“Revised Entry‐level Competencies that Reflect Expectations of Cytotechnologists Entering the Workplace Today”
Donald Schnitzler, BS, CT(ASCP)
Chairperson, CPRC
Pre‐webinar Question
The Curriculum in Cytotechnology presents a profile of skills that the newly graduated/entry‐
level cytotechnologist possesses. • True
• False
Pre‐webinar Question
Entry‐level competencies should reflect only the current expectations of cytotechnologists in the workplace. • True • False
Pre‐webinar Question
How often should “The Curriculum in Cytotechnology for Entry‐level Competencies”
be reviewed? A.
B.
C.
D.
Every year
Every two years
Every five years
Every ten years
Pre‐webinar Question
After approval of the revised entry‐level competencies, programs should anticipate incorporating revisions into their curricula:
A. As necessary resources become available on campus
B. Consistent with a CPRC implementation schedule
C. Immediately upon sponsor endorsement D. Within one year of the approval date
Objectives
•
Identify revisions and additions in the proposed draft of “The Curriculum in Cytotechnology for Entry‐level Competencies” and after reviewing the draft document Provide feedback to the CPRC through an online survey.
•
Describe the planned timeline of review, revision, endorsement and final approval of the new entry‐level competencies.
•
Explain and Support the charges of a new multi‐organizational sponsored committee created specifically to identify resources needed by programs to implement revisions of the entry‐level competencies into program curricula.
•
Explain the relationship between availability of educational resources supporting integration of the new entry‐level competencies and the CPRC implementation plan.
Purpose of Entry‐level Competencies
“…establish the minimum competencies that new cytotechnology graduates must be able to demonstrate upon entering the profession”
• Serve as guide to curriculum development or modification in cytotechnology programs
• Standard for accreditation/reaccreditation of educational programs
• Inform public and employers of practice expectations of entry‐level cytotechnologists
CPRC Review of Competencies
• The CPRC reviews the entry‐level competencies at minimum every two years
• The CPRC, surveys Communities of Interest every five years
– sooner if deemed necessary to determine what revisions, if any, need to be made
Recent Review of Competencies
Colorado Convention Center
Denver, Colorado
2009 •
Review and Revision of the “Standards and Guidelines for the Accreditation of Educational Programs in Cytotechnology”
2010
•
June – Proposed final Standards revisions
•
September – Approved by CAAHEP Standards Committee
•
November – Review of Entry‐level Competencies
2011
•
May – Survey Communities of Interest regarding Competencies
•
June – Final Proposed Draft prepared of Competencies
2012
•
July/August – Additional Feedback
•
November – Solicited additional Information during ASC Strategies Session
ASC Strategies in Cytology Education CPRC will revisit Entry‐level Competencies for the Cytotechnologist
Reflective of the current expectations
Move competencies towards future models of practice as described in the ASC White Paper
Revisions will be shared with Communities of Interest for their critique and comments
Sponsor support will help overcome obstacles and move the profession toward a more modern curriculum
CPRC Review Revisions – “New” Competency Polling
Based on your experience, rate the importance of an entry‐level cytotechnologist being able to “review the patient’s medical records and gather relevant clinical information” before making an interpretation of the cellular specimen.
[ 1 ] Strongly Disagree (not important)
[ 2 ] Somewhat Disagree
[ 3 ] Neutral
[ 4 ] Somewhat Agree
[ 5 ] Strongly Agree (very important)
Revisions – New Competencies
Polling Based on your experience, rate the importance of an entry‐level cytotechnologist being able “to perform on‐site adequacy assessment of FNA specimens and communicate results of this assessment.”
[ 1 ] Strongly Disagree (not important)
[ 2 ] Somewhat Disagree
[ 3 ] Neutral; or Service not provided by my/our laboratory
[ 4 ] Somewhat Agree
[ 5 ] Strongly Agree (very important) Revisions – New Competencies
Revisions – New Competency
Polling Based on your experience, rate the importance of an entry‐level cytotechnologist being able “to refer FNA cytology specimens for further work up following cytologic screening (to include when appropriate‐special stains, IHC, molecular analysis).”
[ 1 ] Strongly Disagree (not important)
[ 2 ] Somewhat Disagree
[ 3 ] Neutral; or Service not provided by my/our laboratory
[ 4 ] Somewhat Agree
[ 5 ] Strongly Agree (very important)
Revisions – Enhanced Competency
Category 1
Theory, Principles and Indications
Revisions – Enhanced Competency
Category 2
Theory, Principles, Indications, and Technical aspects and troubleshooting
Revisions – Section Name Changes
Proposed Competencies Revision
At the end of this presentation,
The proposed draft revisions of
“The Curriculum in Cytotechnology for
Entry‐level Competencies” will be
sent to you as part of the post‐webinar survey
Competencies Approval Process
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Share with COI
Review/Reconsider
Endorsement
March – April 2013
• Webinar Presentation
• Online Survey of Communities of Interest, open for 30 days.
May – June 2013
• CPRC Review Feedback of on‐
line survey
• CPRC prepares finalized draft of :The Curriculum in Cytotechnology for Entry‐level Competencies” • Submit finalized draft to CAAHEP Standards committee for their consideration • Stds. Committee feedback received
July 2013
• CPRC review completed
• Finalized Document shared with Sponsors for their endorsement
• Sponsor endorsement received
• Request CAAHEP open hearing
Step 4
CAAHEP Approval
August – October 2013 • CAAHEP Post document(s) on line for review
• Open hearing scheduled for September
• CAAHEP Board of Directors approval
Step 5
Implementation
November 2013 and on
• Announce the CAAHEP approval of competencies
• Coordinate an Implementation Plan with the Resource Committee based on the availability of resources to support approved revised entry‐level competencies.
Resource Committee Members
ASC:
• Marilee Means, PhD, SCT(ASCP)
• Shirley Greening, JDMS, JD, CFIAC
CAP:
• Amy Clayton, MD
• Leonard Bloom, MS, SCT(ASCP)
ASCP:
• M. Sue Zaleski, MS, SCT(ASCP)
• Keisha N. Brooks, MS, CT, MB(ASCP)
CPRC Liaisons:
• Robert.Goulart, MD
• Karen Nauschuetz, MD
• Nancy J. Smith, MS, SCT(ASCP)
ASCT:
• Sandra Giroux, MS, SCT(ASCP)CFIAC
• Sonya Griffin, MS, SCT(ASCP)
Resource Committee Charges
•
Identify possible gaps or obstacles programs may encounter implementing the newly
revised ELC.
•
Identify, solicit and evaluate existing resources programs might employ to
overcome these gaps and obstacles.
–
Can be any type of resources: simulations, workshops, webinars, subject experts, etc.
•
Facilitate creation or development of new resources programs might use to meet the
new ELC.
•
Develop and/or design innovative and creative avenues for delivery of
cytotechnology education.
•
Build bi‐directional collaboration and utilization of resources between programs.
•
Explore ways of archiving and providing resources in a usable format, with ongoing
maintenance.
•
Identify key components needed by the committee to accomplish these charges.
Resource Committee Process
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Organization
Gaps & Obstacles
Resources
Develop Resources
Implementation
March – April 2013
• Introduced during March Webinar Presentation
• Define committee structure & leadership
• Identify key dedicated staff assistance
• Collect feedback regarding gaps & obstacles from programs
May 2013
• Prioritize identified gaps & obstacles
• Identify individual member’s tasks based on those priorities
• Evaluate options for needed repository(ies)
• Consider development, maintenance and management costs of the repository site(s) to prepare budget June – July 2013
• Identify and solicit available resources to overcome gaps & obstacles from sponsors, vendors, programs, and other sources • Evaluate those resources for application by cytology programs
• Ongoing development of repository site August – October 2013 • Placement of first easily identified and evaluated resources in a central repository for program use.
• Facilitate develop‐
ment of additional resources needed by educational programs (include estimated dates of completion)
November 2013 • Provide program access to available resources • Pursue develop‐
ment of other or new resources.
• Share estimated dates of completion for work in progress
• With the CPRC coordinate an Implementation Plan for approved competencies
Implementation Schedule
Factors:
• These are proposed revisions – the implementation plan will be based on final revisions
• Directly linked to resource availability
• Anticipate that most resources will be made available during 2014
Your Role in the Process
• Feedback, Feedback and Feedback – Upcoming survey
– Review of final revision
– Final posting on the CAAHEP website
• Collaboration with Resource Committee – Programs identifying their Gaps & Obstacles
– Collaboration between programs by sharing resources
– Collaboration of others by providing access to needed resources
Opportunity
Steve Maraboli
“How would your life be different if…You didn’t allow yourself to be defined by your past? Let today be the day…You stop letting your history interfere with your destiny and awaken to the opportunity to release your greatest self.” Questions and Answers
http://www.maxim‐lis.com/images‐maxim‐lis/membership.jpg
Strategies in Cytology Education #1:
“The Next Steps Forward, Moving Our
Cytotechnology Training Programs Towards A
More Modern Practice Model”
Friday, November 8, 2013, 8:00 am – 10:00 am