“Outcomes-based Assessment in the
Cytotechnology Programs Review Process”
Bob Goulart and Don Simpson
for your CPRC
Cytotechnology Programs
Review Committee
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maria Friedlander, M.P.A., CT(ASCP), Chair
Robert A. Goulart, M.D., Vice Chair
Stanley J. Radio, M.D.
Abdelmonem Elhosseiny, M.D.
Donna K. Russell, M.S., CT(ASCP)
Talaat Tadros, M.D.
Donald Schnitzler, CT(ASCP)
Donald D. Simpson, Ph.D., M.P.H., CT(ASCP)CM
Nancy J. Smith, M.S., SCT(ASCP), ASC
Commissioner to CAAHEP
• Kalyani Naik, M.S., SCT(ASCP), Alternate
• Sondra Flemming, M.S., R.N., CAAHEP Liaison ASC
Commissioner to CAAHEP
• Deborah A. MacIntyre, Coordinator, CPRC
1
It is an unsettling time…
• CT Education & Workforce
• Financial instability
• Job “in”-security
2
Round Tables
Topics and Committee Members
•
Table I: Tell Me More About the Electronic Self-Study
and Site Visit!
•
Table II: How and Why Do I Have to Complete All Those
CPRC Forms and Surveys?
•
Table III: Outcomes Assessment – What Does it Mean
When My Program Doesn’t Meet the Thresholds?
•
Table IV: I Have My Advisory Committee Together, But
Now What?
•
Table V: What Do New Educators Need to Know About
Accreditation?
– Mary Ann Friedlander and Don Schnitzler
– Bob Goulart and Talaat Tadros
– Kalyani Naik and Don Simpson
– Donna Russell and Stan Radio
– Nancy Smith
Each Table
•
•
•
•
•
•
Updates
Standards
Process (Why and How)
Lessons learned
Suggestions
Examples
3
Handout
• Outlined discussion of pertinent topics
• Authored by each table’s respective
committee member(s)
• Useful reference
• But, better to respond directly to your
questions and concerns…
Today’s Session
Guidelines
• Join whichever table you wish
• Time for at least two rounds, but move
about as you so choose
• Ask questions
• Share your experiences
• Please offer your opinions, suggestions,
and feedback
• View and maneuver electronic forms
• Informative…to both you and the
committee members
4
We’re all pulling together here…
5
Please Pick and Join Your Table
•
Table I:
Tell Me More About the Electronic Self-Study and Site Visit!
– Mary Ann Friedlander and Don Schnitzler
•
Table II:
How and Why Do I Have to Complete All Those CPRC Forms and Surveys?
– Bob Goulart and Talaat Tadros
•
Table III:
Outcomes Assessment – What Does it Mean When My Program Doesn’t
Meet the Thresholds?
– Kalyani Naik and Don Simpson
•
Table IV:
I Have My Advisory Committee Together, But Now What?
– Donna Russell and Stan Radio
•
Table V:
What Do New Educators Need to Know About Accreditation?
– Nancy Smith
6
“Outcomes-based Assessment in the Cytotechnology Programs Review Process”
Bob Goulart and Don Simpson
This document was compiled by members of the Cytotechnology Programs
Review Committee (CPRC). The CPRC is composed of individuals dedicated to
the quality practice of cytopathology education. The membership of this group
serves in a variety of health care settings and strives to assure that the CPRC is
always accessible and responsive to the needs of cytotechnology programs.
Cytotechnology Programs Review Committtee:
Maria Friedlander, M.P.A., CT(ASCP), Chair
Robert A. Goulart, M.D., Vice Chair
Stanley J. Radio, M.D.
Abdelmonem Elhosseiny, M.D.
Donna K. Russell, M.S., CT(ASCP)
Talaat Tadros, M.D.
Donald Schnitzler, CT(ASCP)
Donald D. Simpson, Ph.D., M.P.H., CT(ASCP)CM
Nancy J. Smith, M.S., SCT(ASCP), ASC Commissioner to CAAHEP
Kalyani Naik, M.S., SCT(ASCP), Alternate
Sondra Flemming, M.S., R.N., CAAHEP Liaison ASC Commissioner to CAAHEP
Deborah A. MacIntyre, Coordinator, CPRC
Contact information:
American Society of Cytopathology
400 West 9th Street, Suite 201
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Phone: (302) 429-8802
Fax: (302) 429-8807
[email protected]
www.cytopathology.org
I. Tell Me More About the Electronic Self-Study and Site Visit!
Mary Ann Friedlander and Don Schnitzler
1. Why change the report?
o Streamline and standardize process of collecting information for accreditation
process.
o 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. Other CAAHEP CoAs use e-SSR template with language
modified as appropriate.
2. Differences between the old report and the new report
OLD
NEW
•
Bulky printed copy.
•
Electronic format in an Excel
spreadsheet.
•
•
Supporting documentation required
that samples or photocopies of existing
documents be included.
Citations appeared within narrative of
self-study report referencing page
numbers that directed reviewer to
specific reference in appendix making it
easy to locate each item of interest.
•
•
•
•
Supporting documentation is included
in the appendix.
Electronic formats as Word documents,
PDF files, or weblinks are similar in
amount and character to that requested
in the old SSR.
Each Standard tab includes a list of
required appendices relevant to the
specific standard.
With ease of electronic documentation,
programs may wish to submit more
material than required (i.e., an entire
policy manual for their university) to
assist CPRC in assessing overall
compliance. If so, programs should
create an index document that directs
reviewer specifically to each required
document within the appendix. For
example, “Employee Grievance Policy
is found in University Catalog, page
(specify).”
3. Self-study process vs. e-self-study report (eSSR)
o The 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.
o The self-study process should include:
2
a.
An assessment of the extent to which the program is in compliance
with established accreditation Standards.
b. The appropriateness of program goals and learning domains to the
demonstrated needs and expectations of the various communities of
interest served by the program.
c. The program’s effectiveness in meeting set thresholds for established
outcomes.
o The purpose of the e-SSR is to document results of this self-study process.
4. Review structure of the report (laptop demonstration of the e-report).
o The report is organized into twenty (20) colored tabs, each corresponding to a
particular section of the document.
o The instructions tab identifies the content of each tab in the file and
differences in color-coded boxes are seen throughout the file.
a. Green and yellow = free-text boxes.
b. Blue = drop-down boxes.
c. Placing the cursor over boxes with red corner triangles will reveal a
pop-up box with standard text.
o Five (5) tabs contain that are specific to each Standard I thru V.
o Eleven (11) tabs correspond to specific information that supplements
responses provided in each of the Standards tabs.
o Required appendices are a list of required exhibits found in the “Instructions”
tab as well as in each Standard tab, as a list in the final rows of the each
section.
a. It is preferable to submit in electronic format (i.e., on a CD-ROM) with
WORD, PDF or web addresses organized.
• Suggestion: create a table of contents or label folders and files
as listed in instructions.
5. Required on-site exhibits
o Programs should have on-site exhibits prepared that will be reviewed by the
site visit team during the site visit.
o Share on-site exhibit list – which is provided at time notification of reaccreditation period – along with other documents.
6. Preparation of site visit
o Programs should be prepared to substantiate responses provided in the eSSR through supporting DOCUMENTATION.
o Supporting documentation includes:
a. Completed surveys of graduates and employers.
b. Resources assessment tools.
c. Past advisory committee meeting minutes.
d. Student records.
e. Site visitors will review for consistency with data submitted in the annual
survey.
3
A list of additional points and questions pertaining to this topic has been created
for the purpose of additional discussion. The goal of this exchange is to get
things stimulated in your group while also addressing issues that programs are
actively struggling with.
Lessons learned to date:
− Submit a complete and organized self-study. Make sure every tab is
completed by scrolling down and out.
− Providing electronic documents and appendices are highly preferred.
− Programs should tag or annotate specific areas within appendix materials that
address each element of the Standards. This streamlines the review process
and makes it easier for both the self-study reviewer and site visitor.
− Use hyperlinks for web addresses.
− Specify page numbers to assist in locating the required elements within
program materials; brochures; course catalogs; student manual; and other
supporting documentation.
− Resources assessment tools and documentation that it was performed at
least annually should be available on-site for review by the site visitors.
− Completed graduate and employer surveys should be available for review by
the site visitors. Consistency of data provided in the annual surveys will be
assessed.
− A preliminary assessment of the e-SSR by educators suggested its potential
use as an on-going assessment tool for programs.
− If sending links that connect to “internet or intranet” sites, be aware that
access to those URLs may not work for individuals attempting to access them
from outside the institution. Some links require an employee login and
password which prevents the reviewers from accessing information.
− Reviewing the new eSSR and preparing the new eSSR, may require some
organizational skill at using Excel – for example, the need to have multiple
tabs within a document and review supporting documentation that may be in
other file formats when opened simultaneously.
− When submitting completed “samples” of documents utilized, documents
should be de-identified of personal information. Examples of personal
information include names; dates of birth; social security numbers; and school
identification numbers.
− When example copies of blank forms (i.e., clinical evaluation tools; resources
assessment tools; graduate and employer surveys) are requested, the
program should be prepared to share completed forms and records on-site
with site visitors. If the program utilizes other tools that summarize useful,
relevant data, programs may find it helpful to share such information to
expedite the review process.
4
II. How and Why Do I Have to Complete All Those CPRC Forms and Surveys?
Bob Goulart and Talaat Tadros
1. Questions and answers.
“It takes a significant amount of time to complete and submit these forms, and I’m
already too busy with my everyday teaching responsibilities.”
a) “Why do I have to do these?”
Trust that members of CAAHEP and the CPRC realize the time-constraints and
demands currently faced by program and medical directors, teaching faculty,
students, and employers alike.
They offer data and opinions from a number of different sources with different
and complimentary perspectives on your program (akin to a 360 degree review).
b) “What does the committee do with them?”
Know that all forms and surveys distributed by the CPRC for its use in fulfilling
the tasks involved in formulating its accreditation recommendations to CAAHEP
are certainly not “for not.”
Each committee member bears a significant responsibility for reviewing,
summarizing and presenting data for committee discussion and voting.
Nothing goes unread.
c) “Are they really of use to the committee?”
Rather they are put to practical and formal use by the committee (see specifics
for each form/survey in section 2).
They allow the CPRC to base its recommendations to CAAHEP on relatively
objective data, rather than solely on subjective rumor and hearsay.
d) “I’m investing the time and energy to complete them fully and correctly, rather
than as simply a quick-and-easy go through – does this really matter?”
They are a tool for open communication.
They are a tool to demonstrate the good work your program is doing every
day.
They are designed to be informative and self-reflective for each program in its
own internal assessment and review. This serves not only the individual program,
but also:
5
Allows the CPRC to see new and innovative ways of instructing and
fulfilling the standards, which with the program’s permission, can be
shared with colleague programs that are struggling or looking for
new ideas in these areas.
Allows for formal data collection and presentation that you may choose to
share with your sponsoring institution to strengthen your argument
for continued support.
e) Is there a better way?
The CPRC is always open to constructive suggestions and opinions on how the
committee can best due its charge, and receive the appropriate information from
the programs. Examples of feedback mechanisms include, but are not limited to:
a) Forums such as the PFS round-table meeting you are currently attending
and other CPRC-related workshops.
b) The majority of forms allow for free text feedback to the CPRC – these
areas are taken very seriously by the committee and discussed in formal
committee forums, such as conference calls or the committee meeting at
the ASC Annual Meeting.
c) The committee leadership and coordinator are available for direct (and
confidential as appropriate) feedback and discussion via phone call or email.
There are CPRC charges with flexibility in regards to the process, and other
areas with more specific guidelines (via CAAHEP) to which the committee is
more stringently held.
2. Bullet points of the specific forms and surveys.
I. Annual Data Survey:
•
•
•
•
•
.
Required documentation.
Mechanism to monitor:
Outcome results
Resources
Demographic information
Opportunity to share any other information the program deems as
pertinent.
Formally reviewed by two CPRC members individually.
Formal summary review by entire CPRC during conference call.
II. Graduate Survey:
•
CPRC-mandated.
•
Program may model its own similar survey but including all survey
information is required.
6
•
•
•
Aid to monitor the marketability and competitiveness of your graduates.
Information on strengths useful as positive feedback to affiliated institution
and future applicants to the program.
Information on relative weaknesses (areas of potential improvement)
useful to petition for additional funds/personnel/training equipment from
affiliated institution.
III. Employer Survey:
•
CPRC-mandated .
•
Program may model its own similar survey but including all survey
information is required.
•
Are you training entry-level cytotechnologists, who meet the needs and
expectations of potential employers?
•
Are there specific areas of weakness (or strength) that were evident in
your recent graduates?
•
Are there future unmet needs of employers they envision that have not
made their way into program curricula?
•
Information on strengths useful as positive feedback to affiliated institution.
•
Information on relative weaknesses (areas of potential improvement)
useful to petition for additional funds/personnel/training equipment from
affiliated institution.
IV. Faculty and Student Program Resources Assessment Surveys:
•
Not required.
•
Available for use to assess program resources and complete circular selfevaluation.
•
May reveal unanticipated needs, either in the opinion of the students,
faculty, or both.
•
Allows students and faculty to feel engaged and empowered in choosing
the direction of their respective program.
•
Add to identify need and request further monetary support and other
resources from your affiliated institution.
V. Post Site Visit Questionnaire:
•
Mechanism for CPRC site visitor evaluation that is focused on visitor
attitude; competence; working knowledge; objectivity; and overall
interaction.
•
Based solely on the perspective of the program(s).
•
Invitation to share ideas for improving the accreditation process.
•
Taken very seriously by the site visitors and the committee.
7
III. Outcomes Assessment –
What Does it Mean When My Program Doesn’t Meet the Thresholds?
Kalyani Naik and Don Simpson
1. What is an outcome and what is a threshold?
o Outcomes are the measure(s) by which a program’s effectiveness is
evaluated.
o There several outcomes that are listed in the Standards.
o These outcomes are mandatory for all programs.
o Programs may also identify additional outcomes, but these must be reported
to CPRC annually along with the mandatory outcomes.
o Thresholds are the specific minimum value that indicates acceptable
performance.
o Each outcome must have a threshold which must be met or exceeded in
order to be considered acceptable performance.
2. What are the current outcomes identified in the Standards and the
associated threshold levels?
Outcome
Student retention/graduation rate
Job (positive) placement
Registry pass rate
Graduate survey return rate
Employer survey return rate
Graduate survey satisfaction rate
Employer survey satisfaction rate
*Threshold
80%
75%
80%
50%
50%
80%
80%
*Thresholds are evaluated over three-year rolling averages.
IV.B.1. Student and Graduate Evaluation/Assessment: Outcomes
Assessment.
The program must periodically assess its effectiveness in achieving its stated
goals and learning domains. The results of this evaluation must be reflected in
the review and timely revision of the program.
Outcomes assessments include, but are not limited to: national credentialing
examination performance; program retention/attrition; graduate
satisfaction; employer satisfaction; job (positive) placement; screening
performance; and programmatic summative measures. The program must
meet the CPRC outcomes assessment thresholds.
Programmatic summative measures, if used, should contribute to assess
effectiveness in specific learning domains. “Positive Placement” means that the
graduate is employed full or part-time in a related field; and/or continuing his/her
education; and/or serving in the military.
8
3. How are these thresholds established?
o Thresholds were established with input from program faculty and other COI’s
using the Delphi technique conducted during a PFS.
o Thresholds are not set in stone. They can be re-evaluated as the profession
changes or other circumstances arise.
4. What do I do when my program doesn’t meet a threshold?
o Programs are required to assess and analyze their programs’ outcomes
annually.
o If a program doesn’t meet a particular threshold, the analysis should include
such questions as:
a. Was it just the one year, or is there a trend over several years?
b. Why did my program not meet the threshold? What were the
circumstances that led to my program not meeting the threshold and
were they beyond my control?
c. What measures can be implemented to improve the outcome and
how should they be implemented?
o Once the analysis is completed, a plan of action should be developed and
implemented, with reassessment and analysis in subsequent years.
5. What circumstances are considered “positive” job placement and how
should these individuals be counted with regards to graduate and
employer surveys?
o The Guidelines define “positive placement” as being employed full or parttime in a related field; and/or continuing his/her education; and/or serving in
the military.
o To reiterate: Programmatic summative measures, if used, should contribute to
assessing effectiveness in specific learning domains. “Positive Placement”
means that the graduate is employed full or part-time in a related field; and/or
continuing his/her education; and/or serving in the military.
o Related fields might include professions that utilize the knowledge base
and/or skills acquired in Cytotechnology training which would include . . . ?
o With regards to the graduate and employer surveys, these individuals should
or should not be counted . . . ?
6. What does the CPRC do when my program doesn’t meet a threshold?
o The CPRC reviews the analysis for each outcome in the annual survey and
asks similar questions to those above.
o The CPRC does NOT develop a plan of action, but rather looks for the plan of
action (if it is appropriate) in the analysis and then looks for follow up
information in subsequent years.
o If this information is not provided, the CPRC requests specific information
from the program and initiates a dialogue with the program.
9
A list of additional points and questions pertaining to this topic has been created
for the purpose of additional discussion. The goal of this exchange is to get
things stimulated in your group while also addressing issues that programs are
actively struggling with.
1. Why did the CPRC move to outcomes assessment based Standards? Are
there other alternatives or options?
a. CAAHEP began to transition to outcomes based Standards with a new
template in early 2000’s. CAAHEP requires all professions that are
accredited by CAAHEP to adopt this Standards template language when
they are due for the next Standards revision. Cytotechnology adopted the
new template in 2004. Maintaining CAAHEP accreditation assures the
utilization of these outcomes based Standards. Other options for
accreditation include the use of different accrediting organizations such as
NACCLS or creating our own accrediting body. Each of these options has
benefits and drawbacks.
2. Will the CPRC ever “do away” with the self studies?
o CAAHEP policies and procedures require a comprehensive review of
programs at least once every 10 years. The comprehensive review generally
includes some type of self study, though this is not specifically mandated.
3. What are the guidelines for filling program faculty vacancies? What does a
program do if a vacancy goes un-filled?
o The CPRC has developed guidelines for filling program faculty vacancies.
Generally, programs are provided ample time to fill vacancies and the CPRC
tries to work with programs that have developed a plan to “develop” an
individual that has been identified to fill the vacancy but does not meet every
qualification listed in the Standards.
10
IV. I Have My Advisory Committee Together, But Now What?
Donna Russell and Stan Radio
1. Your Advisory Board is made up of representatives of the following
communities of interest: students, graduates, faculty, sponsor
administration, employers, physicians and the public.
How do you chose who is your public representative(s)? Is it possible to have
more than one representative from the communities of interest?
o Your public representative can be anyone from the public sector.
o It is possible to have more than one representative from each of the
communities of interest representing the Advisory Board.
2. Members of the Advisory Board are chosen and you find there is an
institutional imbalance. How can this be avoided? How might this affect the
meeting? How would voting issues be handled? What impressions might
be inferred by the outside personnel coming to this meeting?
o An institutional imbalance can be avoided by selecting graduates,
employers, physicians and the public member from outside the institution.
o The meeting may be one-sided and voting could be unanimous whether
the vote was “yes” or “no”.
o Those members representing the outside sector may feel they have no
influence in the decision making process of the Advisory Board.
3. The Advisory Board meets annually and has been in place for the past
three years. Are there term limits to members of the Advisory Board? Who
sets the limits? How is it working? Should you meet more than annually?
o Term limits are your call. The Advisory Board sets the limits.
o The Advisory Board is required to at least meet annually to assist personnel in
formulating and revising goals and learning domains, monitoring needs and
expectations and ensuring program responsiveness to change, however they can
meet more frequently if so desired.
4. A few members of the Advisory Board consistently do not show up for
annual meetings. What do you do if members do not show up?
o Expectations of Advisory Board members should be distributed when members
agree to join the Board.
o Members should make all attempts to attend the annual meeting.
o If persistent absence occurs, a replacement should be found.
5. The Advisory Board meetings tend to get off course. How do you lead with
thought provoking issues? Would an agenda help from getting sidetracked?
o An agenda is the best way to stay on course.
o Stick to the issues at hand.
o Chose a leader to lead the Board and focus on the tasks at hand.
11
o If assignments are given make sure they are clear and save time for input from
all members of the Advisory Board.
6. At the Advisory Board meeting the Employer Survey showed a decrease in
professionalism competencies. How would a program encourage and
promote a higher level of professionalism?
o The program should address the expectations up front during orientation.
o Articles on professionalism, as well as textbooks could be included in the
curriculum.
o Some programs have instituted a “White Coat” ceremony to encouraged
professionalism.
7. The Cytology Program presented the graduate employment survey result
findings. The students were not finding positions in the state. Only one
position was available within the state. Two graduates had to relocate out
of state for cytology positions. Two additional cytotechnologists were
unable to find jobs in the field and were unemployed. How would you
assess the needs of those laboratories in the area? And those outside of
your area?
o The Midwest region has an Upper Midwest Regional Cytology Program Needs
Assessment Survey that demonstrates the needs of those laboratories in those
regions.
o Other geographic regions could produce similar surveys.
o Students should know up front that there is a possibility they would need to
relocate to become employed in the field of cytotechnology.
8. What interpersonal skills can be employed to assist in the focus on tasks at
hand of the Advisory Board?
o The Board members should be active listeners, have an open mind, provide
courteous responses, and interact with one another respectfully.
9. Do some of the same items show up on your Advisory Committee meeting
agenda? If so, what are they and why?
o Some items may consistently show up on the Advisory Committee meeting
agenda. They may deal with changes in the profession and how to best approach
them.
o Some items will be dealt with immediately and others may need additional
research before implementation.
10. What is the role of the Chair at the Advisory Committee meeting? Do you
alternate Chairs?
o The Chair is the Advisory Board leader.
o He/she should lead the Advisory Board with thought provoking ideas, follow the
agenda while focusing on the tasks of the Board, encourage input from all
members, and push for consensus on issues that need to be addressed.
12
11. How do you avoid the “yes” Advisory Board? Do you want conflict on the
Board? Should everyone always agree? What do you do in a situation if
consensus cannot be achieved?
o The “yes” Advisory Board can be avoided by proper representation from all
communities of interest and by engaging discussion on all agenda items.
o Conflict on the Board can be useful. Everyone will not always agree.
o If a consensus cannot be achieved, the agenda item may need tabled for a future
Advisory Board meeting.
13
V. What Do New Educators Need to Know About Accreditation?
Nancy Smith
1. What is the purpose and value of Accreditation?
o To assess the quality of institutions, programs and services, measuring them
against agreed-upon Standards and thereby assuring that they meet those
standards.
o Institutional accreditation – “assure potential students that a school is a sound
institution and has met certain minimum standards in terms of administration,
resources, faculty and facilities.”
o Programmatic accreditation – “examines specific programs/schools within an
institution. The standards by which these programs are measured have
generally been developed by the professionals involved in each discipline and
are intended to reflect what a person needs to need and be able to do to
function successfully within that profession.”
o Serves public interest. A tool intended to help assure the public that “quality
patient care is provided by competent, well-trained professionals.”
2. What is the role of the ASC, the CPRC and CAAHEP in the Accreditation
Process?
o ASC – sponsoring organization for the CoA – supports the accreditation
process, approves curriculum.
o CPRC – reviews self-study, conducts site visits, formulates an accreditation
recommendation for CAAHEP consideration and action (evaluates programs
for compliance with Standards).
o CAAHEP – is the accreditor and carries out the accreditation action
(programmatic, postsecondary accrediting agency recognized by the Council
for Higher Education Accreditation/CHEA).
3. What steps are involved in the Accreditation Process?
o Accreditation is a collaborating system between CAAHEP, the CoAs (CPRC)
and sponsoring organizations.
o Institution files application with CAAHEP requesting accreditation services,
signed by the CEO or designated individual with fiduciary authority. This form
authorizes CAAHEP to begin the accreditation process and to work with the
program. This request to begin the process is NOT an application. A program
is not considered to have applied until a completed self-study is submitted. A
program that is NOT currently CAAHEP accredited may not publicize in
any manner that it has applied for CAAHEP accreditation.
o The Request for Accreditation Services form should be completed and
submitted to the CPRC. The Committee on Accreditation will submit the
completed and signed Request for Accreditation Services Form to CAAHEP
as part of the final accreditation recommendation package.
o The CPRC provides guidance, procedures and policies and forms regarding
the accreditation process.
14
o The program conducts a self-evaluation and submits the Self-Study Report to
the CPRC.
o The CPRC evaluates the Self-Study Report to determine compliance with the
Standards and the readiness of the program to be site visited. (Two members
of the CPRC review the SSR).
o If major problems/issues exist in the Self-Study Report, clarification or further
documentation is requested prior to the site visit.
o Site visitors (cytotechnologist and pathologist) conduct a review of the
program. Completes a site visit report and submits to CPRC (no accreditation
action is recommended by site visitors).
o Site visit report submitted to program to provide an opportunity for comment
and or clarification or submission of additional information.
o CPRC makes an accreditation recommendation to CAAHEP based upon
review of the Self-Study Report, the Site Visit Report and other appropriate
information.
o CPRC forwards recommendation to CAAHEP for action. If the CPRC
recommends probation or accreditations withhold or withdraw, the program is
notified and offered an opportunity to request CPRC reconsideration.
o The CAAHEP Board of Directors reviews and votes on recommendations
from the CPRC.
o The institution and program are informed of the accreditation action taken by
the CAAHEP Board.
4. What is a Standard? What is a guideline?
o Standards are minimum requirements for accrediting educational programs.
Standards are adopted by the ASC and CAAHEP and are used by the CPRC,
the program personnel, site visitors and CAAHEP. Any requirement for which
a program is held accountable must be included in the Standards. Standards
are requirements therefore they are stated in imperative terms (auxiliary
verbs, i.e., shall, must, will). Standards are: qualitative not quantitative; board
applicable; non-restrictive; emphasize board consensus and designed for
quality, continuity and flexibility.
o Guidelines assist programs in complying with the Standards by providing
examples of how general statements in the Standards may be interpreted.
Guidelines are in italics with the Standards document.
5. How are Standards Used?
o Standards are used by all constituents involved in the accreditation process.
All CAAHEP Standards require a review by the CPRC every five years.
15
o Potential sponsor applicants to determine whether or not they have the
resources and commitment to develop an accredited program.
o Programs – for guidance in conducting their Self-Study and in writing the SelfStudy.
o Site Visitors – focus their review determining if the program is in compliance
with the Standards.
o CPRC & CAAHEP BoD – evaluating programs to determine appropriate
accreditation action.
6. What are the categories of Accreditation Awards?
o Initial Accreditation – 3-5 years. For programs seeking accreditation for the
first time. Program is in substantial compliance with the Standards.
o Continuing Accreditation – Program, following comprehensive review is found
to be in compliance with Standards. Time that next comprehensive review
may be up to 10 years.
o Probationary Accreditation – a temporary status of accreditations for
programs that are not currently in substantial compliance with the Standards
but are expected to be able to meet them within a specified time. Letter from
CAAHEP clearly indicates each deficiency found and provides a date that a
progress report is required. Currently enrolled students and/or applicants
must be informed of probationary status. Probationary Awards are final and
are not subject to appeal. Program continues to be accredited. Failure of
program to come into substantial compliance with Standards will result in
withdrawal of accreditation.
o Administrative Probationary Accreditation – failure of program to submit an
annual report or progress report and/or non-reporting of significant program
changes. Non-payment of fees may be place programs in this category.
Removed when program is in administrative compliance.
o Withholding Accreditation – for programs in initial or probationary
accreditation if not in substantial compliance.
o Withdrawing Accreditation – for programs under probationary and/or
administrative probationary accreditation; when after due process, the
program is found to not be in compliance with the Standards and all attempts
to remedy the deficiencies have failed.
Note: withholding and withdrawal actions are appealable. Students in the
program at the time of these actions are still considered as graduates from an
accredited program.
o Note: Accreditation Awards are continuous/continuing. The award is in effort
until the next action is recommended by the CPRC and acted upon by
CAAHEP Board of Directors.
Note: The above information is from the CAAHEP Accreditation Manual and
CAAHEP Policies & Procedures.
16
7. Where can you find Accreditation Information?
o ASC National Office – Debby MacIntyre
o CAAHEP Web site – www.caahep.org
Additional points and questions pertaining to this topic has been created for the
purpose of additional discussion. The goal of this exchange is to get things
stimulated in your group while also addressing issues that programs are actively
struggling with.
Should the ASC seek to be the accrediting agency for cytotechnology programs?
o Advantages associated with this scenario including gaining (or loosing)
independence and autonomy.
o Would this be more costly or save programs money?
o Disadvantages associated with this scenario including a lack of accountability
and liability issues.
o Separation between professional organization and accrediting agency
o Direct and indirect costs associated with this scenario.
o The gaining or loosing (or maintaining) of credibility this branding would have.
17
Program Data on Cytotechnology
School Closures: Fact & Fiction
Maria A. Friedlander M.P.A., CT(ASCP) CMIAC
Cytology Lab Manager, Program Director
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center - Cytology Service
School of Cytotechnology
NY, NY
Shirley Greening M.S., JD, CFIAC
Professor and Chair
Thomas Jefferson University
Jefferson College of Health Professions
Dept of Bioscience Technologies
Philadelphia, PA
Surveys
1. ASC Annual Program Data Survey - Section IV
•
41 Program Directors
2. Additional PFS survey to current and former
Program Directors
– 18/51 educators responded
•
•
•
Active programs (14)
Inactive/Closed programs (3)
Anonymous (1)
ASC PFS 2008
1
Program Closures
ASC PFS 2008
ASC Listserv
Sent: Tues, July 1, 2008 11:06am
Subject: Collapse of the U.S. Cytotechnology
Infrastructure: Exhibit #1- The Univ TennesseeMemphis Program
• …The school is part of the 30% of
remaining cytotechnology schools in the
country now slated for immediate
closure….
ASC PFS 2008
2
Seven Cytotechnology Education Programs “at
Risk”
October 16, 2008 (Volume 24, Number 21)
Seven of the 39 accredited cytotechnology
education programs in the U.S. have been
identified as “at risk” for closure, representing a
significant public health threat and underscoring
the need for additional program funding in the
wake of budgetary cutbacks…
2008 Annual Data Survey: Section IV
# CT programs being considered for
closure or inactivation within the next 1-3
years?
– 8/38 programs
Reasons provided:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Program/curriculum restructuring (3)
Have not found qualified PD candidate yet (3)
Closing for financial & administrative reasons
Student capacity will decrease
Currently inactive
Last class will graduate in 2009
ASC PFS 2008
3
PFS: Reasons for Program Closures
No ranking
1
2
Finances
2
9
1
Politics
2
1
2
Resources
1
Burn-out
1
Workforce
issues
2
3
4
5
12
2
7
2
1
3
3
6
TOTAL
1
5
9
ASC PFS 2008
If program is closed/will be closing near
term, was/is there anything program
could have done/wanted to do/was willing
to do/is doing to prevent this?
ASC PFS 2008
4
• Enhancement to MS program (3)
– raise “level” of program if program #s were to remain
small
• Pressure from administration (2)
– seek external funding in the form of grants or
research money to financially support program.
– Pressure to estimate high enrollment from year to
year
• Campaign by stakeholders (alumni, local
clinician/pathologists, clinical affiliates,
employers, lobbyists) to program administration
• Need to demonstrate need for CT graduates by
expanding scope of practice of CTs
• N/A (7)
If only…
ASC PFS 2008
How did/does your program lobby for/
justify program existence/continuation?
• Support from stakeholders (6)
– Lobbied pathology and laboratory
community (local hospitals & labs) for
support;
– Lobbied program administration (Dean,
Chancellor, University President)
– Lobby to State / State Allied Health
Board
– Fewer parties to lobby for program
support in hospital-based programs
ASC PFS 2008
5
Finances
ASC PFS 2008
Finances
• Revenue from tuition (4)
– DO NOT cover expenses
• State funded (2)
• Hospital/clinic-funded (4)
• Must maintain revenue neutral status to remain
open (1)
• Dean supports “unique” programs that are not
taught at community colleges (1)
• Not in jeopardy but this would be the reason (3)
ASC PFS 2008
6
Workforce Issues
ASC PFS 2008
Are cytotechnologist job
opportunities growing or declining?
Thomas in New
York, New York
8 months ago
James in New
York, New York
2 months ago
• …field is definitely on the decline as far as jobs and
growth in the northeast region. Opportunities only lie
in the private labs and not in hospitals.. Also with
the FDA approved Gardasil and automated
screening machines, demand and salary will drop
for new cytotechnologists…
• … Opportunities are few and exists only in the big
private labs…demand seems to be in Histology,
medical technology… if you subscribe to the
Advance…cytology positions are almost
nonexistent.
ASC PFS 2008
7
Section IV Data Summary
• There were more job opportunities for graduates of
our CT program this year than in the previous year
– YES – 10/38 programs
– NO – 28 programs
• 36% programs report same # job opportunities
• 2007 Graduates and employment (38 programs)
– 163 graduates found employment in CT jobs
– 24 graduates not employed
– 11 back to school / military service
• Other interests pursued:
–
–
–
–
2 microbiology
2 cytogenetics
1 medical technology
1 research
ASC PFS 2008
Workforce Issues
• Local, regional job saturation (7 = 39%)
– competition with laid off CTs in local area
– competition with other CT programs in region
• Local, regional reduced applicant pool (4)
– poor recruitment for cytology as a profession
• Availability of clinical practice sites (3)
– Lack of “good” clinical sites
– closure of hospital labs as clinical sites
– competition for clinical sites with other CT program in area
• More qualified applicants than the # that
program can accept (1)
ASC PFS 2008
8
YES
NO
14
3
Was/is your enrollment
driven/measured/benchmarked by/to
local/regional/national workforce trends?
2
14
Did/do lab testing trends match/confirm with
# enrollees/ graduates?
9
8
3
14
Did / do employer needs match/conform with
# of enrollees/ graduates?
– Saturated market = declining enrollment
(eg: imaging pre-screening; HPV vaccine and/or
molecular testing)
Was/is enrollment driven/measured/
benchmarked by/to lab testing trends?
ASC PFS 2008
Steven in, New
York
2 months ago
Mary in
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
2 months ago
Are cytotechnologist job opportunities
growing or declining?
• … The educational coordinators of Cytology
programs should be hooked up to lie detectors
when they tell anyone that jobs are plentiful and
the field is growing. I guess they have to say
this so that they can keep their cushiony jobs at
these programs.
• …schools are more concerned with filling
spaces and collecting tuition than telling
students the truth. Their only goal is to stay
open so they can keep their jobs.
ASC PFS 2008
9
Are cytotechnologist job opportunities
growing or declining?
Kynda in Argyle,
Texas
2 months ago
• …I feel badly for those like you that have been
"lured" into this field with false hopes that there
was great chances of a career and finding local
employment. …schools should be very careful
about what they tell prospective students
because it can be financially devastating… they
are only keeping their jobs in place by keeping
the school open and they have to get students
to come to the school, so they are not telling
them the whole truth when prospective students
are applying. It appears fraudulent.
ASC PFS 2008
What do you tell program applicants
about the changes affecting our
profession?
• Job situation (7)
– job market
– anticipated shortages due to retirement & program
closures
– need to relocate
– CTs obtaining employment in other areas of interest
• Technological advances (9)
– automation / computer-assisted screening / molecular
trend
• Encourage further education in:
– molecular coursework; encourage certification (7)
– graduate school in management or education (2)
ASC PFS 2008
10
• Many changes in CT profession (2)
− Changing/decreasing pap test volume (2)
− More Non-GYN screening (1)
− HPV testing (2)
• Other factors:
–
−
−
−
HPV vaccines (4)
Litigation (1)
Trends in State Licensure (1)
Limitations in upward mobility (1)
ASC PFS 2008
• Program will teach them all they need to
know for current CT practice (5)
– but program’s main objective is to train
students how to challenge themselves to
acquire new skills (lifelong learning)
– emphasis is on development of strong
morphology skills which will serve them well in
many areas of the laboratory
– Should be prepared for any challenging
changes within the science of cancer that may
affect their chosen profession.
– emphasize change in “how CTs may practice”
vs “decreased need for CTs”
ASC PFS 2008
11
What do program graduates tell you
about job prospects, employment
situations, career prospects??
• Overall satisfaction with job prospectus
and employment situation (11)
– Increasingly difficult to find employment within
geographical region;
– Take first offer to get experience, then find
“dream” job
– Forward potential job openings to program for
future students due to impending retirement of
senior CTs working
ASC PFS 2008
• Dissatisfaction by graduates unwilling to relocate
and unable to find F/T work in local area (2)
– graduates who could not find local jobs are worried about
having a job in the future
– Students always wish there more hospital lab job
opportunities (2)
– Worry about long-term job advancement
• 10% move on to other allied health programs
after graduation (PA / Molecular) (2)
• Students don’t seem to be worried about the field
and are also looking into other opportunities if
they do not get a job in a traditional cytology lab
setting
ASC PFS 2008
12
Are cytotechnologist job opportunities
growing or declining?
Timothy in East
Elmhurst, New
York
4 months ago
Mary in
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
2 months ago
• …Why in the world is Cytology schools still in
existence? …I totally do not recommend
anyone to spend money on a useless degree
such as Cytology..
• Cytology is dying out due to advanced
molecular techniques and vaccines. These are
the wave of the future. In school, we were
subjected to numerous seminars trying to
evaluate the "future of Cytology“ (if any).
ASC PFS 2008
Are cytotechnologist job opportunities
growing or declining?
Sam in
Columbus,
Indiana
5 months ago
…The cytotech educators need to get their act
together and teach more than one marketable
skill. I think cross training in histology would be
a good idea. There are many histotech jobs
out there with few quality people to fill them. It
would make graduates much more valuble and
at least give them a few other options for work
(research, mohs dr offices etc). Histotech
salary will probably catch up and surpass
cytotech salary before too long.
ASC PFS 2008
13
2008 Annual Data Survey: Section IV
• Programs planning curriculum revision(s) to include
incorporation of additional knowledge or skill sets:
– NO : 10 programs
– YES: 30 programs
Molecular Diagnostics
15
Histology
4
Thin Prep Imager Training
1
Lab Management / QA / QC
1
Emergency Management
1
Addition of on-line classes
2
Potential program expansion / longer CT program
6
Changes to meet state licensure requirements
1
ASC PFS 2008
What concrete plans do you have for
revising/restructuring your program?
• Increasing curricular emphasis to include
molecular testing (2)
• Enhancement to Masters Program (6)
– Expansion to 2 year program
– Two track Masters program (new & experienced CTs)
– Multidisciplinary MS program (2)
(combining Cyto/Molec Path/ Path Assistant / Anatomic
Pathology skill sets)
• Proposed HTL/CT training (core curriculum
developed) (1)
• Submission of enrollment plan/ projections/metrics (4)
– change in program sponsorship; contract specified program
growth must be shown within three year time-frame; PD trying to
justify to Dean unique nature of small CT programs
• Strong recruitment and retention efforts
– Need to demonstrate need for graduates
ASC PFS 2008
14
Programs with revisions in place
on/before Fall 2007 (7)
• New degrees (2)
• New courses (8)
–
–
–
–
–
–
Molecular pathology/diagnostics
Histology
intro to Pathology
Translational research
Cellular biochemistry
Molecular biology
• New/expanded training / certification (3)
– MP (2)
– Junior 2+2 Cyto option
• Summer learning module
– present introductory material prior to commencement of
classes; creates more time for screening and molecular.
ASC PFS 2008
Process of Program Revision
• Proposal Submission
• Time-line: 9 mos - 2 yrs; avg 1 year
• Approval process
– Departmental review
• may be prioritization process with other departments/programs (?critical
need)
– Multiple committee reviews
– Key individuals within university/institution
•
•
•
•
•
•
State Education Department
Departmental chair
Committee(s) reviews
Dean / President / Provost
State
CAAHEP
• Time/effort
• Acquisition of technology/supplies
• Changes in recruitment process
ASC PFS 2008
15
If program has/will be revised to "multitrain" students, how are/will you assure
that program faculty have sufficient
skills/knowledge to teach/educate in/for
these disciplines?
• Hire competent faculty to teach (4)
• Additional training of current faculty (3)
– Encourage faculty to sit-in on other faculty
courses
• Use existing faculty/resources that exists
within university/hospital/clinical affiliates
(6)
ASC PFS 2008
Programs’ Wish List?
• Addition of molecular courses (9)
– Fully equipped/stocked molecular laboratory for “hands-on”
experience (6)
– Addition of molecular diagnostics curriculum
– Molecular Pathology “Certificate” Program
• Enhance to graduate program (3)
– Include more detailed FNA cytology, molecular diagnostics,
management, research, interpretation of basic histology slides
– Enhancement of program to 5 year (3-pre-req +2-cyto) program
• Multidisciplinary programs (3)
– Modular program composed of different discipline modules;
number of modules completed would determine degree awarded
– Develop core curriculum for CT/MT/HTL and enable students to
obtain multiple certifications
– Multidisciplinary training program focused on Anatomic Pathology
ASC PFS 2008
16
Programs’ Wish List…(cont.)
• Resources
− Time / lengthen program
− Didactic material on-line to expand actual
hands-on practice
− Ability to teach grossing, basic histologic
techniques, flow cytometry, etc.
− Hire additional faculty
• Appeal to public about crisis regarding
cancer screening services in state with
recent closures of programs that support
this endeavor; inform them of work of CTs
so public officials can put pressure on
state to fund educational programs that
support these professionals.
ASC PFS 2008
Politics
Burnout
ASC PFS 2008
17
Politics
• Institutional (5)
– Small program within a larger dept that includes other allied
health programs
– Program must meet institutional metrics one of which is geared
towards supporting “graduate” rather than “undergraduate”
education
– Univ discontinuing certificate programs; supporting degree
granting programs only
• Personal / intra-departmental/intra-laboratory (2)
– Personality issues of key/ influential individuals
– Competition for limited resources with larger programs.
• Outside Walls of Program (1)
– Certificate program must convert to degree granting program as
required per state licensure regulations
ASC PFS 2008
Burnout
• Cytotechnologists (3)
– Less support from clinical sites
• Do not want to be bothered with “ students”
anymore
• Poor attitude of CTs at clinical sites who
communicate to students “why do you want to be a
CT? Don’t you know this profession is
dead/dying?”
– No support for single, primary faculty member of
program
• Pathologists (1)
– Are they aware of current situation with CT training
programs?
ASC PFS 2008
18
Change…
ASC PFS 2008
How responsive / unresponsive
would other allied health
disciplines/programs in your institution/
region be in "joining forces" to develop
new programs or otherwise stabilize your
cytotech program?
ASC PFS 2008
19
Responsive to joint program (7)
CLS:
• Joined forces with other clinical lab science disciplines
(cytogenetics, CLS, molecular gentics) to offer junior
curriculum; all faculty co-teach junior classes (3)
• Recognition of commonalities with other lab-based
education programs (potential to share resources) (1)
Radiologic Sciences:
• Program involved in “very preliminary” discussion for
“Diagnostic Technologies” curriculum (combine some
aspects of radiologic sciences with pieces of cyto and/or
MT)
• Doctoral program based on Radiologic and Lab Science
Bodies of Knowledge
ASC PFS 2008
NOT responsive to joint program (5)
• Anticipate “turf” wars for students as is current
practice
• Resistance from Pathology Assistants programs
but perhaps cooperation from Molecular
programs
• Not convinced it would work due to level of
specialization required for each discipline
(cytotechnologists / histotechnologists / PA /
Radiologic Sciences and Pharmacy Technicians)
• As a hospital-based program,program is limited
in what it can do in terms of addressing
responsiveness of other disciplines to join forces
and develop new programs.
ASC PFS 2008
20
Uncertain (3)
• Due to current structure of multiple
programs, reality of working together as
one allied health school would be an
enormous effort. Limited resources right
now to seriously consider.
• Not a focus for program at this time
ASC PFS 2008
Would you/your program be willing to join a
regional training consortium or other multisite training structure? (13)
− Willing to investigate potential
− Pluses need to outweigh minuses!
− Subject to approval of Department Chair and Program
Administration (2)
− With clear enforceable agreement of mission, duties,
responsibilities, expectations, legal implications, etc. (2)
− If we could be compensated for training we would provide
or be given access to training we would need in return (2)
− Under condition that consortium is also beneficial to
University
− University input to design and make-up of consortium
− Only if website were developed where faculty could share
resources, such as test questions/images (2)
− Increased recruitment and promoting profession of CT is
necessary co-factor
ASC PFS 2008
21
How important (or influential) is "turf"
when it comes to multi-site education?
•
•
•
•
Very Important (5)
Reasonable importance (3)
Important but can be overcome (2)
Not sure (3)
ASC PFS 2008
State #1 factor that has affected/will affect
Cytoprogram closures
• FINANCIAL (10)
– cyto programs are historically small and not
revenue-generating programs
– little “perceived” impact on patient care (focus
on # graduates vs impact to patient care (#
patients graduates would serve in capacity as
CT)
– Easy target – small number of individuals
affected compared to other programs with a
larger number of individuals (students/faculty)
– Combined with unclear picture of where
national workload is heading
ASC PFS 2008
22
• Extreme negative publicity towards pap smears (4)
• Uninformed or poorly informed administrators of
institutions that house CT programs; leads to shortsighted decisions that can significantly affect a
program (2)
• Inability of graduates to find employment (1)
• Lack of direction/vision from cytology/pathology
community itself without a coherent, unified
argument to present to institutional officials about
why a CT program is a good and continuing
investment. It will be increasingly difficult for
programs to justify their existence.
• Curriculum developed that would respond to future
needs of laboratory
• Organized well funded campaign favoring molecular
testing for HPV
ASC PFS 2008
State #1 factor that would keep your
program open/viable for the next 10 yrs
• Financial support for operational expenses / faculty salaries
(endowment/grants) (4)
• Significant increase in enrollment for program and qualified
applicant pool (3)
• Continued job placement of graduates (3)
• Increased CT vacancies due to retirement of many senior
CTs
• Expand scope of practice of CT / multi-training of students
• Development of curriculum that will graduate students who
are needed and employable
• Be able to offer, advertise and deliver a job that programs,
potential students/employers can be excited and passionate
about and that lab community will support.
ASC PFS 2008
23
• Greater support of community / educate public
of the importance of work CTs do
•
•
•
•
Good department support
Good reputation
Continuous quality improvement
Offering a graduate program of study with
strong affiliation with Center of Excellence
• Resources
– Faculty support
• Disappearance of HPV vaccine
ASC PFS 2008
Are cytotechnologist job opportunities
growing or declining?
• Gosh... I was really considering
Cytotechnology... I guess not
anymore.
ASC PFS 2008
24
ASC PFS 2008
25
“Consortium Models from
the Allied Health Disciplines”
Don Simpson
“Going 895 Miles on ¼ Tank of Gas”
Purpose
•
Define the term ‘consortium.’
•
Discuss consortium models in the allied health professions.
•
Demonstrate the utility of this concept in Cytotechnology education.
Positioning and Alignment
•
April 19th – 25th (2009)
•
May 13th (yearly)
•
November 2nd – 8th (2008)
Consortium
•
Association of two or more individuals, companies, organizations or
governments (or any combination of these entities) with the objective of
participating in a common activity or pooling their resources for achieving
a common goal.
•
Latin word meaning ‘partnership, association or society.’
•
Each participant retains separate legal status and control over each
participant is generally limited to activities involving the joint endeavor.
•
Formed by contract which delineates the rights and obligations of each
member.
•
Most common in the nonprofit sector.
•
More permanent joint activity is usually called an ‘institute.’
Examples of Partnership Activities
•
Mid-America Genetics Education Consortium (MAGEC).
•
The Nuclear Imaging Consortium for Education (NICE).
•
Arkansas State University – Mountain Home and UAMS.
–
Respiratory Care
–
Emergency Medical Sciences
–
Dental Hygiene
Genetic Counseling
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mid-America Genetics Education Consortium (MAGEC).
Combines the academic and clinical resources of four major health
sciences universities.
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS), University of
Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, University of Kansas Medical Center,
and University of Nebraska Medical Center.
UAMS is the degree-granting institution.
Curriculum emphasizes principles of human genetics; applicability of
related sciences to human medical genetics; the principles and practice of
medical genetics; the psychosocial, social, ethical, and legal aspects of
delivering genetic services; and the teaching skills and research methods
needed to promote the use of genetic services.
Classroom portion uses a variety of distance education methods including
interactive video and Web-based lectures.
Clinical portion takes place in a live format at the associated rotational
sites throughout the four states.
Nuclear Medicine
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Nuclear Imaging Consortium for Education (NICE).
Started in 2005.
Goal of delivering graduate education in Nuclear Medicine (advanced
practice technologists).
Representatives of three Nuclear Medicine programs (University of
Arkansas for Medical Sciences, University of Missouri – Columbia, and
Saint Louis University) formed a consortium to provide a graduate degree
for Nuclear Medicine Technologists.
The 34 B.S. programs in the U.S. tended to be small with limited numbers
of faculty, and few faculty with advanced degrees.
Pooling resources and faculty made the provision of graduate education
more viable than ‘going it alone.’
Graduate friendly format with minimal course pre-requisites; part-time or
full-time option with enrollment any semester; clinical activities can be
completed as part of workday; and online delivery with few required
campus visits.
Two-Year College Model
•
Arkansas State University – Mountain Home and UAMS.
–
Respiratory Care
–
Emergency Medical Sciences
–
Dental Hygiene
Cytotechnology Education
Toward Evidence-Based Collaboration
Assess
Acquire
Apply
situation
best evidence
evidence
Ask
Appraise
questions
evidence
Conclusion
Turning Around A Turn-Around
Barbara D. Benstein, Ph.D., SCT(ASCP)CM
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Conflict of Interest
NONE
What Happened?
June 30, 2008
• University of Tennessee Cytotechnology
Master’s Degree Program placed in
inactive status for Fall 2008
– no new students admitted to the program
– existing students in the 2nd year of their program
will continue until graduation May ‘09
– tenured faculty reassigned responsibilities
– non-tenured faculty to be terminated June ‘09
Why It Happened
• State of Tennessee finances higher education through
sales tax revenue
• Economic downturn resulted in lower revenue for the
state & a 7% budget cut was required of all units in the
University
• Cuts could not be met by capturing unfilled positions
or reducing expenditures across departments
• The deans of all colleges were specifically asked to
cut programs
Why The Cytotechnology
Program Was Targeted?
• According to the Dean of the College of
Allied Health Sciences:
–
–
–
–
–
Our program is the most expensive program
Our program produces the fewest graduates
Our graduates were not finding jobs
We had a non-tenured faculty line
The issues surrounding reduced Pap testing &
cytotechnology workforce needs were NOT a
factor in the decision regarding our program
What Happened Next?
• Outcry from other university faculty & staff
• Support from professional community
– Local/state wide hospitals & pathology groups
– Clinical sites
– National attention
• UT Faculty Senate investigation of the action
• Publicity about CT program closures
– ASC listserv discussions
– Emails-local, state & national support
– Key publications
Reference Articles
• Austin RM. Dismantling of the U.S.
cytotechnology educational infrastructure is
premature and carries significant risk. Arch
Pathol Lab Med. Vol 132, February 2008
• Goulart RA. Cytotechnologists Today: Much more
than “Pap-ologists” with schools in need of our
support. Am J Clin Pathol 2008; 129:523-524.
• Moriarty AT. Heads in the sand-or not? CAP
Today. Vol 22 (8): 62-63
– Cytotechnology Schools Under Threat (letter sent to CT
program administrators and signed by key professional
organizations also in this issue p 63-64
ASC Initiatives
• Formation of workgroups by President, Dr. Mody
– Workgroup on CT School Closures
– Multidisciplinary Steering Group
• ASC joined CCCLW (Coordinating Council on
Clinical Laboratory Workforce)
• ASC working with organizations (ASCP & CAP)
that have a political arm to bring attention to the
issue of program closures & resulting impact on
women’s healthcare
• ASC Foundation raising funds to support the
schools
September 22, 2008
• The University of Tennessee Health
Science Center Cytotechnology Program
Budget was restored.
• Non-tenured faculty member given new
appointment letter with expected date of
tenure review for 2011
• Admissions office notified to accept
applications for Fall 2009
What Really Saved The
Program?
• Politics
• Timing
Strategies to Secure the Future
of the Program
• Combine curriculum with other laboratory science
programs (MT, HTL, PA) & across the College
• Create innovative ways to offer curriculum & expand
the program
• Obtain non-tuition funding for the program
• Participate/assist with funding opportunities for others
• Re-establish support from key stakeholders
–
–
–
–
Clinical sites/hospitals/pathology groups
Healthcare providers
Politicians
Cancer advocacy groups
“Adversity Breeds Creativity”
• Hard times force us to find innovative
solutions to challenges
• The times ahead should prove to be our
most creative
• Let’s work together to secure our training
programs and the future of our profession