficient?

·         Answer 1: Each elective discipline needs to have specific learning outcomes, instructional objectives, and topic list. Some choose to do this through one or more syllabi or using one to two main syllabi with numerous specific appendices for each discipline. An example of this would be a medicine elective syllabus with all of the medicine disciplines as appendices and a surgical elective syllabus with all of the surgical disciplines. Some find this too confusing and choose to simplify each discipline into its own syllabus to make it especially clear to students and preceptors.

Question 2: Can a program have one elective SCPE syllabus with learning outcomes that can be met on any of our elective rotations as long as we have an elective specific topic list for each rotation and technical skills that are specific to the discipline?

·         Answer 2: Yes, and be sure to add specific instructional objectives to specifically guide student learning in each elective discipline. Having an appendix to the syllabus for each elective is common. It may be easier to have a syllabus for medicine electives and one for surgical electives.

Is this LO assessing MK okay for a SCPE learning outcome if the assessment is the EOR exam?

"Apply foundational medical knowledge to assess, diagnose, and manage clinical scenarios across the spectrum of family medicine topics as outlined in the PAEA blueprint."

Thank you!

  "Utilize clinical skills to formulate a comprehensive or focused history and physical examination for acute, chronic, and preventive conditions."

Thank you!

"Apply clinical guidelines and patient-specific factors to formulate appropriate treatment plans for common conditions found in the Family Medicine setting."

Additionally, if a student does not encounter a specific procedure during their SCPEs, can competence be demonstrated through simulation or skills lab activities rather than on a patient?

Focused question:

Do the evaluations for each course occur frequently throughout the course to guide student achievement of learning outcomes? For example, a three-credit-hour course includes three summative exams, occurring at weeks 4, 9, and 15, with a quiz or self-assessment preceding each exam.

In particular, the email indicates, Updated CV Template: The CV Template has been revised and is available for download under Program Faculty and Personnel Reports.

I cannot find this on the portal or on the ARC-PA website readily.

Can you please provide the exact buttons on the portal/website that we should use to download the new CV template?

Thank you.

Have a great day!

Standard E1.11b requires programs to report any decrease of:

•  ≥ 20% of the program’s overall budget.  This includes faculty and staff salaries/ benefits, funding related to faculty and staff development and operations.

•  ≥ 20% for program expenditures

•  ≥ 5% of its operating budget

Does the second bullet relate to the budgeted amount for program expenditures or does it relate to actuals?

In other words, does the ARC expect programs to monitor annual total expenditures and report if at the end of a fiscal year, they underspent what was budgeted by 20% or more?

The way the standard and the accompanying information in the compliance manual is written as one sentence, seems to indicate it is only asking about budget, not actual expenditures.

Thank you

Have a great day

Or, is this

If a program states their minimum requirements for admission, e.g. prerequisite GPA of 3.2, does the program need to advertise that a prerequisite GPA that exceeds 3.2 earns a higher score on a screening rubric? Would this be considered an admission preference? If so, what information should be published about this on the website? Could you please provide an example that the commission would find acceptable?

Can we use a different assessment methodology (for example an asychronous aquifer case) to restest students who failed an OSCE evaluation?

Thank you!

Thank you!

Is it ok to seperate "guest lecturers" as people providing didactic content that is directly related to an IO, and "presenters" who may provide information like the patient experience with a disability (have a patient come talk) for example? As that person would not meet academic qualifications necessarily, but have lived experience.

A couple years ago one of our faculty members attended the PAEA ARC-PA talk. The faculty member heard one of the commissioners say that the meningococcal vaccine should be required for PA students immunizations. The faculty member therefore added this to our program requirements. However, I cannot find this recommendation in CDC guidelines (for healthcare workers). Can you please clarify if the ARC-PA believes that the meningococcal vaccination should be one of the immunization/health requirements for PA students? If not, we may remove this as a general requirement and only require it if our SCPE site affiliation agreements stipulate this.

For licensure - is the intent for the program (or the principal faculty member's clinical practice site) to pay for state licensure and a DEA license? Or just the state license?

For certification - is the intent for the program to cover NCCPA certification maintenance fee and the fee for the PANRE / PANRE-LA?

Is the program expected to cover CAQ exams?

Thanks!

For this standard what is included in the definition of "personal issues" ?

Thanks!

For this standard, if we have a survey for measuring effectiveness in non-teaching roles and results are only from the faculty and program director is that enough? Are 3 data points needed for triangulation? Students at times are not very familiar with the roles of faculty outside of teaching.

Is the term "administration" in this context meaning administrative roles outside of the program in the University (i.e., a Dean role or other non-PA program role)? Would the administrative release time for a Director of Didactic or Clinical Education still count toward the FTE calcluation for the program since that administrative role is within the program?

Per E1.04c, it is required that the program alert the ARC-PA in writing of a faculty departure/change within 30 days using the appropriate forms and submitting the required plan and timeline for replacing the faculty position being vacated. This starts a time clock of quarterly reporting as well on the recruitment and hiring efforts by the Sponsoring Institution.

What are the ramifications of a faculty departure causing a program to fall below the 2.0 PA principal faculty FTE required by the A2.03 standard? Given that this immediately puts the program out of compliance I would assume there are more immediate repercussions.

Thanks for providing clarification.

For this substandard the compliance manual states in the 'of note' section, "When cost ranges are provided, they specify the minimum and maximum dollar amounts rather than using vague descriptions such as ‘cost varies’.

Can you please provide examples of this note of cost ranges for housing for the length of the program and clinical housing at sites not local to the campus?

Thanks!

Am I allowed to use Meshwell to help process my applications?

To verify, if a program has a 5th edition application that they are working on, will C1.03 still be expected to be addressed (i.e will Appendix 14B in the SSR be required), or is this being treated similarly to A1.11 a-d, where the standard was not enforced with those in current cycles?

Thank you!

We are using faculty and staff surveys, clinical site data, budget review to make sure that we have the financial resources and that faculty and staff feel supportive. We appreciate any suggestions on this.

I am seeking clarification as to the data tables required for C1.01 and C1.02. The 6th ed Application Sample states, "The program may add up to three additional tables per standard to use in its analysis. If the program adds tables, they must be added in the “Extra Data Tables” sheet/tab of the C101 DATA TABLES Template."

The 6th edition Compliance Manual under C1.01 Essential Evidence states,

• In addition to data tables for the items listed in the standard, required comparisons to be displayed on the table provided in the application

  (program may do more if it chooses) include:
  

  • Admission data compared to didactic attrition, course grades, and PANCE scores

  • Didactic and Clinical course grades compared to instructor and course evaluations and related PANCE sub-scores (if applicable)

  • Attrition compared to course grades and remediation

  • Course grades compared to summative exam results, remediation, and PANCE scores

  • Summative evaluation results compared to exit survey results and program competencies

  • SCPE preceptors for each discipline are compared to each other (e.g., surgery preceptors are all compared to each other)

and under C1.02 Essential Evidence it states,

• In addition to data tables for the items listed in the standard, required comparisons to be displayed on the table provided in the application

  (program may do more if it chooses) include:
  

  • Principal faculty sufficiency evaluation data compared to filled FTE, attrition rate, and calculated workload percentage

  • Program staff sufficiency evaluation data compared to filled FTE, vacant FTE, and staff attrition rate.

So just to clarify, we will need to make this comparison tables for C1.01-C1.02 using the data from the individual tabs in the template (plus up to 3 additional data table sets) and add them to the application. But those comparison tables are not counting towards the "up to three additional tables." Am I understanding this correctly?

When we complete appendix 10, do we also need to include our topic list?

Example: A clinical medicine course has 7 course learning outcomes some of which are compound (for instance, anatomy and physiology OR select and interpret). The course is broken down by weeks. Each week has a topic list with 5-10 topics and their associated Instructional Objectives to guide student learning.

Do I need to assess every topic on the topic list for every part of every CLO.

Or do I just need to ensure that every part of the CLO is assessed without requiring every topic to be assessed for every CLO?

I have Student X originally in the class of 2024 (N=64). They left the class of 2024 and joined class of 2025 (N=64 + student X=65), but starting in the clinical year of 2025 (therefore not a part of the "entering" class size-technically).

Coincidentally, they ended up withdrawing from the class of 2025, which left class of 2025 back to the "entering" class size of 64.

I know student X is counted in the attrition for 2024.

Should my "entering" class size for class of 2025 actually be 65, even though this was a decelerated student who joined them half way through the program?

Otherwise, the portal demonstrates this situation accurately (2% attrition/98% grad rate), but the table that will be posted on the website indicates "0%" attrition and 100% graduation rate, which then won't match with the portal.

As far as the template/table you must post on the website, can we leave the "comments" section off in order to protect the student? Can we just post the numbers?

Also, beyond updating the portal fields/tabs and posting the table, do we need to submit that form with comments elsewhere?

I sincerely appreciate the clarifications!

When looking at the very first item "C1.01 a) program-defined admissions data" the application templates denote that "Attrition Data (REQUIRED)" is the only required data source, but then looking to the Compliance Manual for further clarification it adds "Admission data compared to didactic attrition, course grades, and PANCE scores" which is inconsistent with the application and appears to state 4 (not 3) data sources are the minimum requirement for this item (C1.01 Question 2) and all 4 data sources (not 1 data source) are required.

This type of error in work program's submit to ARC-PA would result in observations and citations for such a program. Has ARC-PA given consideration to delaying 6th edition self-study reports until they can provide clear and consistent guidance and sample application materials for all visit types that are consistent with the Compliance Manual guidance? This would also allow ARC-PA to deliver workshops to guide programs on their expectations once the ARC-PA guidance is clearly defined, published and internally consistent.

IF any students repeated or remediated didactic courses as indicated in the above two questions, include remediation data (e.g. aspects of program remediated or repeated) and outcomes (e.g., progress in the program, graduation rates, PANCE pass rates) analysis in the analysis narrative below."

We currently have an executed affiliation agreement with a hospital system that uses the phrase “healthcare students,” intended to cover nursing, pharmacy, allied health, medical, and PA students. We previously sent an amendment to specify “PA students” explicitly, but due to departmental turnover at the hospital, we’ve had difficulty obtaining signatures on the amendment. The original agreement is signed—only the amendment remains pending. We have an email from the healthcare system stating that, "Our standard template includes “healthcare students” as it encompasses all of nursing, pharm, allied health, as well as medical and PA."

Would this be considered compliant, or is explicit mention of “PA students” required for ARC-PA purposes?

1. One separate syllabus for each subspecialty

2. One general elective syllabus with appendicies with different topics based specialty

   
   

3. Several syllabi with broad -a surgerical medicine, an outpatient adult, an inpatient adult or inpatient peds.

   
   

   or is there a better way

I ran a test pulling up my own license from my state and copying the url. When I clicked the link approximately 20 minutes later it pulls up the a blank licensure since the state system has timed out for the request.

I could create a Sharepoint and save a copy of the webpage showing the state licensure and board certification for each preceptor and include the link to the Sharepoint file however no one outside of our institution would be able to view the files due to Sharepoint restrictions.

Do you have any recommendations on how we can link these things so that the accrediting body can view the materials requested without websites that time out or needing continual special access from the university to view?

Thank you so very much for your guidance!

I am working on initial provisional program goals. The attainment of the goal benchmark can be assessed by multiple measures. My thought is more than one data source to support goal attainment is better than 1, but what happens if 2 of 4 data sources support goal attainment and 2 do not? Would that be reported as failure to met the goal? Is it safer to to have a single data point that will indicate if a goal is met? Here is the redacted example:

1. Address healthcare disparities in XX, advancing health equity throughout XX

   1. XX % of matriculants from our defined XX area

   2. X % of cohort completing at least 1 SCPE rotation in a HRSA designated MUA/HPSA

   3. X % Graduates taking jobs in a XX MUA/HPSA within 1 year of graduation

   4. End of Pre-Clinical Curriculum and End of Curriculum student survey item assessing preparedness for serving in MUA/HPSA, 3.5/5 or greater

   5. Clinical Preceptor Evaluation of Student survey item assessing student preparedness for Clinical Year Practice, 3.5/5 or greater

We are only allowed 3 additional data sets outside of the required ones listed.

Could we complied different data into one data set? Our program looks at the End of Didactic Survey, PACKRAT exams (Didactic and Clinical), Clin Med system exams (comparing to PANCE/PACKRAT sub-scores), and Course Learning Outcomes (which now must be measured per B1.03). This would put us above the 3 additional data sets for C1.01.

Could we put our End of Didactic Survey into the Graduate/Exit Student Survey template along with our End of Program Survey? We could clearly demarcate the items as belonging to the End of Didactic vs End of Program surveys.

Similarly, could we put the Course LOs in the Course Eval template or is that limited to only one type of data like a survey item?

Thanks.

Is the expectation for the program to include all of the listed data points when performing the analysis? I recognize the "not limited to" phrase indicates other data points may also be utilized but I'm more concerned with the requirement of the listed data sets since the statement says "may include " and not "must include."

If so, does the provisional statement need to be somewhere on the page? Are there any other requirements or things we should be cautious about using social media? Thank you!

The program-created competencies are more detailed and complex, designed to be achieved over the entire curriculum. These are assessed with benchmarks, but not necessarily all within the final four months (if so, would be overly repetative). Please provide feedback on this interpretation. Thank you.

What is meant by the required competencies? Does this mean Program Competencies or the student meeting the competencies of the Learning Outcomes?

To reduce the burden on students yet still meeting expectations, would it be appropriate for the course director to evaluate the effectiveness of an instructional faculty member who delivers only a single lecture in the course?

Our clinical medicine courses have a CLO that states “Apply clinical reasoning and problem-solving by determining accurate treatment/management plans including appropriate referrals to other providers, and patient education/parental guidance for listed conditions of the pediatric patient.” We have IO’s that map to the CLO but don’t have the specific wording of “clinical reasoning and problem-solving abilities” in the IOs. For example, an IO that is mapped to the CLO above, is “Identify patient management of acute and chronic pediatric dermatological conditions.”

All that to ask, is it sufficient to meet the standard as is with the mapping or do we need to change the language in the IO to match the CLO. This is not the introduction of the standard, just clarifying for subsequent semesters.

If a medical doctor attended medical school and practiced outside of the U.S., and has not practiced or become board certified in the U.S., but is licensed, can they serve as a medical director?

Thank you!

But when I click on the button Sample 6th Ed Application it downloads the Template Attachments and not the sample application and ssr.

Thank you.

The instructions say not to include brochures, but we were planning to include flyers/advertisements about our program. Should we also include email campaign messages or copies (redacted) of email questions from prospective students?

Thank you.

1. Our student survey has "The principal faculty (core faculty) are sufficient," and The principal faculty (core faculty) are supportive and involved in student success." Should we replace on or both of these survey item with the required question posted, "To what extent do you believe the current number of faculty in your program are sufficient to meet students needs?"

2. Our faculty survey has "The principal faculty (core faculty) are sufficient." Should we replace this survey item with the required survey question, "To what extent do you believe the current number of faculty in your program are sufficient to meet the teaching, research, advising, and service expectations?"

3. To my knowledge we do not have a survey the staff (admins) take. It is looking like we need one correct?

4. Last question: Is there a resource available that specifies what survey questions are required on each of these surveys?

Thank you.

I find this confusing because if a PD is hired by the institution at 1.0 and only 0.8 FTE at the program with 0.2 FTE in a clinic, unrelated to the PA program, are they still considered 1.0 FTE assigned to the program, as the Standard states?

Will the ARC-PA be providing the information that had previously been reported in the annual presentation at PAEA, in the recent past years (ARC-PA Annual Report 2023, 2024)?

I found it informative and helpful.

TY

My understand that to meet the above, clinical site visits need to be performed for all clinical year students. For clinical sites which may be in another state, how often would this be required to be in person? Are there distance ranges where you feel a ZOOM visit/meeting would be acceptable?

Thank you for any and all guidance

In addition, at our college faculty are not required to do scholarship as we are not a research institution. Is this okay?

Our clinical coordinator teaches 6 credits, 100% of her responsibility is academic. We do not have her listed as PF but should we?

Would this leadership transition have any negative implications for our accreditation status as a newly accredited program, and could it affect the timing of the second site visit?

Thanks for any clarification.

Specifically: If "strengths" benchmarks are not stated in the assessment plan (App.14 SSR) in the application, given that it was removed from the updated 6th Edition Compliance Manual, will the program receive a citation for non-compliance with the 5th Edition standards, even though it is no longer part of the expected reporting or process?

Thank you.

The application and each appendix are to be saved with the same name it was given by the ARC-PA, with the inclusion of an abbreviation of the program’s name at the end of the document name. For example: App 1b Program Budget Name or App 4d Personnel Resp Name

Both examples given exceed 20 characters in length. This makes it impossible to save "with the same name" as well as append a program name. Please advise.

I have a question regarding the submission process for the Annual Report. After the Program Director clicks “Submit Annual Report” in the portal, is the report then routed to the Chief Administrative Officer for review and approval (similar to the Change in Faculty Reports), or does clicking “Submit” constitute final submission to ARC-PA?

Thank you for your guidance.

Our PA program (accreditation-provisional status, 24-month length, currently with enrolled students) is considering moving our program start date approximately 3 mos earlier to align with the University’s academic calendar.

This adjustment would result in a one-time overlap of cohorts: a 3-month overlap in the didactic phase during year 1 of implementation, and a 3-month overlap in the clinical phase during year 2. After this transition period, the program would return to its standard structure with 2 cohorts at a time and no overlap.

I was unable to locate guidance or a template for submitting this type of change. Could you please advise on what documentation or request needs to be submitted to ARC-PA for approval, and how far in advance we should submit it?

For context, this change does not affect program length, credit hours, tuition/fees, or curriculum structure.

Thank you for your guidance.

"Select at least three specific data sets, including the required Faculty Effectiveness data set as one of the three, that the program referenced and utilized in the analysis narrative below."

Does this mean that we could utilize "Faculty Effectiveness" + two program uploaded additional data sets ("other")?

or

Does this mean we could utilize "Faculty Effectiveness" + two ARC required + an additional data set? 

Can you define what "by role" means? Are there specific roles we are required to identify and report?

Hello,

Our faculty are classified as 1.0 FTE by the University for benefits purposes. However, in practice, their roles are divided—typically 0.5 FTE academic and 0.5 FTE clinical, for example.

Could you clarify how we should report their FTE status in the ARC-Portal? Should we list them as 1.0 FTE since that is what their university contract specifies?

Additionally, how should we reflect this in our workload analysis? My understanding is that we would report them as 0.5 FTE for the PA program, since that reflects the actual time allocated to program duties.

Thank you for your guidance.

Our PA program is reviewing the structure and classification of our elective courses, and I would appreciate guidance on the following:

1.      Is it acceptable to designate an elective course as a “remediation elective” (i.e., an elective that students can take to address deficiencies in prior coursework) or a “study elective” (i.e., an elective dedicated to independent study, exam preparation, or self-directed learning) under the ARC-PA accreditation framework?

2.      If such electives are used (remediation or study electives), do they need to have a formal syllabus, learning objectives (LOs), and instructional objectives — in the same way that regular courses do — in order to comply with ARC-PA’s expectations for curricular design, oversight, and documentation?

Any references to the applicable Standard(s) or best practice guidance would be extremely helpful.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Each of these three questions end with "prepare/-ing graduates for clinical practice". Therefore, taking each question literally, I would assume that the analysis for each of these questions must include a program-defined measure of preparation for clinical practice - such as summative exam or graduate survey or PANCE.

This is different than just asking about the effectiveness of the didactic curriculum, which you could evaluate using ultimate outcomes or instruments such as preceptor collective impressions.

If ultimate outcomes are necessary for 3 and 4, then wouldn't question 5 be duplication?

Thank you in advance.

However, the provided spreadsheet templates allow only for per campus data entry.

Does ARC-PA want additional tables for the "program as a whole," or should this be kept by the program and available upon request?

Also, is it sufficient to state that the interview assesses applicants’ interpersonal interactions, communication skills, professionalism, ethics, preparation for and knowledge of the PA profession, and alignment with the program’s mission and goals? We do not go into specific grading criteria or post the rubric on the website, however, our internal rubric is set up to evaluate each of those sections. I'm just trying to find clarity in how transparent I need to be with this. Thank you!

I'm having a hard time determining how to assess each of the different specialties. For the prec eval can it be again a general question (Perform an appropriate physical exam for a patient in this specialty)?

What other summative assessments can be done for so many various specialties. We have over 15 different specialties, are we required to have a separate evaluation for each and a separate exam for each specialty?

The ARC definition of program faculty includes instructional faculty.

A2.05 also includes program faculty.

But, if the program uses only a couple of IF for non-teaching things, is it appropriate to only evaluate those IF who are involved in non-teaching aspects of the program?

Or, is the ARC expecting for this only PD, MD, PF only?

In addition, since preceptors are IF who evaluate students on clinical rotations, must we evaluate them for this question pertaining to A2.05 d.

Trying to find a way to complete all aspect of this question, while limiting the narrative to 1500 words.

Thank you.

Proposed Timeline:

• Submission: December 2025

• ARC-PA Meeting: April 2026

• Earliest Approval Results Delivered: May 2026 (if all goes well)

• Implementation Date (Targeted Class Size Increase): August 2026

The gap between receiving the approval (May 2026) and the implementation date (August 2026) is only three months. Does this timeline place us outside of the required "six months prior to implementation" window, or does the April meeting date satisfy the requirement? Trying to see if we need to plan for August 2027 instead. Thank you!

The ARC-PA does not define Leave of Absence, but considers it a type of attrition. Attrition is the permanent loss from a cohort. A program may allow a student to take a LOA without the student joining the next cohort. How would we categorize these students?

1. A student takes a LOA, but does not actually join the next cohort. They might repeat a a rotation which results in a delayed graduation (1-4 months for example). Would they be marked LOA on the template or not indicated at all because they did not permanently leave the cohort?

2. A student takes an extended LOA, but doesn't join the next cohort or retake any courses or classes. Graduation is delayed 6 months or more. Would they be counted LOA or not indicated because they did not decelerate and retake classes?

What is the difference between LOA and deceleration (which requires a policy, LOA does not require a policy according to the standards)? Are delayed graduation students reflected in this table at all?

Thank you!

2. Is there any wiggle room with the wording of the question. For example, currently it says "To what extent do you believe the current number of staff are sufficient to meet student needs?". Can we just say "The current number of staff are sufficient to meet student needs?". The reason for this is because our assessment system uses a 5-point Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. We would need to create a new Likert scale for the 'required wording' and we cannot find one that makes sense (ex: insufficient, mostly insufficient, neither sufficient nor insufficient, mostly sufficient, sufficient).

3. If there is no wiggle room with the wording of the question, can you please provide a recommended Likert scale?

For example: Question 2: Is the admissions process effective in selecting students who can successfully complete the program?. The resource says that the required comparison tables (to complete the analysis) include admissions data compared to didactic attrition, course grades, and PANCE scores. Additionally Attrition should be compared with course grades and remediation (didactic and clinical).

The compliance manual and application makes it seem that we choose our data sources for analysis (besides the required one - which in that example is attrition).

Therefore, I am writing to ask, are there any required comparison tables for each of the questions in C1.01? If yes, can the compliance manual and application/templates be updated with this information so it's clear to all programs?

Thanks!

My questions are:

1. If the program allows for the handbook to be posted on the website, could this be the document provided on the website or does it need to be a document that individually identifies each policy relating to the standards, leaving out other unrelated policies from the handbook?

2. Does ARC want the standards to be listed along side the policy titles. For example: A2.08- Clinical Site Solicitation Policy.

This then becomes confusing as the compliance manual states in the Of Note section: "This standard does not mandate participation from every program faculty member individually. Furthermore, it does not restrict participation solely to the program faculty."

So I think there is some ambiguity of what is actually required. If it is not mandated under each of the substandard in the compliance manual how does a program know what is the true standard for compliance - just the cross reference from the JD aligned to the Personnel Responsibilities Template?

I appreciate your insight to what would seemingly be a simple standard for which now I have gotten into the weeds.

The CV template now has %FTE listed for all academic positions. If the person was an adjunct or guest lecturer, is N/A appropriate for this section in their history of academic employment?

Thank you

My question concerns the qualitative data collected on course evaluations. These evaluations include comments on both the course and the instructor. Our Program reviews and discusses all qualitative course-evaluation comments together as a faculty committee in a collaborative, non-judgmental way, and this process works well for us. I understand that ARC-PA prefers for faculty information to be de-identified in the SSR, and I want to ensure that we remain compliant. These comments would make it identifable to our faculty (again, we discuss them as a group). Would it be correct to assume that I could include these instructor qualitiative comment themes associated with each PF?

Since the 2025 report requests that we calculate staff attrition from January to December, technically I will have reported the same attrition in 2024 AND 2025.

I just want to clarify that I should be following the directions of utilizing the calendar year, even though there is an overlap from last year's annual report from January to April... which unfortunatley was the time of our attrition. So that would mean that 2 consecutive reports I'm reporting the same attrition, even though we are talking about the same person.

Thank you!

Our program already had benchmarks for cohort attrition as follows: academic dismissal, non-academic dismissal, withdrawal, deceleration, and overall graduation rate. However, in review of the posted resources, it seems that we not have to have double the benchmarks because we have to break it up to didactic and clinical phases. Is this correct?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I am reaching out for clarification regarding the appropriate cutoff point for data included in our Self-Study Report and accreditation application.

Our application is due to ARC-PA in early June. The university requires eight-plus weeks (they would ideally like 12 weeks) for internal review and approval process prior to submission, which means the Program must finalize most SSR components well before the ARC-PA deadline.

As we compile the SSR, we are finding it challenging to identify a natural stopping point for data that does not conflict with our established assessment processes. For example, in Appendix 14C, our Fall semester has recently concluded, and course evaluations remain open through the end of December. These evaluations are not reviewed by the Curriculum Committee until the Spring. Including Fall data in the SSR would require us to accelerate our normal evaluation and analysis cycle, which could compromise the quality, accuracy, and integrity of our review.

(cont) in response comments below...

When reviewing other programs’ websites, however, there appears to be a wide variation in how this standard is applied. Some programs do not list these costs at all, while others include only minimal estimates (i.e., $500 per term).

My concern is that programs adhering to the standard may appear substantially more expensive, which could negatively influence prospective students’ perceptions and decision-making. Meanwhile, programs that underreport or omit these costs may appear more affordable, despite having similar actual expenses.

Is there an opportunity for stronger oversight, clearer guidance, or a notification to all programs to ensure more consistent reporting? Ensuring uniformity would support transparency, fairness, and comparability across institutions.

2. Clinical rotation schedule including area of practice

3. Results of evaluation demonstrating students can meet program defines LOs with assigned to SCPS with preceptor

Is the third element only about the vetting process for preceptors and clinical sites? Or, are student outcomes (e.g., preceptor eval of the student, exam scores, etc.) a part of the evaluation? Thank you.

Admins and faculty have discussed guaranteeing them an interview slot during our next interview cycle (if they are not accepted into another program). This is the first discussion of this kind that I know of. Does A3.12a apply to holding/guaranteeing an interview slot in these two scenarios?

We are working on the ARC-PA application. Can you instruct us on how to find the NCCPA ID link specific to each preceptor to complete the A2 Preceptor license attachment? The NCCPA link is general and does not change when we pull up different preceptors.

Thank you!

RE: terms "program-defined competenices" and "program learning outcomes." We are asking if “program defined competencies” are the same as Program Learning outcomes?

Also, in B3.06, does the term "program learning outcomes" mean course or SCPE learning outcomes?

B3.06 Preceptors for supervised clinical practice experiences enable students to meet program-defined learning outcomes for: a) family medicine b) emergency medicine, including emergent care c) internal medicine, including elderly patients d) surgery, including pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative care e) pediatrics, including care for infants, children, and adolescents f) women’s health, including prenatal and gynecologic care g) behavioral and mental health care.

Thank you!

With the qualitative data, is ARC looking for just categorizing "Strengths or Positive comments" and "Weaknesses/negative comments" or specific wording of the comments.  For example  -"11 total comments, one theme noted of a strength/positive"  OR -"11 total comments, one strength/positive theme "instructor organized".

We use B4.03 as our program competencies, meaning we list competencies a–e directly rather than in narrative sentence form. However, we have mapped our Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) to these competencies.

For example, PLO 1 states:
Develop a medical knowledge foundation that includes anatomy, etiology, pharmacology, pathophysiology, genetics, clinical presentation, and treatment of common illnesses, injuries, and disease states.
This PLO is mapped to CRPS and Medical Knowledge (MK).

In the B4.03 Template Sample Excel Document, can we list our Program Learning Outcomes in the column labeled “Program-Defined Competency”?

Additionally, in the template, the first column lists the competencies, and under Clinical Skills, the word “Example” is bolded. Since our program uses B4.03 competencies, are we required to include examples, or is it acceptable to list only the competencies (a–e) without examples?

Thank you.

Additionally, would it be acceptable to list each facility separately so we can accurately indicate distance from the program, even though there is only one affiliation agreement covering the system?

What data point did the program choose to utilize for this data set?

EXAMPLE: Average of Questions 1-5 on the student's evaluation of each course.

and

What is the title of the evaluation tool/survey?

EXAMPLE: "End of course evaluation survey" completed by students

to other data templates such as Didactic Instr Evals, Preceptor Evals, and Clinical Site Evals?

I guess the over arching question is how much freedom do we have to adjust these templates? I understand that we can add rows but how about my proposal of adding content from one template to the others to make them more user friendly from our program?

Also, in the didactic year we give them some time off- a week at spring break, a week in the summer, and ten days at Christmas. Even though this does not span the entire month, should we still put a "V" during these months on the table?

Lastly, is there a danger that we could give too much/too little time off with what we have listed, or is this more about transparency with students and the ARC?

Also, if we do an exit survey and a graduate survey (1 year after graduation) can we add the graduate survey to the exit survey template or doe sthat have to be one of the extra data sheets? Thanks!

2. It is my understanding that performing an EKG is a technical skill, but the interpretation is a clinical skill. Is that correct?

Thank you!

I don't see any tabs labeled DC. Should I make a duplicate tab for each tab and label it DC1 and the topic for each (e.g. FTE data main and FTE data DC1)? If our faculty, medical director and program director conduct the program and teach at both campuses, do we need to split out their FTE for the main campus and distant campus? Do we need to split out the data for the other tabs as well? Thank you!

Can you clarify if all programs must use this exact wording on our surveys (aka required by ARC) or are these examples of what may be used on each program's required surveys? Thank you.

For an initial provisional SV material prep, do we need to create files for the D standards?

We are a program that made a number of operational changes in order to come into compliance with the 5th edition of the standards, before, and during accreditation probation.

The program's attrition critical analysis finds that some of these operational changes are associated with the increased attrition.

In presenting this analysis in the report, the program is hesitant to not follow the specific form directions by including a timeline of operational/data driven changes and other explanation that it finds relevant to why these changes were made, and how the assessment system now evaluates their impact.

Would the commission accept a notation in the analysis section that points to an appendix timeline? The program knows the history, but is trying to assist the ARC-PA reader in seeing the overall picture of why it believes attrition occurred.

In addition, is it acceptable to the commission that the program not identify areas in need of improvement, but operational changes, because according to the program's assessment process, areas in need of improvement need multiple data sets showing a problem?

Thank you.

2. Can we use the same technical skill for more than one rotation? i.e. general surgery and a surgical specialty or surgical elective using scrubbing/gowning/gloving?

3. For technical skills in a pediatrics rotation, does it need to be achieved for each subset of ages - infants, children, and adolescents?

4. Similarly, do we need to demonstrate across the lifespan for technical skills so have one that specifies geriatric patient (so all of 3.05a-f needs across the lifespan)?

5. Can the remediation plan for technical skills not attained or competence level not achieved during the clinical rotation be to have designated faculty check offs on campus at the end of every 3rd rotation for example?

6. Would a pap smear (as opposed to just pelvic exam) be considered a technical skill? Is wound care considered a technical skill?

Does the ARC-PA want specific examples of previous times that the program identified and corrected preceptors who did not consistently enable outcomes? If there are no specific examples, should the program describe what they would do if they identified an issue?

This same question could be asked for mapping an overall score for a program summative OSCE to several different competencies since it assesses several program competencies within it.

Our newly created program competencies also align with B4.03a-e domains, but the list of activities is more succinct and align with our summative exam. We plan on keeping both GLOs and PCs. Is this problematic?

Also, if we map the new PCs to our GLOs (which are already mapped to our courses), is this sufficient, or do your recommend that we map our new PCs directly to our courses/course outcomes?

Hi!

If a student requests to decelerate in the first year (Class of 2025) and restart the program, so that they start at the same time as the next cohort (Class of 2026), and go on to graduate is that attrition for the Class of 2025 or delayed graduation? Thank you!

1. For Title or Program Role, does the ARC-PA only want Principal Faculty? Or should we list all titles? i.e. Assistant Professor/Principal Faculty, Assistant Program Director/Principal Faculty?

2. When indicating who is "responsible" for each task, does that assume ultimate responsibility or any involvement. For example, our principal faculty are all involved in (h) evaluating the program through review/discussion of the Assesssment Committee findings and annual surveys, but they are not solely responsible for this.

We explored whether there might be an opportunity for the student to see some general adult patients with another preceptor, but unfortunately, that is not an option. Our current learning outcomes specify exposure to both adult and geriatric patients, as most students typically encounter both during their IM rotations.

In this case, the student would not have exposure to general adult patients during this rotation. While we are extremely confident that she will meet all required adult visits and diagnoses over the course of her clinical year, her final evaluation for this rotation would not include assessment of adult patient encounters.

This raises a few questions for us:

• Would the absence of general adult patients during this IM rotation necessitate remediation specific to adult patient exposure?

• Alternatively, should we consider modifying the learning outcomes for this rotation to remove the adult patient requirement? While this would address the assessment issue for this student, it may disadvantage other students who do have exposure to both populations.

• Is there flexibility to recognize a strong, high-quality rotation that focuses on a specific patient population, with the understanding that any gaps in exposure will be addressed in other rotations—or, if needed, remediated at the end of the clinical year?

Programs applying for Initial Provisional accreditation are expected to demonstrate that they have established sufficient, appropriate, and vetted clinical sites and preceptors to support their proposed curriculum and requested maximum class size. The Commission’s review at the time of Initial Provisional is based on evidence that the program is prepared to implement its clinical education component as proposed, not on plans or projections alone.

At the time of the Initial Provisional review, the program must provide evidence of executed affiliation agreements for clinical sites in accordance with Standard A1.01. In addition, the program must demonstrate that it has secured an adequate number of clinical placements at each site to accommodate the requested maximum class size, consistent with Standard B3.01a-d. This includes documentation that clearly shows how the total number of placements across sites is sufficient to support all required supervised clinical practice experiences....(continued in comments below...)

Current Example: LO-->Develop a plan of care in the acute care setting utilizing medical knowledge, technical skills, clinical reasoning, and problem-solving abilities.

Corresponding IO-->Demonstrate technical skills (when appropriate and possible): foreign body/cerumen removal (eye, ear, or wound)

We are trying to streamline our SCPE learning outcomes. Would a SCPE learning outcome that states, "Perform patient evaluations, establish differential diagnoses, and implement management plans for adult emergent and acute presentations in the emergency department," be acceptable as long as the learning objectives describe the patient evaluation more specifically?

Sample of Learning objectives:

·         Identify and apply knowledge of etiology, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, diagnostic testing, treatment plans, and patient education for PAEA EOR Emergency Medicine topics.

·         Utilize clinical skills to obtain a problem-focused medical history with emphasis on adult patients with emergent and acute conditions in an emergency medicine setting.

·         Conduct a focused physical examination with emphasis on adult patients with emergent and acute conditions in an emergency medicine setting

·         Perform common emergency medicine technical skills appropriate to the student's level of training under preceptor supervision (wound care, splinting, ECG acquisition, intravenous access, and point-of-care procedures)

Thank you!

Do SCPE learning outcomes have to use the competency terminology like “clinical skills explicitly”? Can we write outcomes as performance statements, then map them internally to competencies?

Thank you!

For example:

LO: Develop a plan of care in the emergency setting utilizing medical knowledge, technical skills, clinical reasoning, and problem-solving abilities.

Corresponding IO: Demonstrate technical skills (when appropriate and possible): local anesthetic, sterile technique/aseptic technique, and wound closure (sutures, staples, or wound adhesive)

We have a statement listed below our Learning Outcomes section, and I'm wondering whether listing the competencies helps demonstrate that the outcomes are being assessed, or if this wording is unnecessary.

"This rotation directly assesses clinical skills, technical skills, clinical reasoning and problem-solving abilities, interpersonal skills, communication, and professional behaviors. Medical knowledge is applied in the clinical setting and evaluated through complementary assessment methods like the PAEA End-of-Rotation Emergency Medicine Exam."

Thank you!

1) divide the instructor effectiveness survey data onto the main and distant campus tabs by the instructors' primary campus (e.g. put the instructor evaluation scores on the tab of the campus where they have the majority of their FTE)?

2) divide the survey data by the location of the students (those on the main campus and those on the distant campus)

Are you looking for the split in one of these ways or something else? Thank you.

Ex. As an assistant professor, I have a full FTE. Part of the responsibilites include Director of Didactic, but I don't have a %FTE dedicated specifically to those responsibilities. Should I list Assistant Professor at 100% and Director of Didactic at 0?

OR, since I don't have an "appointment letter" for Director of Didactic, should that be listed below in Non-Academic positions?

In reading A3.01, it says "signed clinical affiliation agreement or memorandum of understanding may specify that certain program policies will be superseded by those at the clinical site". Given the word "may", it seems like it's okay that our short form agreements are silent on this. Is this accurate?

1. B1.03f - topic list:

Our program has a table with columns as follows: Column 1: Topic list, Column 2: Session date, Column 3: Instructional objectives, Column 4: mapped Learning Outcomes, etc.

Column 1 (topic list) has things listed like "Pre-operative and post-operative care and complications of the surgical patient" and the next row is "fluids and electrolytes", etc. That can be tracked across (the row) to identify the associated IOs and LOs. Is this what is meant by a topic list and is this sufficient to meet the standard (I can also provide a screenshot if that's needed)?

...cont. in comments below...

The learning outcome states "By the end of the Pediatrics SCPE, the student is able to perform one technical skill."

The instructional objective states "Perform one procedure as per the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) Form which requires a signature of a licensed clinician to validate competency".

Then the assessment is the DOPS form which lists a variety of procedures that students may encounter on that rotation. Among the variety of procedures, the DOPS form would also remind students that there are 5 specific procedures that may be tested in the Summative Evaluation. These 5 procedures are the ones that the students have received hands-on instruction in the didactic phase, and they must also perform by the end of the clinical phase (via DOPS) but not limited to a specific SCPE.

Thank you.

Do elective rotations require a Learning Outcome that specifies an particular technical skill to be performed? Or can we say, perform a technical skill appropriate to the elective? (we have several different type of electives that are all addressed under a general elective syllabus) Or can we not have any outcome for technical skills in the electives? Does the requirement for technical skills refer collectively to all the SCPE's?

If students are not able to perform the designated procedure on one rotation, is it acceptable if they do it on the another rotation (SCPE) even if that is not the same type of SCPE? (Example: LO = "By the end of Pediatrics, the student must perform an injection." They don't, but they perform an injection in Family Medicine - not necessarily on a child)

Looking at the updated data analysis resource document, this could be good secondary data however the program does not want to just look at this data when the rest of the data is equivocal or concerning, we want to look at it as part of our primary process.

Specifically, for the sixth standard, should any supplemental information be submitted as appendices, and if so, is this typically organized as a separate appendix folder?

Thank you!

We have read the definitions on the resources manuals and in the glossary. We see a lot of variation in how PA programs are writing these on their websites.

The question is about terminal program competencies vs. terminal program learning outcomes. Struggling on the execution of writing them as distinct entities.

The following example as written is an excerpt. (question continued in the comments...)

This Padlet is extremely helpful - thank you for all of your time in responding to so many questions.

Thank you!

If not, are there other primary source resources - appears it requires $40 per verification on the Verification of Certification - AANPCB

site.

Thank you.

Before continuing with our analysis, I wanted to get clarification if we can pilot this change for the upcoming admissions cycle.  If so, we would put a notice on our website to advertise the pilot, to include a timeline in which a permanent decision will be made. 

No change has been made; I am just inquiring to see if this action would fall within the accreditation expectations for this standard.  Thank you.

We have informed institutional leadership that a program name has already been submitted to ARC-PA and approved. Could you please clarify whether a program name change is permissible at this stage of development, and if so, what process or mechanism the program should follow to formally request or update this information with ARC-PA?

When completing the SCPE tab in the ARC-PA portal, we are asked to report student capacity per site. Given this structure, it is unclear how capacity should be logged.

For reporting purposes, should capacity be entered as:

• 5 students per rotation block for each site involved in the placement, even though students are only present for 2–5 days at a given site; or

• a prorated, site-specific capacity across locations that totals 5 students per rotation block.

Thanks in advance!

1.0 FTE Principal Faculty (PF). a PA-C

0.5 FTE PF, a PA-C

0.5 FTE PF, a physician

1. Would this trigger a removal from the Agenda due to non-compliance with D1.01c?

   
   

   The hiring plan in the program's application includes that the additional 0.5 FTE PF that must be in place prior to the site visit would be at least a 0.5 FTE PF PA-C, if not a 1.0 PA-C.

Thank you.

Are we required to do something else?

Thank you.

TY