Support for PharmD Roles - Comments (Based on n = 39 comments)

What worked well

• Assessment and exam administration capacity (assessment team, exam support, educational technology and library services) was repeatedly praised for responsiveness and practical help.
• Administrative and student‑affairs support (Associate Dean, program administration, student services) was frequently described as accessible and helpful to coordinators and instructors.
• Admissions processes and curriculum oversight and coordination (curriculum committee, course review structures) were seen as strengths that support program quality.

What could be improved

• Establish a formal, program‑wide remediation/progression model and clearer supports for struggling students (continuity across didactic and experiential components).
• Increase sustained staffing and TA/resourcing (including exam/Canvas maintenance, assessment item writing, and coverage during leaves) to reduce unsustainable workloads.
• Address experiential‑learning safety, inclusion, and consistent responses to student reports of unprofessional or discriminatory behaviour; improve curriculum integration and transparent decision‑making.

Group priorities

Academic Teaching Staff

• Top priority: implement a consistent, program‑level remediation/progression model and ongoing supports for struggling students (matches their lowest rated area: identifying and supporting struggling students — 64%).

Academic Faculty

• Top priority: strengthen program support/resources and administrative responsiveness for teaching and assessment (aligns with one of their lowest rated areas: program support/resources — 64%; note faculty comments also raise concerns about student services and leadership responsiveness).

Consistency check (vs. ratings)

• Mismatch: Overall ratings are high for curriculum oversight (All Staff 96%; Academic Faculty 91%), yet several comments raise concerns about curriculum integration and distrust of external curriculum changes.
• Mismatch: Program support and student services are rated positively overall (All Staff program support 85%, student services 80%) but Academic Faculty report substantially lower satisfaction (program support 64%, student services 62%) and raise governance/responsiveness issues in comments.
• Alignment: Academic Teaching Staff comments calling for better remediation align with their relatively low rating on identifying/supporting struggling students (64%), so qualitative concerns reflect the quantitative gap for that group.