CPRC News - CAAHEP



[pic]CPRC News [pic]

A Cytotechnology Programs Review Committee Publication for Cytotechnology Programs

July 2007

[pic]

Did you know?……

• The Registration Brochure for the 55th ASC Annual Scientific Meeting in Houston, Texas November 2-6, 2007 has gone to press and will be in circulation by mid/late July. The Program Faculty Seminar (PFS) is on Friday, November 2nd, and has a full agenda for educators; additional details of the PFS are within this newsletter.

• ASC Foundation Cytotechnologist Scholarship is now available for 2007. Many of you have had exceptional graduates who qualify for this scholarship that provides funding for five individuals to attend the ASC Annual Scientific Meeting. Applicants must be ASC members, possess ASCP certification or the equivalent certification if practicing outside the United States, and have no more than two years practice in the field of Cytopathology. If you know of deserving individuals, please encourage them to apply for this scholarship; applications are available on the ASC Web site under ASC Foundation and can be submitted until September 14, 2007.

• CAAHEP Updates:

• CAAHEP Logo Use: If your CAAHEP-accredited program or sponsoring institution would like to include the CAAHEP logo in publications related to your Cytotechnology Program, CAAHEP policy allows you to do so now. The detailed policy and a downloadable logo are available on the CAAHEP Web site under Program Directors.

• NEW Request for Accreditation Services Form: A significant number of Programs are about to begin the Continuing Accreditation process and use the new electronic Self-Study Report. CAAHEP has also moved to an electronic Application that can be found on their Web site under Program Directors. This new form can be completed in one of three ways, as specified on the web site.

• CPRC Activities Updates:

• Electronic Self-Study Report – the final edits of the e-SSR have been sent to CAAHEP, with the expectation to go “live” within the next couple weeks. For those of you patiently awaiting this new format to begin the Continuing Accreditation process, you will receive specific information regarding the form and its use in the new future. For all, in this issue of the CPRC News is a detailed description of the new Excel document.

• 2007 Annual Surveys – All Surveys have been submitted, and the CPRC is in the process of evaluating them to ensure outcomes and resources assessments have been completed by Programs, as required in the Standards. The Committee will review them at their August conference call.

• The CPRC would like to clarify Standard II. Program Goals A. Program Goals and Outcomes.

“There must be a written statement of the program’s goals and learning domains consistent with and responsive to the demonstrated needs and expectations of the various communities of interest served by the education program.”

At minimum, the following statement of program goals and learning domains should be used:

“To prepare competent entry-level cytotechnologists in the cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (behavior) learning domains.”

This statement, which can be expanded upon and specified to your Program’s needs, should be included in the Self-Study Report, as well as in Program materials such as brochures, student handbooks and on the Program’s website.

Additionally, programs must regularly assess their goals and learning domains, as per the Standards. Program personnel must identify and respond to changes in the needs and/or expectations of its communities of interest. The CPRC will monitor programs’ assessment of their goals and learning domains in future Annual Surveys.

• Assessment of Resources - Programs are reminded that resources assessments must be performed at least annually, as per the Standards. Programs are welcome to use the “Resources Assessment” surveys available for download on the CPRC web page (), which was designed by the CPRC a few years back. Two versions of the survey are available for both students and faculty to assess program resources. The 2007 Annual Survey contained a section for Programs to summarize the results of its resources assessment.

``````````````````````````````````````````

A Few Words of Follow-up from the CPRC Chair…..

Kalyani Naik, M.S., SCT(ASCP)

It will come as no surprise, I’m sure. A lot has been going on with the CPRC as you will see from this issue of the CPRC News…despite the lazy days of summer! As we inform you of what’s new, we also wanted to take this opportunity to follow up on a few things we have told you about previously.

In the last issue of the CPRC News, we told you about CAAHEP’s commitment to emergency preparedness (EP) and its initiative to encourage their Committees on Accreditation (CoAs) to include EP language into their Standards. One of the options that CAAHEP considered was to add language into the new Standards template that would specifically incorporate emergency preparedness into the curriculum.

Ultimately, the new template, approved by the CAAHEP Board of Directors at their April 2007 meeting, includes EP language as a guideline rather than as a Standard:

C. Curriculum

The curriculum must ensure the achievement of program goals and learning domains. Instruction must be an appropriate sequence of classroom, laboratory, and clinical activities. Instruction must be based on clearly written course syllabi that include course description, course objectives, methods of evaluation, topic outline, and competencies required for graduation.

(Note to CoAs: Specify curriculum content (discipline topics, general education, etc) as standards and/or guidelines, or a companion document readily accessible to the communities of interest. CAAHEP is committed to the inclusion of emergency preparedness (EP) content in the curriculum as appropriate to the profession and encourages CoAs to include appropriate EP content as standards and/or guidelines, or in the companion document.)

Though the new Standards template does not mandate EP, the CPRC believes that the potential role of EP within Cytotechnology curricula warrants thorough evaluation. Towards that end, EP will be the main focus of the CPRC discussion at this year’s Program Faculty Seminar. With the generous support of the ASC and CAAHEP, we have invited Dr. Ralph Shealy, Project Co-Director of the South Carolina Area Health Education Consortium Disaster Preparedness & Response Training Network, to give a presentation on the role that allied health professionals can play in an emergency response. I’m sure you will be surprised to find that it is more than you might think, even for cytotechnologists! The presentation will be followed by open discussion and an opportunity for questions and answers. The goals for the session are: to increase awareness of EP and the role that allied health professionals may play; to determine to what extent EP should be included as an entry-level competency for cytotechnologists; and to begin the process of getting input from our communities of interest with regards to the issue.

You may be wondering, with the above reference to the new Standards template, what else has changed in the template and how it is going to impact our current Standards. You may remember that the CPRC shared the proposed changes with Programs in early 2007 when CAAHEP was soliciting input from all communities of interest:

• II.A. Program Goals – Program Goals and Outcomes: In the previous template, reference to “nationally accepted standards of roles and functions” as a community of interest that must be represented on advisory committees was confusing to many programs. The new template clarifies the intention of the Standards that goals and learning domains must be compatible with these national standards roles and functions as well as with the Sponsor’s mission and expectations of programs’ communities of interest.

• III.C. Resources – Curriculum: As explained above, the proposal to include EP language as a Standard was not accepted by the Board of Directors, but it was included as a guideline, still reflecting CAAHEP’s commitment to EP.

• V.A. Fair Practices – Publications and Disclosures: The proposal to include language that would require programs to “maintain, and provide upon request, current and consistent information about student/graduate achievement that includes the results of one or more of the outcomes assessments required in these Standards” was accepted.

For those that may be interested in reviewing the above changes and the few other minor changes that were also implemented, the template in its entirety is available by contacting Lori Schroeder at schroeder@. The new template will not affect us during the next Standards review process, which is due to begin in 2008-2009. At that time, we will need to transition to the new template and include all of the new language into our Standards. Of course, you will be a major part of this review process.

Finally, in the last issue the CPRC News, we presented our need to consider increasing site visit fees from $1,300 to $2,000 and the CPRC Annual Accreditation Fee from $650 to $850. The issue was very difficult, but after giving full consideration and seeing very little feedback from Programs, the CPRC formally requested the increase from the ASC Executive Board. Both increases were approved to take effect for the fiscal year 2008-09 (7/1/08 – 6/30/09). As a reminder, the increase in the accreditation fee will impact all Programs, while the site visit fee will impact Programs only when they have a site visit. To avoid drastic increases in the future, the CPRC will also implement standard increases on a routine schedule, which will be worked out and communicated to Programs shortly. We do not take the increase in fees lightly, but it is critical to the CPRC’s ability to continue to provide the best service possible to Programs. As always, our door remains open…we invite you to share your ideas and/or concerns on how we can better assist you.

``````````````````````````````````````````

Program Faculty Seminar, November 2, 2007

Marty Boesenberg, SCT(ASCP), Program Faculty Seminar Co-Director

Director, Mercy School of Cytotechnology

Des Moines, Iowa

The 2007 Program Faculty Seminar (PFS) continues to look to the future of the profession but also concentrates on improving our Cytotechnology and Cytopathology Programs right now. The combined morning session focuses on techniques to enhance training effectiveness with presentations on Cultivating Professionalism from Barbara Frain, M.S., CT(ASCP) and Janie Roberson, SCT(ASCP). Sue Zaleski, M.A., SCT(ASCP) and I offer some very practical techniques for Conflict Resolution to use with students and co-workers. Marilee Means, Ph.D., SCT(ASCP) shares her ideas on How to Enhance Teaching Effectiveness. Indra Balachandran, Ph.D., SCT(ASCP)CFIAC and Joe Walker, Jr., SCT(ASCP)CM help us understand the concept of Curriculum Mapping and how it assists in assuring that Programs adequately address all subject matters required by accreditation agencies, licensing agencies and our sponsoring institutions.

There are separate afternoon sessions with the Cytotechnologists educators hearing updates about the activities of the ASCP Board of Governors and Board of Registry, CAAHEP, and the Cytotechnologist Program Review Committee (CPRC). The CPRC plans to focus on Emergency Preparedness curriculum requirements and has invited an expert on the topic, Ralph Shealy, M.D. FACEP, to share his thoughts. The rest of the afternoon is devoted to a panel of educators, Jill Caudill M. Ed., SCT(ASCP)CM, Sue Stowell, M.A., SCT(ASCP)CMIAC, and Don Simpson, Ph.D., MPH, CT(ASCP)CM, who provide information about Cytotechnology Programs Working Together: None of Us ‘R’ as Smart as All of Us. Attendees have the opportunity to break into small groups to share their talents and resources and work on making some of the ideas come to life.

The Cytopathology Residents’ and Fellows’ educators plan to concentrate on updates from the American Board of Pathology and RRC regulation and Program Information Form (PIF) document completion, along with training program areas that have been most frequently cited as deficient and how to improve.

When the two groups rejoin, three experts offer their predictions on the future for the profession and what cytology educators can do to help their students (and programs) remain viable. James Linder, M.D., Ronald Luff, M.D., MPH, and Norman Pressman, Ph.D. examine why we need to ask ourselves Are We Syphilologists? It should be a fascinating experience!

The PFS is open to cytotechnologist and cytopathologist educators and others who are interested in cytology education. This course is an excellent opportunity for all cytotechnology educators to maintain “working knowledge of educational theory or practice” as noted in the 2004 Standards and Guidelines for the Accreditation of Educational Programs in Cytotechnology.

``````````````````````````````````````````

SCENE Meeting Summary

Sue Stowell, M.S., SCT(ASCP)

Director, Cytotechnology Program

SUNY Upstate Medical Center

Syracuse, New York

The Society of Cytotechnology Educators of the Northeast (SCENE) Meeting was held at the Albany College of Pharmacy on June 2, 2007. Highlights from the Meeting include:

– A summary of the International Academy of Cytology Meeting held in Vancouver Canada on May 12-15, 2007.

– An update on the status of the proposal for a new professional designation in this country, which is still under investigation.

– A discussion on outcomes-based assessment, led by Jean Taylor. She offered resources pertinent to expanding outcomes-based assessment beyond what is currently required by the Standards and the specific outcomes programs are currently required to monitor. The basis of outcomes-assessment should be the Program’s stated mission and goals. It was also suggested that outcomes, criteria and comparisons must be defined and discussed publicly.

– A discussion regarding the problem of assessing professionalism in clinical experiences, specifically the problems of defining indicators and thresholds, making objective measurements, and designing a follow-up plan. A suggestion was made to expand this discussion as a round-table discussion topic at the next PFS.

– A demonstration of the new Excel-based electronic Self-Study Report (e-SSR), by Maria Friedlander of the CPRC. Cathy Vetter, Cytotechnology Program Director at Stony Brook University whose program served as a demonstration site, recently completed the Self-Study Report in both formats and shared her experience with the form. She claimed that the new program is much easier to complete than the old format. Fewer required narrative responses, drop-down boxes and having certain types of information (demographic info, name, address, etc.) automatically copied to other locations asking for the same information, should cut down on the time needed to complete the report. While many required appendix exhibits will be the same, electronic submission of appendices is being encouraged and will save on copying and paper.

– A discussion on molecular training focused on how programs could better prepare students for the ASCP Molecular Pathology exam. Suggestions were offered to, at a minimum, inform students of the exam and direct them to appropriate training programs, such as the one offered by the CDC, who can provide interested parties with more comprehensive and appropriate training, after completion of the cytotechnology program.

– A discussion on how programs can better share resources, specifically cytology images. Jean Taylor suggested a web site – hot potatoes , which supports the development of exam questions in many different formats including multiple choice with images. There is a small licensing fee but it might be a possible place for multiple programs to share test questions and cytology images with each other.

– Indra Balachandran reminded attendees that she is continuing to prepare her Cytology Boot Camp Registry Review course using Blackboard. When complete, more students can potentially participate, as the course will be offered on-line.

``````````````````````````````````````````

Cytopathology Lectures Online – An Online Resource for Cytology

Professionals and Students

Donna K. Russell, M.S., CT(ASCP)HT, CPRC Member

University of Rochester Medical Center

Rochester, New York

FREE Online Lectures – Did you say FREE? Now that I have your attention please access this Web site – urmc.rochester.edu/path/cytolab

Click on the side menu – Online Resources.

Currently there are two lectures listed under Cytopathology Online Lectures.

The first lecture is a presentation entitled “Gynecologic Cytology Review I: Cervical Squamous Lesions” and presented by Thomas A. Bonfiglio, M.D. The lecture runs approximately 60 minutes in length.

The second lecture is “Histochemical and Immunocytochemical Methods and Their Aid in the Interpretation of Cytologic Specimens” presented by Charles Churukian, B.A., HTL(ASCP) and Donna K. Russell, M.S., CT(ASCP)HT. This lecture consists of a review of special stains including microwave techniques with illustrative cases.

A third lecture by visiting Professor Mark Stoler, M.D. on HPV will be online soon.

Other planned lectures include Gynecologic Cytology Review: Glandular Lesions, Bone and Soft Tissue Lesions, Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided FNAs, Gynecologic Self Assessment and Body Cavity Fluids.

If you are having difficulties reviewing the Online lectures, please review the FAQs below. If you are still having problems please contact Cheryl Breitenbuecher (Cheryl_Breitenbuecher@urmc.rochester.edu) or Leslie Antinarella (Leslie_Antinarella@urmc.rochester.edu).

Q: What are the system requirements for viewing Mediasite presentations?

• Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 2003 or Macintosh OS X,

• Display resolution of 800 x 600 pixels or greater

• Windows-compatible sound card

• Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1.

• Windows Media Player 9.0

• Broadband Internet connection (256 Kbps & above)

Q: Can Mediasite presentations be viewed on the Mac?

A: In order to view from a Mac, Windows Media Player (version 9) must be installed and one of the following browsers must be available: IE, Safari, or Firefox.

Q: Flip4Mac plug-in for QuickTime causes Mediasite presentations not to work.

A: Installing the Flip4Mac Windows Media component for QuickTime on the Mac OS prevents Mediasite presentations from working in the Firefox, Netscape and Safari browsers. In order to resolve this issue, when installing the Flip4Mac software, select the "do not install the plug-in" option. If the plug-in is already installed, it can be disabled in the Flip4Mac system preferences.

Q: The Mediasite page appears, but the screens are blank and/or the video /audio does not play.

A: Firewall Issue: If you are accessing Mediasite from a hospital based computer, the firewalls in your hospital IT system may be blocking your access to this program. Please check with your IT department first. If there is still an issue, contact us.

A: Pop-up Blockers: If you're using pop-up blocker, configure it to allow site pop-ups. If you aren't sure how to do this, contact your IT department. After you have made this change, you may need to click on "View" and then select "Refresh" from your browser' toolbar.

Q: Why don't I see any video in the video window?

A: You may not have the current version of Windows Media Player installed.

Q: What should I do if I don't have the correct version of Windows Media Player?

A: To install the latest version of Windows Media Player, go to the Windows Media download site.

Q: The presentation started in the middle and I can't go back to the beginning.

A: If you log into a recorded presentation, you can move backwards and forwards within the content.

Q: Is CME Credit for physicians available for viewing these presentations?

A: Physician CME Credit is currently not available.

``````````````````````````````````````````

An Informal Survey of Faculty to Student Ratios

in Accredited Cytotechnology Programs

Linda Hoechst, M.A., SCT(ASCP)CM, (IAC)

Director, Cytotechnology Program

Saint Louis University, Doisy College of Health Sciences

Saint Louis, Missouri

On February 28, 2007, I posted a question to the members of the CTPrograms@lists. listserv. The question I posted was, “What is the ratio of students to faculty for your Program?” I am not implying that this survey is statistically robust, statistically significant, reliable, or valid as these checks have not been performed on the question or the data. I was just conducting an informal survey.

Of the 42 accredited Cytotechnology Programs, (this number is minus the three Programs closing this year and the one inactive Program), I received 25 responses for a return rate of 59.5%. Drawing conclusions from the data received, so that I could report it as I promised the respondents, was no easy task. The first thing I did was change the ratio question from “student to faculty” to “faculty to student,” as this is how this ratio is usually presented. Using the numbers the respondents submitted, there was quite a range of ratios, spanning 1:1 to 1:7.

The graph in Figure 1, comparing the reported number of faculty to reported current student enrollment, shows the following. With n = 25, there was one Program with one faculty member for every one student, four Programs with one faculty member for every two students, six Programs with one faculty for every three students, nine Programs with one faculty member for every four students, three Programs with one faculty member for every five students, one Program with one faculty for every six students, and one Program with one faculty member for every seven students. The graph shows a bell-shaped curve, with the most Programs falling in the 1:4 ratio.

[pic]

I thought it might be interesting to see how the ratios fell comparing reported faculty to the accredited student capacity for each Program. The graph in Figure 2, comparing reported faculty to student capacity (taken from the CAAHEP and CPRC list of accredited Cytotechnology Programs as of May 10, 2007), shows the following. There were two outliers in the data showing one Program with one faculty member for every twelve students and one

Program with one faculty member for every twenty-four students. This data does not appear in the graph. With n = 23, there were no Programs with one faculty member for every one student, two Programs with one faculty member for every two students, four Programs with one faculty member for every three students, eight Programs with one faculty member for every four students, five Programs with one faculty member for every five students, two Programs with one faculty member for every six students, one Program with one faculty member for every seven students, and one Program with one faculty member for every eight students. The graph again shows a bell-shaped curve, with the most Programs falling in the 1:4 ratio matching the ratio in Figure 1.

[pic]

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the ratios in Figure 1 to the ratios in Figure 2. The graph shows the most like comparison in the 1:4 ratio. Once again the graph shows a bell-shaped curve, with most Programs falling in the 1:4 ratio matching the ratios found in Figures 1 and 2. There appears to be a similarity between the ratios for reported faculty to reported current student enrollment and the ratios for reported faculty with published student capacity.

[pic]

Many of the responses contained additional information in the form of comments. Commonalities in these responses revealed that all 25 Programs get some help, in varying amounts, from Pathologists (including fellows and residents), Cytotechnologists in their affiliated laboratories, and prep staff in those laboratories. This help is mainly in the form of lectures to or instruction (including clinical instruction) of the students.

Respondents also commented on the difficulty determining the faculty to student ratio due to help from people not designated as faculty and those contributing limited amounts of assistance. It was obvious that all the responding Programs rely on the kindness and commitment to education of their colleagues and, as one Program Director commented, quoting her mentor, Carole Williams, a “cast of thousands.”

Another common theme in the responses focused on not having time during the day to do the administrative work the Program requires and that the Program Directors put in time beyond regular work hours. There were thirteen respondents who reported having only a Program Director who also performed as the Education Coordinator.

From the responses that I received, I’ve found that I am not alone. All Programs struggle with having the appropriate numbers and skill mix of faculty (either official or unofficial). Since our Programs tend to be small and require much on-on-one teaching, it is difficult for us to remain fiscally viable. The Programs that have recently closed quoted that insufficient revenues versus expenses were at least partially responsible for these Programs closing. This is another issue I would like to explore, as no Program is immune from cost of operation. There may be ways we, as Program faculty along with practicing cytotechnologists, could explore how to bring more revenue into our Programs, but that’s a project for another time.

I would like to express my gratitude to all Program faculty who responded to my survey. Thank you for taking time out of your busy days to provide information for my survey.

``````````````````````````````````````````````

Comparison of Student Textbook Purchases 2007

Donald Schnitzler, CT (ASCP)

Director, Cytotechnology Program

Marshfield Clinic

Marshfield, Wisconsin

Many of you may remember the communication on the Cytotechnologist Educators List Serve from a month ago regarding text books used by Programs and comments regarding students’ opinions or availability. The resulting graph is a comprehensive listing of textbooks each Cytotechnology Program will require students to purchase for the 2007-08 Program year. When pertinent, references are noted under the cost for books.

To preserve the graph formatting, it has been emailed to you as “CPRC News July 2007 Attachment 1.”

``````````````````````````````````````````````

Coming Soon! - The New Electronic Self-Study Report Form

Maria A. Friedlander M.P.A., CT(ASCP)

CPRC Vice-Chair

With support and encouragement from the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP), the CPRC has slowly transitioned to electronic forms, in an effort to continuously improve and streamline the outcomes-based accreditation review process. In 2004, the CPRC began with the Annual Data Survey, providing programs with an easy way to monitor and calculate 3-year averages for required outcomes. Following its successful implementation, the CPRC, in 2005, converted to an electronic Site Visit Report or On-Site Survey Report (OSSR) to replace the former, written report. The OSSR has been touted as another user-friendly document that streamlines the accreditation process.

In the next few weeks, the CPRC plans to implement the new electronic Self-Study Report form (e-SSR). The report was unveiled at the 2006 Program Faculty Seminar (PFS) and replaces the extensive, written format that has been utilized in the past. Like the other electronic forms, the new e-SSR report is Excel-based. It was originally designed by a representative of the Medical Assistant Committee on Accreditation (CoA). With support and assistance from CAAHEP, the CPRC has modified the report for Cytotechnology Program Accreditation.

While intimidating at first glance, the workbook is easy to maneuver and understand once the user plays around with it. The new format streamlines program assessment by incorporating many familiar forms and required documents into one user-friendly, detailed file. You will notice that there is considerably less narrative required in the new report. The document is organized into 20 colored tabs, each corresponding to a particular section of the document.

Tab 1 - Instructions

[pic]

The Instructions tab identifies the content of each tab in the file. There are tabs containing questions specific to each Standard I through V, a Summary tab to outline program strengths and weaknesses and tabs corresponding to specific information that supplements responses provided in each Standard tab. Many of these forms will be familiar and are similar to those required in the written self-study report. The Instructions tab also provides an explanation of the color-coded boxes seen throughout the file. Essentially, programs are required to answer green and yellow free-text boxes and blue drop-down boxes, as appropriate.

Tab 2 – CAAHEP Request for Accreditation Form

[pic]

The CAAHEP Request for Accreditation Form is an electronic version of a familiar form, required when programs request initial or continuing accreditation, as well as transfer of sponsorship.

Tab 3 - General Information

[pic]

Program demographic information is requested in the General Information tab. An advantage of the electronic format is that users will not be required to re-type demographic data when called for in other tabs.

Tab 4-8 - Standards I through V

[pic]

Tabs entitled Standard I, II, III, IV and V contain “Yes/No” questions and free-text questions pertinent to each element of the Standard. For convenience, the particular Standard that each question refers to is provided in Column A in aqua boxes. Simply placing the cursor on the identified Standard will reveal a pop-up box containing the actual text of the relevant Standard. Text of Guidelines is similarly provided as pop-up boxes, when relevant.

Tab 9 - Summary

[pic]

In the Summary tab, Programs have an opportunity to share their Program strengths and concerns as a result of the self-study process.

Tabs F-1 through F-11 – Required Forms

There are many tabs corresponding to additional forms that supplement program responses provided in each of the Standard tabs. Each tab pre-fixed with an “F” indicates a specific form. Tabs F-1 and F-2 need to be completed by those programs that operate as consortiums or with satellite programs.

Tab F-3 – Program Director Vitae

[pic]

Tabs F-3 through F-6 are abbreviated curriculum vitae forms for program faculty and instructional staff to document credentials and qualifications, as outlined in the Standards. Program officials serving in dual capacities (Program Director = Education Coordinator) are only required to complete one tab. In tab F-6, multiple copies of the vitae form are available for key faculty members and instructional staff to complete. The additional forms can be accessed by moving the scroll bar towards the right.

Tab F-7 – Faculty/Personnel Responsibilities

[pic]

Tab F-7 is a familiar form that was required in the previous written self-study report. The form outlines program faculty/staff and their responsibilities in the program. Programs are required to list key professional and clerical personnel and estimate the percentage of time dedicated to program activities.

Tab F-8 – Curriculum and Sequencing

[pic]

Tabs F-8 and F-9 are additional familiar forms also previously required. F-8 Curriculum and Sequencing tab is intended to present a synopsis of program courses, including where in the curriculum entry-level competencies are met and when the course is offered in the program.

Tab F-9 – Methods and Student Evaluation Form

[pic]

Tab F-9 requires programs to summarize the frequency of student assessments and identify the evaluation methods utilized.

Tab F-10 – Resources Assessment

[pic]

Tab F-10 Resources Assessment is similar to the resources assessment section found in the 2007 Annual Survey. It allows programs to summarize the findings from program’s resources assessment, as required at least annually in the Standards. When concerns are identified via a “red-box” response, programs are further instructed by the file (in columns E through H) to respond to additional questions relevant to analysis of the identified concern, any program changes implemented to address the issue and follow-up.

Tab F-11 – Outcomes Assessment

[pic]

The final tab, F-11 Outcomes Assessment allows programs to summarize findings of program’s outcomes assessment for the past three years. Similar to the resources assessment tab, when outcome thresholds have not been met (as indicated by a “red-box” response), programs are further instructed by the file (in columns E through H) to respond to additional questions relevant to analysis of the issue, any program changes implemented and follow-up.

While comprehensive, the e-SSR still requires the submission of appendices. A list of required exhibits is found in the “Instructions” tab (by scrolling down) as well as in each Standard tab, as a list in the final rows of the each section.

Tab 1 – Instructions – List of Required Exhibits for Appendix

[pic]

Specific instructions are provided in organizing and labeling appendix items. Many items are similar to those required in the previous self-study written report. Programs are strongly encouraged to submit appendix documents electronically on a CD ROM, if possible. (i.e. Word or PDF documents, web addresses, etc.)

As previously required, Programs should also be prepared with on-site exhibits that will be reviewed by the site visit team during the site visit (i.e. completed resources assessment tools, completed graduate/employer surveys, student records, etc). While there is considerably less narrative and many more “yes/no” responses in the e-SSR, Programs should be prepared to substantiate responses provided in the e-SSR through supporting documentation, completed surveys, meeting minutes, etc.

Programs should be aware that the e-SSR is not intended to replace the “self-study process” – a formal process during which a Program critically examines its structure and substance, judges the Program’s overall effectiveness relative to its goals and learning domains, identifies specific strengths and deficiencies, and indicates a plan for necessary modifications and improvements. The self-study process should include an assessment of the extent to which the Program is in compliance with established accreditation Standards, appropriateness of program goals and learning domains to the demonstrated needs and expectations of the various communities of interest served by the Program, and the Program’s effectiveness in meeting set thresholds for established outcomes. The e-SSR is meant to document results of this self-study process

Last November at the PFS, the initial feedback on the e-SSR was quite positive. Prior to its final revision, the CPRC conducted a trial demonstration with two Programs and initial feedback was also favorable. The CPRC is encouraged that Programs may additionally find the report to be a useful tool as they continually monitor their program’s compliance with the Standards and as we move towards an era of outcomes-based assessment.

[pic]

This issue of the CPRC News is the most ambitious issue to date, and the CPRC thanks those who contributed. The next issue will be published prior to the ASC Annual Scientific Meeting, and the Committee encourages you to submit material for subsequent issues. As fellow educators and Program officials, your input and knowledge are invaluable. Perhaps there is some project that you have done with your students or unique aspect of your curriculum that you’d like to share with others. Also, conversations from the Cytotechnology Educators can evolve easily into an informative article for the News. Until then, if there is anything the CPRC can assist you with, please feel free to contact Debby MacIntyre at the ASC National Office.

Cytotechnology Programs Review Committee

Kalyani Naik, M.S., SCT(ASCP), Chair

Maria Friedlander, M.P.A., CT(ASCP), Vice Chair

Leigh Ann Cahill, B.S., CT(ASCP)

Stanley J. Radio, M.D.

Abdelmonem Elhosseiny, M.D.

Donna K. Russell, M.S., CT(ASCP)

Talaat Tadros, M.D.

Robert A. Goulart, M.D.

Nancy J. Smith, M.S., SCT(ASCP), ASC Commissioner to CAAHEP

Marilee M. Means, Ph.D., SCT(ASCP), Alternate ASC Commissioner to

CAAHEP

Deborah A. MacIntyre, Coordinator, CPRC

American Society of Cytopathology

400 West 9th Street, Suite 201

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

(302) 429-8802

Fax: (302) 429-8807

dmacintyre@

A Committee on Accreditation of [pic]

[pic]

Have a safe and enjoyable summer![pic][pic][pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download