St. Vincent Health / St. Vincent Kokomo Radiography Program. Annual Assessment Report

Transcription

1 St. Vincent Health / St. Vincent Kokomo Radiography Program Annual Assessment Report

2 Table of Contents Overview... 3 Mission Statement... 3 Vision Statement... 3 Goal Summary Assessment Cycle... 7 At-A-Glance Results Goal 1: Student will be clinically competent. Assessment Goal 2: Student will demonstrate the ability to think critically. Assessment Goal 3: Student will communicate effectively. Assessment Goal 4: Student will demonstrate professionalism. Assessment Goal 5: Student will demonstrate and provide quality patient care. Assessment Goal 6: The program will prepare students to challenge the ARRT examination. Assessment Goal 7: The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Assessment Goal 8: The program will have a positive effect on the community. Assessment

3 Table of Contents Attachments: Image Audit Clinical Competency Form Technologist Evaluation Student Evaluation of Primary Clinical Site Student Evaluation of Academic Course Exit Survey Alumni Survey Employer Survey Pathology Case Study Rubric

4 Overview Why This Report? What does it mean? Mission Statement What Do We Do? The St. Vincent Health/St. Vincent Kokomo Radiography Program is committed to offering the highest quality in education available. This Annual Assessment Report is published to document how the program met its Goals during the academic year (July to June). In this report, each goal will contain two or more Outcomes to determine how each goal is assessed. Each outcome has one or more Measurements used to evaluate each outcome, the Benchmark used to determine if each outcome was met, and Results from the academic year. Corrective actions, if needed, are prescribed to meet the goal for the upcoming academic year. Supporting data or documents are included for some goals. Our Mission is to make a positive difference in the lives and health delivery status of our students, the people we serve, and the community. This is accomplished through a commitment of excellence by our faculty and staff, Advisory Board, and the sponsoring institutions in the delivery of quality training and education opportunities in radiological sciences. We will display compassion and dignity to all. Our paradigms will be open to all aspects of education that do not violate the Mission or Core Values of our sponsoring and affiliated institutions. Vision Statement Where Do We See Ourselves? Our Vision is to become a national model for enterprise-wide, hospital-based radiography education. We envision a systemwide radiography program dedicated to meeting the human resource needs of the affiliating St. Vincent Health organizations and their respective communities. We envision a program that offers an expansive approach to radiography education using state of the art technology while providing students with a wide range of clinical experiences in contrasting settings. This Vision is accomplished with vigor, enthusiasm, and encouragement while ever mindful of the need to be good stewards of our resources. 3

5 Program Goals What Do We Expect Of Ourselves? The program is committed to the highest quality of education and training possible within established resources. To that end, the program has established a comprehensive Assessment Plan designed to monitor program quality, promote performance improvement, and correct identified deficiencies. This Annual Assessment Report is based on the following annual goals. * * * * * * * * Goal 1: Students will be clinically competent. Rationale: Clinical competency is the performance of clinical procedures independently and without direction from external sources. Competent practice of radiography is built on a solid foundation of knowledge acquired through rigorous didactic learning and applied clinically under actual conditions. We take seriously our responsibility to safeguard the community by graduating only highly-competent radiographers. * * * * * * * * Goal 2: think. Students will demonstrate the ability to critically Rationale: Competent practice of radiography requires the adaptation to unusual circumstances and varying patient conditions. This adaptation comes from the ability to think critically. True competency is achieved not by remembering facts or approaching clinical practice as a set of recipes to be recalled, but rather by the application of critical thinking to achieve understanding of why radiographers do what we do. Critical thinkers are able to connect the practice of radiography with the resulting radiographic image and adapt to varying circumstances. In short, to uphold the public trust in the delivery of medical imaging services, radiographers must be able to think critically to achieve mastery of the profession. * * * * * * * * 4

6 Program Goals What Do We Expect Of Ourselves? Goal 3: Students will communicate effectively. Rationale: Radiographers communicate daily with a variety of individuals, from physicians and management to patients and visitors. The manner and complexity of communication will likewise vary with each situation. Radiographers must be able to communicate effectively to improve patient care, assure patient safety, advance interdisciplinary teamwork, and improve patient satisfaction. * * * * * * * * Goal 4: Students will model professionalism. Rationale: While difficult to define, professionalism encompasses many behaviors, from attitude to integrity to attire. At a high level, professionalism is all the behaviors and actions that suggest the individual is a proud and respectful member of the professional community. In addition to mastering the complexities of medical imaging, radiographers must advance the perception of the profession and their respective health care facility in the eyes of the public every day. * * * * * * * * Goal 5: Students will demonstrate and provide quality patient care. Rationale: Most patients are not able to judge the competency of caregivers and instead trust that imaging procedures are performed to diagnostic standards. Patient satisfaction is linked more to the manner in which care is rendered than the competency of the care itself. As such, the program expects students to balance the technical performance of imaging procedures with attending to the patient s needs and their readiness to respond to emergent situations. * * * * * * * * 5

7 Program Goals What Do We Expect Of Ourselves? Goal 6: The program will prepare students to challenge the ARRT credentialing exam. Rationale: Upon graduation, successful completion of the ARRT examination is necessary to obtain a Radiologic Technologist license in Indiana and in most other states. The ARRT exam also offers a unique opportunity to assess the didactic quality of the program by comparing our graduates with other graduates across the country. We realize the ARRT exam is not a measure of clinical competency, but the exam is a critical step in the pathway to professional practice. As such, we expect our students to be highly prepared to take the ARRT exam upon graduation. * * * * * * * * Goal 7: The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Rationale: To maximize learning and facilitate competent application of knowledge, the classroom and clinical environments in which students learn must be positive. Students must feel free to ask questions, be self-directed, and make mistakes without compromising patient and personnel safety. Only then can learning truly take place. * * * * * * * * Goal 8: The program will demonstrate a positive effect on the community. Rationale: The program is ever mindful of our role to safeguard the community by graduating only highly skilled radiographers who, when hired following graduation, fulfill a need to deliver quality care. The program is committed to assuring that the St. Vincent Health community and other providers are well served by hiring our graduates. 6

8 Assessment Cycle How Often Do We Assess Program Quality? July Year 1 Program Goals Approved by Executive Sponsors (Scope of Service) July - October Year 1 Outcomes, benchmarks, and assessment tools approved by program faculty July - October Year 1 Assessment Plan developed by program faculty November December Year 1 Assessment Plan approved by Advisory Board December August Year 1 Assessment occurs per Assessment Plan (data gathering) September Year 2 Annual Report written by Program Director following academic year December Year 2 Annual Report reviewed by Advisory Board December Year 2 Academic Year Assessment closed Corrective Actions Determined / Approved May Year 2 Academic Year Assessment closed Corrective Actions Reviewed by Advisory Board 7

9 At-A-Glance Results Goal 1: Student Learning: Students will be clinically competent. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 1.1. Students will produce radiographs of diagnostic patient positioning quality Students will produce radiographs demonstrating appropriate radiation safety Students will produce radiographs demonstrating appropriate anatomical identification Students will be able to analyze radiographs for technical quality. 90% of every senior student s randomly audited exams will meet diagnostic positioning criteria throughout their senior year. 90% of every senior student s randomly audited exams will meet radiation safety criteria throughout their senior year. 90% of every senior student s randomly audited exams will meet anatomical identification criteria throughout their senior year. Each student will pass the image analysis portion of the competency assessment on 95% of all clinical competency attempts. MET: 12 of 12 (100%) senior students exceeded the program benchmark of 90% diagnostic positioning quality on randomly audited images in : 11 of 11 (100%) met the 90% benchmark 2013: 9 of 11 (82%) met the 90% benchmark MET: 12 of 12 (100%) senior students exceeded 90% for radiation safety on randomly audited images in : 11 of 11 (100%) met the 90% benchmark 2013: 11 of 11 (100%) met the 90% benchmark MET: 12 of 12 (100%) senior students exceeded 90% for anatomical identification on randomly audited images in : 11 of 11 (100%) met the 90% benchmark 2013: 11 of 11 (100%) met the 90% benchmark MET: Of the 18 students who completed the academic year, all 18 (100%) students passed the image analysis portion of every competency attempt. 2014: 25 of 25 (100%) students passed image analysis on every comp 2013: 22 of 22 (100%) students passed image analysis on every comp None None None None 8

10 Goal 2: Student Learning: Students will demonstrate the ability to critically think. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 2.1. Students will be able to analyze radiographs for technical quality. All senior students will average 85% or higher on all Radiographic Image Analysis examinations. MET: 12 of 12 (100%) students who graduated in 2015 averaged 85% or higher on Radiographic Image Analysis examinations. 2014: 11 of 11 (100%) students averaged >85% on Radiographic Image Analysis exams. 2013: No historical data relative to this benchmark. None Goal 3: Student Learning: Students will communicate effectively. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 3.1. Students will demonstrate written communication skills. All senior students will score 85% or higher on the written Pathology Report. MET: 12 of 12 (100%) students who graduated in 2015 scored greater than 85% on the written portion of the Pathology Report required in the Radiographic Pathology course. Scores ranged from 87% to 100%. 2014: 100% of students scored > 85% 2013: 100% of students scored > 85% None 3.2. Students will demonstrate verbal communication skills. Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory rating on Communication on all Semester IV and V Technologist Evaluations. NOT MET: 1 SV Indianapolis student received 2 unsatisfactory Communication ratings from technologists in semester V. This student was counseled and completed the program without incident. 2014: 1 SV Anderson students received more than 1 unsatisfactory rating for semester IV 2013: 0 of 11 students received more than 1 unsatisfactory rating No corrective actions regarding teaching and assessment of communication. The program faculty remains skeptical that technologist evaluations are a fair assessment of verbal communication. *See page 23 for details* 9

11 Goal 4: Student Learning: Students will model professionalism. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 4.1 Students will display a professional attitude in daily practice. Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory rating on Attitude on all their Semester IV and V Technologist Evaluations. MET: No students who graduated in 2015 received more than 1 unsatisfactory Attitude ratings from technologists in semesters IV and V. 2014: 2 of 11 students received more than 1 unsatisfactory rating in sem IV and 1 students received more than 1 unsatisfactory rating in sem V 2013: 0 of 11 students received more than 1 unsatisfactory rating 1. No corrective actions regarding teaching and modeling of professionalism. 2. Revise the benchmark for to read The average score for Attitude on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. * See page 25 for details * 4.2 Students will demonstrate professional behaviors in daily practice. Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory rating on Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment on all their Semester IV and V Technologist Evaluations. MET: No students who graduated in 2015 received more than 1 unsatisfactory Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment ratings from technologists in semesters IV and V. 2014: 1 of 11 student received >1 unsatisfactory ratings from technologists in semester V 2013: 0 of 11 students received more than 1 unsatisfactory ratings in semesters IV and V 1. No corrective actions regarding teaching and modeling of professionalism. 2. Revise the benchmark for to read The average score for Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. * See page 26 for details * 4.3. Graduates will demonstrate professional behaviors in daily practice. 100% of responding employers will indicate on question 15 that hired graduates embody the quality of a professional radiographer. MET: 100% of responding employers indicated the 2014 graduates they hired do model professionalism in their daily practice. 2014: 100% of employers responded that 2013 graduates model professionalism 2013: 100% of employers responded that 2012 graduates model professionalism None 10

12 Goal 5: Student Learning: Student will provide quality patient care. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 5.1 Students will provide quality patient care in daily practice. Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory rating on Patient Care on all their Semester IV and V Technologist Evaluations. MET: None of the 12 students who graduated in 2015 received more than 1 unsatisfactory Patient Care rating on all semester IV and V technologist evaluations. 2014: 0 of 11 students received more than 1 unsatisfactory rating in semesters IV and V 2013: 0 of 11 students received more than 1 unsatisfactory rating in semesters IV and V 1. No corrective actions regarding teaching and assessing patient care. 2. Revise the benchmark for to read The average score for Patient Care on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. * See page 30 for details * 5.2: Students will recognize and demonstrate understanding of behavioral and communication characteristics of patients across the age continuum All students will score 85% or higher on the Age Specific Scenarios assessment. MET: 100% of Class of 2015 graduates scored higher than 85% on the Age Specific Scenarios assessment. 2014: 100% scored > 85% 2013: 100% scored > 85% 2012: 100% scored > 80% 2011: 100% scored > 80% 2010: 100% scored > 80% 2009: 100% scored > 80% None 11

13 Goal 6: Student Learning: The program will prepare students to challenge the ARRT credentialing exam. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 6.1. Program graduates will successfully pass the ARRT examination on the first attempt. Program pass rate will be 90% or higher on the first attempt over the most recent 5 years. Met: 98% of graduates from 2011 to 2015 passed the ARRT examination on the first attempt. One graduate in 2015 did not pass the ARRT exam on the first attempt. 2014: 100% passed on first attempt 2013: 100% passed on first attempt 2012: 100% passed on first attempt 2011: 100% passed on first attempt 2010: 100% passed on first attempt 2009: 100% passed on first attempt None 6.2. Program graduates will demonstrate overall mastery on the ARRT exam. Program ARRT composite score average will be 85.0 or higher each year. Met: The Class of 2015 averaged 86.1 on the ARRT examination. 2014: 88.4 class average 2013: 88.3 class average 2012: 90.7 class average 2011: 89.3 class average 2010: 92.5 class average 2009: 91.8 class average None Goal 7: Program Effectiveness: The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 7.1: Students will express satisfaction with clinical education sites. On question 13 of the Student Evaluation of Primary Clinical Site survey, 100% of students will respond that they are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with their primary clinical site meeting their educational needs. Met: 100% of students were satisfied or very satisfied with all primary clinical education sites on every survey during the academic year : 100% Satisfied : 100% Satisfied : 100% Satisfied : 100% Satisfied : 100% Satisfied for St V &St. Joe, not met for Saint Johns None 7.2: Students will express satisfaction with academic courses. Average score of each Student Evaluation of Academic Course will be 28 or higher out of 34. Met: 100% of courses during the academic year exceeded the goal of 36 or higher out of : 100% courses met goal : 100% courses met goal : 100% courses met goal : 100% courses met goal : 100% courses met goal None 12

14 Goal 7: Program Effectiveness: The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 7.3: Graduating students will express satisfaction with overall program quality. 100% of graduating students will respond on question #38 of the Exit Survey that they are Very Satisfied or Satisfied with their overall program experiences. Met: 100% of the Class of 2015 graduates were very satisfied with the program on the Exit Survey. 2014: 100% satisfaction 2013: 100% satisfaction 2012: 100% satisfaction 2011: 100% satisfaction 2010: 100% satisfaction None 7.4: Alumni will express overall satisfaction with overall program quality 100% of program alumni will respond on question #27 of the Alumni Survey that they are Very Satisfied or Satisfied with their decision to attend the program. Met: 9 of 11 (82%) of 2014 graduates responded to the Alumni Survey. Of the responding Class of 2014 alumni, 56% were very satisfied and 44% were satisfied with the overall program (2013 graduates): 100% Overall satisfaction 2013 (2012 graduates): 100% Overall satisfaction 2012 (2011 graduates): 100% Overall satisfaction 2011 (2010 graduates): 100% Overall satisfaction 2010 (2009 graduates): 100% Overall satisfaction None 13

15 Goal 8: Program Effectiveness: The program will demonstrate a positive effect on the community. Outcome Benchmark Results Actions 8.1. Students will graduate from the program. The program completion rate will be 70% or higher each year. Met: In 2015, the program graduated 80% (12 of 15) of enrolled students from the program. 2014: 69% program completion 2013: 73% program completion 2012: 68% program completion 2011: 59% program completion None 8.2: Program graduates actively seeking employment will be gainfully employed in radiological sciences. The program placement rate of graduates who actively sought placement will be 75% or higher within the first 12 months following graduation over the most recent five years. Met: From , the program has placed 94% (50 of 53) of graduates who actively sought placement within 12 months following graduation (2015 results will be reported on the next assessment cycle). 2014: 100% placement 2013: 91% placement 2012: 100% placement 2011: 100% placement None 8.3: Employers of program graduates will express overall satisfaction with graduate quality. 100% of responding employers will respond on question #16 of the Employer Survey that they are satisfied or very satisfied with the preparation of each program graduate for entry-level employment. Met: 88% (7 of 8) of responding employer indicated that they were very satisfied while 12% (1 of 8) was satisfied with the preparation of each Class of 2014 program graduate for entry-level employment (2013 graduates): 100% Overall satisfied 2013 (2012 graduates): 100% Overall satisfied 2012 (2011 graduates): 100% Overall satisfied 2011 (2010 graduates): 100% Overall satisfied None 14

16 Goal 1 Students will be clinically competent. Outcome 1.1: Students will produce radiographs of diagnostic positioning quality. Measurement Tool 1.1: Image Audits Benchmark 1.1: 90% of every senior student s randomly audited exams will meet diagnostic criteria for positioning throughout their senior year. Discussion 1.1: Randomly auditing student images is arguably the best method of assessing ongoing competency. Every month, clinical coordinators randomly audit a subset of student images for positioning quality. Results 1.1: MET: 12 of 12 (100%) senior students exceeded the program benchmark of 90% diagnostic positioning quality on randomly audited images in The Image Audit form is included on page 46. Corrective Action 1.1: No corrective actions are needed. 15

17 Goal 1 Students will be clinically competent. Outcome 1.2: Students will produce radiographs demonstrating appropriate radiation safety. Measurement Tool 1.2: Image Audits Benchmark 1.2: 90% of every senior student s randomly audited exams will meet radiation safety criteria throughout their senior year. Discussion 1.2: Randomly auditing student images is arguably the best method of assessing ongoing competency. Every month, clinical coordinators randomly audit a subset of student images for evidence of radiation protection. Results 1.2: MET: 12 of 12 (100%) senior students exceeded 90% for radiation safety on randomly audited images in The Image Audit form is included on page 46. Corrective Action 1.2: No corrective actions are needed. \ 16

18 Goal 1 Students will be clinically competent. Outcome 1.3: Students will produce radiographs demonstrating appropriate anatomical identification. Measurement Tool 1.3: Image Audits Benchmark 1.3: 90% of every senior student s randomly audited exams will meet anatomical identification criteria throughout their senior year. Discussion 1.3: Randomly auditing student images is arguably the best method of assessing ongoing competency. Every month, clinical coordinators randomly audit a subset of student images for anatomical identification. Results 1.3: MET: 12 of 12 (100%) senior students exceeded 90% for anatomical identification on randomly audited images in The Image Audit form is included on page 46. Corrective Action 1.3: No corrective actions are needed. 17

19 Goal 1 Students will be clinically competent. Outcome 1.4: Students will be able to analyze radiographs for technical quality. Measurement Tool 1.4: Clinical Competency Forms Benchmark 1.4: Each student will pass the image analysis portion of the competency assessment on 95% of all clinical competency attempts. Discussion 1.4: Every clinical competency assessment concludes with the student analyzing his/her images to core program faculty. It is possible for students to fail the competency attempt based solely on poor image analysis. Results 1.4: MET: Of the 18 students who completed the academic year, all 18 (100%) students passed the image analysis portion on every competency attempt. The Clinical Competency form is included on page 47. Corrective Action 1.4: No corrective actions are needed. 18

20 Summary of Goal 1 Goal 1 Students will be clinically competent. Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in assuring that students demonstrate learning across the curriculum. Strengths include: 1. A comprehensive and robust clinical competency process assuring that students are competent in the clinical setting. 2. Core faculty review of every competency attempt assures students meet consistently high standards of clinical performance. 3. Strong emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking, particularly in the clinical setting. 4. A robust image audit process to determine ongoing competency of students. Weaknesses: There are no weaknesses with respect to Goal 1. Corrective Actions: No corrective actions are needed with respect to Goal 1. Conclusion: Enrolled students are clinically competent. 19

21 Goal 2 Students will demonstrate the ability to critically think. Outcome 2.1: Students will be able to analyze radiographs for technical quality. Measurement Tool 2.1: Radiographic Image Analysis exams. Benchmark 2.1: All senior students will average an 85% or higher on all Radiographic Image Analysis examinations. Discussion 2.1: Radiographic image analysis is a core responsibility of radiographers. Radiographers must be able to evaluate radiographic images for technical quality and determine corrective actions needed. To successfully pass Radiographic Image Analysis examinations, students must apply critical thinking skills. Students must evaluate images for technical quality and determine corrective actions based on sub-optimal quality. Results 2.1: MET: 12 out of 12 students who graduated in 2015 averaged 85% or higher on Radiographic Image Analysis examinations. Average scores ranged from 99.2% to 85.4%. Corrective Action 2.1: No corrective actions are needed. 20

22 Goal 2 Students will demonstrate the ability to critically think. Summary of Goal 2 Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in assuring that students are able to think critically. Strengths: 1. A dedicated critical thinking workshop presented to all incoming students prior to beginning the program. 2. Emphasis on incorporating critical thinking in all aspect of the program s curriculum. 3. A dedicated Image Analysis course demands that students synthesize many concepts taught throughout the program. 4. The assessment of critical thinking didactically through a comprehensive image analysis course and clinically through a robust competency assessment process. Weaknesses: There are no weaknesses with respect to Goal 2. Corrective Actions: No corrective actions are needed with respect to Goal 2. Conclusion: Enrolled students can think critically. 21

23 Goal 3 Students will communicate effectively. Outcome 3.1: Students will demonstrate written communication skills. Measurement Tool 3.1: Pathology Case Study Report Benchmark 3.1: All senior students will score an 85% or higher on the written Pathology Report. Discussion 3.1: Written communication skills are necessary to assure information literacy and the continuity of care. Students demonstrate their ability to communicate effectively in writing by completing a comprehensive pathology review and case study. Results 3.1: MET: All students who graduated in 2015 scored greater than 85% on the written portion of the Pathology Report required in the Radiographic Pathology course. Scores ranged from 87% to 100%. These results affirm the 2015 graduates can communicate effectively in writing. The Pathology Thesis Rubric is included on page 55. Corrective Action 3.1: No corrective actions are needed. 22

24 Goal 3 Students will communicate effectively. Outcome 3.2: Students will demonstrate verbal communication skills. Measurement Tool 3.2: Semesters IV and V Technologist Evaluations. Benchmark 3.2: Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory communication rating on all semester IV and V technologist evaluations. Discussion 3.2: Students must be able to communicate verbally with patients, colleagues, and physicians to assure the continuum of care. Effective communication requires the adaptation of communication to other individual s style and communication level. Because of their close working relationship with students, technologists are well suited to assess each student s ability to communicate effectively. Results 3.2: NOT MET: One SV Indianapolis student received 2 unsatisfactory Communication ratings from technologists in semester V. This student was counseled about their communication and how people may perceive them and was able to complete the program without incident. The Technologist Evaluation tool is included on page 48. Corrective Action 3.2: The program faculty acted quickly and appropriately to address the individual student s 2 unsatisfactory Communication ratings in semester V. The program faculty believes this is not due to any systemic program issues but reflects more-so on the individual student. The program faculty remains concerned that the current benchmark using technologist evaluations does not provide reliable and objective feedback on student s communication since only two unsatisfactory technologist ratings represent a solid minority of evaluating technologists yet will result in the program not meeting its benchmark. Additionally, one student receiving unsatisfactory ratings should not suggest a systemic program failure in teaching and modeling communication. As a result, the program faculty proposes revising the benchmark for as follows: The average score for Communication on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. 23

25 Goal 3 Students will communicate effectively. Summary of Goal 3 Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in assuring that students communicate effectively. Strengths: A pathology case study project that requires the student to research, organize, understand, and compose a coherent report, all of which are requisite for written communication. Weaknesses: Although one student at SV Indianapolis Hospital did receive 2 unsatisfactory Communication rating from technologists in semester V, faculty believes this is not due to any systemic program issues but reflects more-so on the individual student. While there are no corrective actions needed regarding the teaching and assessment of effective verbal skills, the current benchmark using technologist evaluations not provide reliable and objective feedback on student s verbal communication since two technologists represent a solid minority of evaluating technologists yet will result in the program not meeting its benchmark. Additionally, one student receiving unsatisfactory ratings should not suggest a systemic program failure in teaching and modeling communication. Corrective Actions: While there are no corrective actions needed regarding the teaching and assessment of effective verbal Communication skills, the program faculty proposes revising the benchmark for as follows: The average score for Communication on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. Conclusion: Enrolled students communicate verbally and in writing effectively. 24

26 Goal 4 Students will model professionalism. Outcome 4.1: Students will display a professional attitude in daily practice. Measurement Tool 4.1: Semesters IV and V Technologist Evaluations. Benchmark 4.1: Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory attitude rating on all semester IV and V technologist evaluations. Discussion 4.1: There is an unspoken trust between the radiographer and the patient. Given that patients are better suited to judge the manner in which care is provided more than the quality of care itself, students must have a favorable attitude to promote a trusting environment. Because of their close working relationship with students, technologists are well suited to assess each student s attitude. Results 4.1: MET: All 2015 senior students received no more than one unsatisfactory Attitude ratings on their semester IV and V evaluations. The Technologist Evaluation tool is included on page 48. Corrective Action 4.1: While there are no corrective actions needed regarding the teaching and assessment of proper student Attitude, the program faculty remains concerned that the current benchmark using technologist evaluations does not provide reliable and objective feedback on student s attitude since only two unsatisfactory technologist ratings represent a solid minority of evaluating technologists yet will result in the program not meeting its benchmark. Additionally, one student receiving unsatisfactory ratings should not suggest a systemic program failure in teaching and modeling professionalism. As a result, the program faculty proposes revising the benchmark for as follows: The average score for Attitude on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. 25

27 Goal 4 Students will model professionalism. Outcome 4.2: in daily practice. Students will demonstrate professional behaviors Measurement Tool 4.2: Semesters IV and V Technologist Evaluations Benchmark 4.2: Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment rating on all semester IV and V technologist evaluations. Discussion 4.2: Professionalism in the clinical setting is essential in gaining patient trust and maintaining patient satisfaction. Excellent caregivers are able to blend sound technical skills and safety practices with a positive attitude and healthy respect for others and their environment. Students are instructed to always Do the right thing even when no-one is watching. Because of their close working relationship with students, technologists are well suited to assess each student s professional behavior. Results 4.2: MET: All 2015 senior students received no more than one unsatisfactory Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment ratings on their semester IV and V evaluations. The Technologist Evaluation tool is included on page 48. Corrective Action 4.2: While there are no corrective actions needed regarding the teaching and assessment of proper student Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment, the program faculty remains concerned that the current benchmark using technologist evaluations does not provide reliable and objective feedback on student s attitude since only two unsatisfactory technologist ratings represent a solid minority of evaluating technologists yet will result in the program not meeting its benchmark. Additionally, one student receiving unsatisfactory ratings should not suggest a systemic program failure in teaching and modeling professionalism. As a result, the program faculty proposes revising the benchmark for as follows: The average score for Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. 26

28 Goal 4 Students will model professionalism. Outcome 4.3: behaviors in daily practice. Measurement Tool 4.3: Graduates will demonstrate professional Employer Survey. Benchmark 4.3: 100% of responding employers will indicate that hired graduates embody the qualities of a professional radiographer. Discussion 4.3: A testament to the program s educational process is the continuation of desired behaviors after graduation. Employers of program graduates are the ultimate stakeholders of the program s process and are uniquely able to judge the graduate s professionalism. Results 4.3: MET: 13 employer evaluations were sent out with 9 employer responses received for a response rate of 69%. Of the 9 responding employers, all 9 (100%) indicated the 2014 graduates they hired model professionalism in their daily practice. The Employer Survey tool is included on page 54. Corrective Action 4.3: No corrective actions are needed. 27

29 Goal 4 Students will model professionalism. Summary of Goal 4 Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in promoting professional appreciation and behaviors in students. Strengths: 1. A sound educational process that holds students accountable, emphasizes transparency, and stresses that students must always Do the right thing even when no-one is watching. 2. An evaluation process designed to get feedback from employers. 3. Feedback from employers consistently echo that students/graduates display a favorable attitude and professional behaviors in daily practice. Weaknesses: While there are no weaknesses regarding the teaching and assessment of professionalism, the program faculty remained concerned that the current benchmark using technologist evaluations does not provide reliable and objective feedback on student s professionalism since only two unsatisfactory technologist ratings represent a solid minority of evaluating technologists yet will result in the program not meeting its benchmark. Additionally, one student receiving unsatisfactory ratings should not suggest a systemic program failure in teaching and modeling professionalism. Corrective Actions: There are no corrective actions with respect to teaching and evaluating professionalism. Given the concerns raised regarding using technologist evaluations for programmatic assessment, the program faculty proposes revising the benchmarks for goals 4.1 and 4.2 for as follows: The average score for Attitude (goal 4.1) and Professional Ownership / Respect for Environment (goal 4.2) on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. Conclusion: Enrolled students indeed model professionalism. 28

30 Goal 5 Students will provide quality patient care. Outcome 5.1: daily practice. Students will provide quality patient care in Measurement Tool 5.1: Semesters IV and V Technologist Evaluations. Benchmark 5.1: Each senior student will receive no more than 1 unsatisfactory Patient Care rating on all semester IV and V technologist evaluations. Discussion 5.1: Quality patient care is the cornerstone of healthcare. Patients are better able to judge empathetic and quality care over technical skill. Patient satisfaction is highly valued in every healthcare organization. If radiography graduates are expected to provide quality care as radiographers, the expectations must be established during their radiography education process. Because of their close working relationship with students, technologists are well suited to assess each student s patient care. Results 4.1: MET: All 2015 senior students received no unsatisfactory Patient Care ratings on their semester IV and V evaluations. The Technologist Evaluation tool is included on page 48. Corrective Action 5.1: While there are no corrective actions needed regarding the teaching and assessment of student Patient Care, the program faculty remains concerned that the current benchmark using technologist evaluations does not provide reliable and objective feedback on student s patient care skills since only two unsatisfactory technologist ratings represent a solid minority of evaluating technologists yet will result in the program not meeting its benchmark. Additionally, one student receiving unsatisfactory ratings should not suggest a systemic program failure in teaching and assessing patient care skills. As a result, the program faculty proposes revising the benchmark for as follows: The average score for Patient Care on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. 29

31 Goal 5 Students will provide quality patient care. Outcome 5.2: Students will recognize and demonstrate understanding of behavioral and communication characteristics of patients across the age continuum. Measurement Tool 5.2: Age Specific Scenarios. Benchmark 5.2: All students will score an 85% or higher on the Age Specific Scenarios assessment. Discussion 5.2: Age Specific Scenarios are administered to students in Semester II. The scenarios depict clinical situations in medical imaging based on differing patient ages. After reading the case scenarios, students answer a series of true / false questions which test their knowledge of communication, behavioral, and physical characteristics of patient across the age continuum and adaptive techniques specific to medical imaging. Results 5.2: MET: 12 of 12 (100%) students who graduated in 2015 scored higher than 85% on the Age Specific Scenarios assessment. No second attempts were needed. Corrective Action 5.2: No corrective actions are needed. 30

32 Summary of Goal 5 Goal 5 Students will provide quality patient care. Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in assuring that students demonstrate patient care skills. Strengths: A dedicated pediatric imaging service at Peyton Manning Children s Hospital to promote patient care and interactions with pediatric patients. While there are no weaknesses regarding the teaching and assessment of patient care, the program faculty remained concerned that the current benchmark using technologist evaluations does not provide reliable and objective feedback on student s patient care skills since only two unsatisfactory technologist ratings represent a solid minority of evaluating technologists yet will result in the program not meeting its benchmark. Additionally, one student receiving unsatisfactory ratings should not suggest a systemic program failure in teaching and assessing patient care. Corrective Actions: There are no corrective actions with respect to teaching and evaluating patient care. Given the concerns raised regarding using technologist evaluations for programmatic assessment, the program faculty proposes revising the benchmark for goals 5.1 for as follows: The average score for Patient Care section on all Semester IV and V Clinical Coordinator Evaluations will be 4.5 points or higher out of 5. Conclusion: Enrolled students indeed provide quality patient care. 31

33 Goal 6 The program will prepare students to challenge the ARRT examination. Outcome 6.1: Program graduates will successfully pass the ARRT examination on the first attempt. Measurement Tool 6.1: ARRT Exam First-Attempt Pass Rate. Benchmark 6.1: Program ARRT certifying exam pass rate will be 90% or higher on the first attempt over the most recent five years. Discussion 6.1: While success on the ARRT examination does not necessarily correlate with technical quality, patient care, or work ethic, the ARRT is a gate-keeper for entry-level employment in the profession. Success on the ARRT certifying exam does reflect the quality of didactic instruction provided by the program. To that end, we expect our graduates to be successful on the ARRT examination. Results 6.1: MET: 11 of 12 (92%) 2015 graduates successfully passed the ARRT certifying examination on the first attempt marks the first time in 10 years the program did not have 100% first-attempt pass rate on the ARRT exam. The first attempt pass rate over the past five years ( ) is 98.2%. Every year since 2003, the program has exceeded the national average pass rate for first-time examinees. It is worth noting the national average pass rate declined in 2013 after ARRT raised the raw score for passing. The national average first attempt pass rate on the ARRT certifying exam tends to be 88 89%. Goal: 90% or better over past 5 years Corrective Action 6.1: No corrective actions are needed. Attempts to reach the 2015 graduate who failed the ARRT exam on the first attempt have gone unanswered. 32

34 Goal 6 The program will prepare students to challenge the ARRT examination. Outcome 6.2: Program graduates will demonstrate overall mastery on the ARRT certifying examination. Measurement Tool 6.2: ARRT Composite Score Average. Benchmark 6.2: Program ARRT certifying exam composite score average will be 85.0 or higher every year. Discussion 6.2: While success on the ARRT certifying examination does not necessarily correlate with technical quality, patient care, or work ethic, the ARRT is a gate-keeper for entry-level employment in the profession. Success on the ARRT exam does reflect the quality of didactic instruction provided by the program. To that end, we expect our graduates to be successful on the ARRT examination. Results 6.2: MET: The first-attempt ARRT certifying composite score average for the 2015 graduates was 86.1, which places the program at the 64 th %-tile among 600+ radiography programs in the U.S. Since 2003, the program has exceeded the national average composite score every year. The program ARRT composite score averages have declined 3 of the past 5 years. Faculty believe this decline is the result of two causes; 1) the national average composite score declined in 2013 after ARRT raised the raw score for passing, and 2) a decline in the number of program applicants which dilutes the quality of the applicant pool. The national average composite score on the ARRT certifying exam tends to be Goal: 85 or better every year. Corrective Action 6.2: No corrective actions are needed. 33

35 Goal 6 The program will prepare students to challenge the ARRT examination. Summary of Goal 6 Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in preparing students to challenge the ARRT certifying exam. Strengths: % ARRT first-attempt pass rate in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and Consistently above national average on ARRT composite average score for the Classes of 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and Weaknesses: The program faculty are concerned that the average ARRT composite score has declined in 3 of the past 5 years. This decline is not due to any significant changes made in program curricula, teaching methods or performance assessment. Faculty believe this decline is the result of two causes; 1) the national average composite score declined in 2013 after ARRT raised the raw score for passing, and 2) a decline in the number of program applicants which dilutes the quality of the applicant pool. Faculty will continue to monitor ARRT pass rates and composite scores. Corrective Actions: No corrective actions are needed with respect to graduate performance on the ARRT certifying exam. Conclusion: Despite the failed ARRT exam in 2015, program graduates remain well prepared to challenge the ARRT certifying examination. 34

36 Goal 7 The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Outcome 7.1: clinical education sites. Measurement Tool 7.1: Education Sites. Students will express satisfaction with Student Evaluation of Primary Clinical Benchmark 7.1: On question #13 of the Student Evaluation of Primary Clinical Site survey, 100% of students will respond that they are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with their primary clinical site meeting their educational needs. Discussion 7.1: Evaluation of primary clinical education sites (St Vincent Indianapolis, St Vincent Kokomo and St. Vincent Anderson) are conducted following the fall (semesters I and IV), spring (semesters II and V) and summer (semester III) using an online survey process ( These evaluations are used to assess procedure volume, equipment resources, educational support, and compliance with supervision standards. The program places much value on student satisfaction of clinical sites in terms of meeting core educational needs. Student satisfaction is determined based on their response to question #13 of the survey: What was your overall satisfaction with the clinical site in terms of meeting your overall clinical education needs? The survey score is based on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from Very Satisfied to Very Unsatisfied. The Clinical Site Evaluation tool is included on page 49. Results 7.1: MET: The results of the evaluation of all three primary clinical sites conducted in December 2014, May 2015 and August 2015 are depicted graphically on the next page. The survey results reveal that 100% of students were satisfied or very satisfied with primary clinical education sites on every survey. Few criticisms were raised. These results are shared with medical imaging management from each clinical site. Corrective Action 7.1: No corrective actions are needed. 35

37 Goal 7 The program will maintain a positive learning environment. 36

38 Goal 7 The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Outcome 7.2: academic courses. Measurement Tool 7.2: Students will express satisfaction with Student Evaluation of Academic Courses. Benchmark 7.2: Average score of each Student Evaluation of Academic Course will be 28 or higher out of 34 total points. Discussion 7.2: Evaluations of academic courses are conducted following the completion of each course using an online survey process ( These evaluations are used to objectively assess the relevancy of course content and quality of lecture presentation. The Student Evaluation of Academic Course tool is included on page 50. Results 7.2: MET: 100% of academic courses exceeded the goal of 28 or higher out of 34 points during the academic year. Students expressed mild criticisms on a few course surveys but were overall satisfied with all academic courses. Students generally praised the program s academic offerings. Results of individual course surveys are included below. Corrective Actions: 7.2: No corrective actions are needed. 37

39 Goal 7 The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Outcome 7.3: Graduating students will express satisfaction with overall program quality. Measurement Tool 7.3: Exit Survey Benchmark 7.3: On question #38 of the Exit Survey, 100% of graduating students will respond that they are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with their overall program Experiences. Discussion 7.3: The program faculty places great value on student satisfaction with the overall program. Exit surveys are conducted just prior to graduation using an online survey process ( to objectively gauge overall satisfaction with the program as graduating students prepare for entry level employment. The Exit Survey tool is included on pages Results 7.3: MET: 100% of the 2015 graduating students responded that they were very satisfied with their overall experiences in the program. No meaningful criticisms or suggestions were offered. Graduating students praised the program in their written comments. [The St. Vincent Program] does a good job of pushing students to levels they never thought they could reach. [The faculty] work hard to make sure you know what you are doing and when you are on your own you do it well. I feel I am levels above other entry level candidates I am up against. [The faculty] challenge students academically and clinically. Students receive the best education [at St. Vincent]. I feel I [benefited from] a wide variety of experiences by being surrounded by helpful and caring techs. Corrective Actions: 7.3: No corrective actions are needed. 38

40 Goal 7 The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Outcome 7.4: overall program quality. Measurement Tool 7.4: Alumni will express satisfaction with Alumni Survey. Benchmark 7.4: On question #27 of the Alumni Survey, 100% of alumni will respond that they are Satisfied or Very satisfied with their decision to attend the program. Discussion 7.4: While the program faculty places great value on overall student satisfaction with the program during enrollment, some benefits of the program may not be realized until employment well after graduation. Alumni Surveys are conducted using an online survey process ( to objectively gauge overall satisfaction with the program 9 to 12 months following graduation. The Alumni Survey tool is included on page 53. Results 7.4: MET: Of the 11 graduates in 2014, 9 (82%) completed the online survey in May Of the 9 respondents, 5 (56%) indicated that they were very satisfied and 4 (44%) indicated that they were satisfied with their overall experiences in the program. Several alumni praised the program in their written comments. The program teaches a fantastic curriculum. [Faculty member] taught me how to be passionate about my career and to really care about what I m doing instead of just going through the motions. I am very thankful for the opportunities I now have because of the program. LOVE the organization and thoroughness of the program. After going through a [different] program for an advanced modality, I really miss and appreciate the style in which the St. Vincent program was taught. Very proud and happy that I went through this program! Overall the program was very good and I was able to find employment within a month of graduation. The material and the format was a strength. Quality instructors. A good volume and variety of exams in the clinical setting. The promotion of critical thinking (not just memorizing, but understanding why). Corrective Actions: 7.4: No corrective actions are needed. 39

41 Goal 7 The program will maintain a positive learning environment. Summary of Goal 7 Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in maintaining positive learning environments. Strengths: 1. A comprehensive feedback process to assess student and graduate satisfaction with primary clinical education sites. 2. An effective communication process to share clinical site survey results with respective department management. 3. A high level of student satisfaction with St. Vincent Indianapolis, St. Vincent Kokomo and St. Vincent Anderson as primary clinical education sites. 4. A high level of student satisfaction with all academic courses % overall satisfaction with the program from the Classes of 2014 (Alumni Survey) and 2015 (Exit Survey). Students and graduates recognize the high quality of education received and consistently praise the program for its offerings. Weaknesses: There are no notable weaknesses that hinder promoting a positive learning environment. Corrective Actions: No corrective actions are recommended with respect to maintaining a positive learning environment. Conclusion: The program is indeed maintaining a positive learning environment. 40

42 Goal 8 The program will have a positive effect on the community. Outcome 8.1: Students will graduate from the program. Measurement Tool 8.1: Benchmark 8.1: 70% or higher each year. Program Completion Rate The program completion rate will be Discussion 8.1: The program goes to great lengths to accept students who possess a healthy balance of academic qualifications, work experience, communication abilities, and work ethic / attitude necessary to complete the program and develop into competent radiographers. The program places great value on graduating competent and caring students from the program. Results 8.1: MET: In 2015, the program graduated 12 of 15 enrolled students, a graduation rate of 80%. Two of the three Class of 2015 students who did not complete the program voluntarily withdrew for personal reasons, although 1 student struggled academically and clinically. One Class of 2015 student was dismissed for corrective action reasons. Since 2011, the program has graduated 54 of 78 (69%) enrolled students. It is worth noting the program s graduation rate has improved 4 of the past 5 years and has met the benchmark the past 3 years. Corrective Action 8.1: No corrective actions are needed. 41

43 Goal 8 The program will have a positive effect on the community. Outcome 8.2: Program graduates actively seeking employment will be gainfully employed in radiological sciences. Measurement Tool 8.2: Employment Placement Rate. Benchmark 8.2: The program employment rate will be 75% or higher within the first 12 months following graduation over most recent 5 years. Discussion 8.2: Just as the program values graduating competent and caring students from the program, we also value our graduates becoming actively employed in radiological sciences. Only then can the program truly have a positive impact on the community. Results 8.2: MET: Since 2015 graduates are only 6 months following graduation, the data below represents the 2010 to 2014 classes. Since 2010, 50 of 53 (94%) graduates who actively sought employment found gainful employment in radiological sciences within 12 months following graduation. Goal: 75% or higher employment over most recent 5 years To date, the 10 of the 12 Class of 2015 graduates are employed as follows. Employed at a St Vincent Health facility: 5 o St Vincent Health PRN pool: 3 o SV Indianapolis: 1 o SV Kokomo: 1 o SV Anderson: 2 Employed outside of St Vincent Health: 3 o Polyclinic of Indiana: 1 o Orthopedic Surgeon: 1 o IU Saxony: 1 o Community Hospital Anderson: 2 o American health Network: 1 Corrective Action 8.2: time. No corrective actions are needed at this 42

44 Goal 8 The program will have a positive effect on the community. Outcome 8.3: Employers of program graduates will express overall satisfaction with the preparation of program graduates. Measurement Tool 8.3: Employer Surveys Benchmark 8.3: On question #16 of the Employer, 100% of responding employers will indicate that they are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with the preparation of each hired program graduate for entry level employment. Discussion 8.3: Through the application of sound technical skills, quality patient care, and respected work ethic, employers of our graduates are beneficiaries of the program quality. The program faculty values employer satisfaction of program graduates. To that end, the Employer Survey is conducted using an online survey process ( and ed to all employers of program graduates. The Employer Survey tool is included on page 54. Results 8.3: MET: The employers of the Class of 2014 were surveyed approximately 11 months following graduation. 13 survey invitations were resulting in 9 responses (69% response rate). 1 respondent did not answer question 16 regarding overall satisfaction. 7 of the 8 respondents (88%) were very satisfied while 1 respondent (12%) was satisfied. Many positive comments were received. [Graduate] adapted to the life of a tech well. From day one [graduate] has exemplified professionalism and has produced high quality diagnostic images. [Graduate] maintains a high level of professionalism and dedication to patient care and safety. [Graduate] maintains a very positive outlook. Professional and exhibits confidence and care with patients. [Graduate] is very confident in his/her work and does a good job with the patient. Corrective Action 8.3: No corrective actions are needed. 43

45 Summary of Goal 8 Goal 8 The program will have a positive effect on the community. Based on the results of the objectives used to determine programmatic effectiveness with regard to this goal, the program is succeeding in having a positive effect on the community. Strengths: 1. 94% employment rate of graduates in radiological sciences 2010 to Consistently high employer satisfaction with graduate s readiness for entry-level employment. 3. Highly responsive faculty to historically higher than desired student attrition resulting in improved graduation rate 3 of the past 4 years. Weaknesses: There are no notable weaknesses that hinder having a positive effect on the community. Corrective Actions: No corrective actions are recommended with respect to having a positive effect on the community. Conclusion: The program is indeed having a positive effect on the community. 44

46 ATTACHMENTS 45

47 St Vincent Health / St Vincent Kokomo Radiography Program Image Audit Form 46