Revised Entry level Competencies that Reflect Expectations of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

“Revised Entry‐level Competencies that Reflect Expectations of Cytotechnologists Entering the Workplace Today”

Donald Schnitzler, BS, CT(ASCP) Chairperson, CPRC

The Curriculum in Cytotechnology presents a profile of skills that the newly graduated/entry‐ level cytotechnologist possesses.

• True
• False

Pre‐webinar Question

Pre‐webinar Question

Entry‐level competencies should reflect only the current expectations of cytotechnologists in the workplace.

• True
• False

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

Pre‐webinar Question

• 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.

Objectives

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

• 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

CPRC Review of Competencies

Recent Review of Competencies

2009

• Review and Revision of the “Standards and Guidelines for

the Accreditation of Educational Programs in Cytotechnology” 2010

• June – Proposed final Standards revisions
• September – Approved by CAAHEP Standards Committee
• November – Review of Entry‐level Competencies

2011

• May – Survey Communities of Interest regarding

Competencies

• June – Final Proposed Draft prepared of Competencies

2012

• July/August – Additional Feedback
• November – Solicited additional Information during ASC

Strategies Session

Colorado Convention Center Denver, Colorado Colorado Convention Center Denver, Colorado

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

ASC Strategies in Cytology Education

CPRC Review

Revisions – “New” Competency

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)

Polling

Revisions – New Competencies

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)

Polling

Revisions – New Competencies

Revisions – New Competency

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)

Polling

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

Implementation Review/Reconsider Endorsement CAAHEP Approval Share with COI

March – April 2013

• Webinar

Presentation

• Online Survey of

Communities of Interest, open for 30 days. May – June 2013

• CPRC Review

Feedback of on‐ line survey

• CPRC prepares

finalized draft of :The Curriculum in Cytotechnology for Entry‐level Competencies”

• Submit finalized

draft to CAAHEP Standards committee for their consideration

• Stds. Committee

feedback received July 2013

• CPRC review

completed

• Finalized

Document shared with Sponsors for their endorsement

• Sponsor

endorsement received

• Request CAAHEP
• pen hearing

August – October 2013

• CAAHEP Post

document(s) on line for review

• Open hearing

scheduled for September

• CAAHEP Board of

Directors approval November 2013 and

• n
• Announce the

CAAHEP approval

• f competencies
• Coordinate an

Implementation Plan with the Resource Committee based

• n the availability
• f resources to

support approved revised entry‐level competencies.

Resource Committee Members

ASC:

• Marilee Means, PhD, SCT(ASCP)
• Shirley Greening, JDMS, JD, CFIAC

ASCP:

• M. Sue Zaleski, MS, SCT(ASCP)
• Keisha N. Brooks, MS, CT, MB(ASCP)

ASCT:

• Sandra Giroux, MS, SCT(ASCP)CFIAC
• Sonya Griffin, MS, SCT(ASCP)

CAP:

• Amy Clayton, MD
• Leonard Bloom, MS, SCT(ASCP)

CPRC Liaisons:

• Robert.Goulart, MD
• Karen Nauschuetz, MD
• Nancy J. Smith, 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
• vercome 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

Implementation Gaps & Obstacles Resources Develop Resources Organization

March – April 2013

• Introduced during

March Webinar Presentation

• Define committee

structure & leadership

• Identify key

dedicated staff assistance

• Collect feedback

regarding gaps &

• bstacles from

programs May 2013

• Prioritize

identified gaps &

• bstacles
• Identify individual

member’s tasks based on those priorities

• Evaluate options

for needed repository(ies)

• Consider

development, maintenance and management costs

• f the repository

site(s) to prepare budget June – July 2013

• Identify and solicit

available resources to

• vercome gaps &
• bstacles from

sponsors, vendors, programs, and

• ther sources
• Evaluate those

resources for application by cytology programs

• Ongoing

development of repository site August – October 2013

• Placement of first

easily identified and evaluated resources in a central repository for program use.

• Facilitate develop‐

ment of additional resources needed by educational programs (include estimated dates of completion) November 2013

• Provide program

access to available resources

• Pursue develop‐

ment of other or new resources.

• Share estimated

dates of completion for work in progress

• With the CPRC

coordinate an Implementation Plan for approved competencies

Implementation Schedule

Factors:

• These are proposed revisions – the

implementation plan will be based on final revisions

• Directly linked to resource availability
• Anticipate that most resources will be made

available during 2014

Your Role in the Process

• Feedback, Feedback and Feedback

– Upcoming survey – Review of final revision – Final posting on the CAAHEP website

• Collaboration with Resource Committee

– Programs identifying their Gaps & Obstacles – Collaboration between programs by sharing resources – Collaboration of others by providing access to needed resources

“How would your life be different if…You didn’t allow yourself to be defined by your past? Let today be the day…You stop letting your history interfere with your destiny and awaken to the

• pportunity to release

your greatest self.”

Steve Maraboli

Opportunity

Questions and Answers

http://www.maxim‐lis.com/images‐maxim‐lis/membership.jpg

Strategies in Cytology Education #1:

“The Next Steps Forward, Moving Our Cytotechnology Training Programs Towards A More Modern Practice Model”

Friday, November 8, 2013, 8:00 am – 10:00 am