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