CPRC 20News 207 5 07 by 8V4xjYtD

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 21

									                             CPRC News
     A Cytotechnology Programs Review Committee Publication for Cytotechnology Programs


                                              July 2007

Did you know?……

                                         th
    The Registration Brochure for the 55 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,
                nd
    November 2 , 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. http://www.caahep.org/Content.aspx?ID=56
         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.
          http://www.caahep.org/Accreditation_Services_Application.aspx

   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.




                                                                                                                       1
             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
             (http://www.cytopathology.org/website/article.asp?id=157), 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.




                                                                                                                        2
        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@caahep.org.
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.,
                                                     CM
SCT(ASCP)CFIAC and Joe Walker, Jr., SCT(ASCP) 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
                                                                CM
devoted to a panel of educators, Jill Caudill M. Ed., SCT(ASCP) , Sue Stowell, M.A., SCT(ASCP)CMIAC, and Don
                                   CM
Simpson, Ph.D., MPH, CT(ASCP) , 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!




                                                                                                                            3
         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 http://www.halfbakedsoftware.com/, 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.


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


                                                                                                                          4
           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 –
www.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.




                                                                                                                                5
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.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia

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
                                                                           CM
                                       Linda Hoechst, M.A., SCT(ASCP) , (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.cytopathology.org
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.




                                                                                                                           6
                                          Figure 1, Faculty to Student Ratio: Current Enrollment

                       10


                       9


                       8


                       7
  Number of Programs




                       6


                       5


                       4


                       3


                       2


                       1


                       0
                            1:01   1:02           1:03         1:04             1:05       1:06    1:07   1:08
                                                              Faculty to Student Ratio


         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.




                                                                                                                  7
                                                Figure 2, Faculty to Student Ratio: Student Capacity


                       9


                       8


                       7


                       6
  Number of Programs




                       5


                       4


                       3


                       2


                       1


                       0
                               1:02      1:03            1:04              1:05             1:06          1:07          1:08
                                                                 Faculty to Student Ratio


          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.

                                      Figure 3, Comparison of Current Enrollment and Student Capacity Ratios

                       10


                           9


                           8


                           7
  Number of Programs




                           6

                                                                                                                               Current enrollment
                           5
                                                                                                                               Student capacity

                           4


                           3


                           2


                           1


                           0
                               1:01   1:02        1:03          1:04         1:05           1:06   1:07          1:08
                                                            Faculty to Student Ratio




                                                                                                                                                    8
         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.




                                                                                                                           9
        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




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.




                                                                                                                        10
Tab 2 – CAAHEP Request for Accreditation Form




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 .




                                                                                                                11
Tab 3 - General Information




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.




                                                                                                                12
Tab 4-8 - Standards I through V




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.




                                                                                                                     13
Tab 9 - Summary




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.




                                                                                                                14
Tab F-3 – Program Director Vitae




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.




                                                                                                                    15
Tab F-7 – Faculty/Personnel Responsibilities




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.




                                                                                                                       16
Tab F-8 – Curriculum and Sequencing




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.




                                                                                                                    17
Tab F-9 – Methods and Student Evaluation Form




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


Tab F-10 – Resources Assessment




                                                                                                             18
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




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.




                                                                                                                     19
Tab 1 – Instructions – List of Required Exhibits for Appendix




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.




                                                                                                                       20
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@cytopathology.org



                                                               A Committee on Accreditation of




               Have a safe and enjoyable summer!


                                                                                                                 21

								
To top