Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
4/7/15
1
Assuring and Enhancing Quality Education in Athletic Training
ATEC 2015Dallas, TX
INTRODUCTIONS & OVERVIEW
Mark Laursen, MS, ATC CAATE President Boston University
ExecuAve CommiCee
Mark Laursen, MS, ATC President Boston University
Mark Merrick, PhD, ATC, FNATA President Elect The Ohio State University
Jack Weakley Secretary/Treasurer Public Member
Ray Castle, PhD ,ATC Louisiana State University
Chad Starkey, PhD, ATC Ohio University
AthleAc Training Members
Paula Maxwell, PhD, ATC James Madison University
LesLee Taylor, PhD, ATC Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Eric Sauers, PhD, ATC, FNATA A.T. Still University
Valerie Herzog, PhD, ATC Weber State University Commissioner-Elect
AdministraAve Member Physician Members
LaMont Cavanaugh, MD American Academy of Family Physicians Representative University of Oklahoma School of Medicine
Gregory Frazer, PhD Administrative Member Dean and Professor Rangos School of Health Sciences Duquesne University
Joseph Guettler, MD AOSSM Representative Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine
Bernard Griesmer, MD American Academy of Pediatrics Representative HealthTracks Center, Springfield, MO
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
CAATE Office
Ashley Ahearn, MS, ATC AccreditaAon Assistant
Micki Cuppe?, EdD, ATC ExecuAve Director
Julie Cavallario, MS Ed, ATC AccreditaAon Assistant
4/7/15
2
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Overview
• Analytics • Public Accountability & Transparency • Quality Improvement Current• Quality Improvement Future• Questions• Examining the Professional Degree• Public Comments ANALYTICS
Mark Merrick, PhD, ATC, FNATA CAATE President-‐Elect The Ohio State University
Current Number
of Programs
Average Total Annual
Graduates
Percentage of
Graduates who took BOC Exam
Average Graduates per program
(Exam Candidates)
Program Average 1st A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate
Program Average Any-‐
A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate
Programs Non-‐
Compliant with
Standard 11
Percentage of all
Programs Non-‐
Compliant with
Standard 11
365 3629.7 94% 10.1 (9.5) 79% 90% 96 26%
Current Three Year GraduaAon and BOC Exam Totals (2012-‐14)
* Data exclude new programs with < 3 yrs data (N=4)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0-‐9%
10-‐19%
20-‐29%
30-‐39%
40-‐49%
50-‐59%
60-‐69%
70-‐79%
80-‐89%
90-‐100%
1 1 8 5 9 27
45 58
82
125
Num
ber o
f program
s per ra
nge
1st A?empt Pass Rate Range (3yr avg)
1st A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate ALL PROGRAMS:
2012-‐2014 exams (current)
Majority of students in these programs fail 1st aCempt at board exam, N=24
30 of 45 are at 65% pass rate or beCer
0
50
100
150
0-‐9% 10-‐19% 20-‐29% 30-‐39% 40-‐49% 50-‐59% 60-‐69% 70-‐79% 80-‐89% 90-‐100%
1 1 8 5 9 27 45 58
82
125
Num
ber o
f program
s per ra
nge
1st A?empt Pass Rate Range (3yr avg)
1st A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate ALL PROGRAMS:
2012-‐2014 exams (current)
0
50
100
150
0-‐9% 10-‐19% 20-‐29% 30-‐39% 40-‐49% 50-‐59% 60-‐69% 70-‐79% 80-‐89% 90-‐100%
3 2 5 9 10 26
42 55
90 123
Num
ber o
f program
s per ra
nge
1st A?empt Pass Rate Range (3yr avg)
1st A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate ALL PROGRAMS:
2011-‐2013 exams (1 year ago)
New Programs 4
Non-‐compliant 96
Compliant 265
Standard 11 Compliance 2012-‐14: All Programs (count)
4/7/15
3
New Programs
3
Standard 11 Compliance 2012-‐14:
Bachelor's Programs (count)
Compliant 237
Non-‐compliant 96
New Programs
1
Non-‐compliant
1
Standard 11 Compliance 2012-‐14:
Master's Programs (count)
Compliant 28
For 2012-‐14, Bachelors programs are 13.2 Ames more likely to be non-‐compliant on Standard 11 than Masters programs
0
50
100
150
0-‐9% 10-‐19% 20-‐29% 30-‐39% 40-‐49% 50-‐59% 60-‐69% 70-‐79% 80-‐89% 90-‐100%
1 1 8 5 9 27
44 56 81
100
Num
ber o
f program
s per
range
1st A?empt Pass Rate Range (3yr avg)
1st A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate BACHELOR PROGRAMS:
2012-‐2014 exams (current)
0
50
100
150
0-‐9% 10-‐19% 20-‐29% 30-‐39% 40-‐49% 50-‐59% 60-‐69% 70-‐79% 80-‐89% 90-‐100%
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 25
Num
ber o
f program
s per
range
1st A?empt Pass Rate Range (3yr avg)
1st A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate MASTER'S PROGRAMS:
2012-‐2014 exams (current)
*30% of bachelor’s and 86% of master’s programs had 1st aCempt pass rates >90%
Number of Programs
Average Total Annual
Graduates
Average Percentage
of Graduates who took BOC Exam
Average Exam
Candidates per
Program
1st A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate
Any A?empt BOC Exam Pass Rate
Number of Non-‐
Compliant with
Standard 11
Percentage of Non-‐
Compliant with
Standard 11
Bachelors 335 3336.0 94% 9.4 78% 89% 95 28%
Masters 30 293.7 98% 9.9 93% 98% 1 3%
Total 365 3629.7 94% 9.5 79% 90% 96 26%
BOC Exam Performance By Program Type
*Professional programs average 10.1 graduates per year. 17% of programs graduate 5 or fewer per year and 57% of programs graduate 10 or fewer per year.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
1st A
?em
pt Pass R
ate (3yr avg)
Avg. Annual Program Graduates
2012-‐14 1st ACempt BOC Exam Pass Rate v. Annual Graduates
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY
Eric Sauers, PhD, ATC, FNATA CAATE Commissioner A.T. SAll University
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
CHEA Recognition
• CHEA Board action September 30, 2014
• Have interim report due July 1, 2017
4/7/15
4
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Key Issues in Higher Education Accreditation
• Quality Assurance AND Quality Improvement
• Reducing costs and regulatory burden of accreditation
• Consumer protection via increased transparency and accountability
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Important Policies Impacting Higher Education Accreditation
• Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
• National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity
• College Rating System
• Gainful Employment Rule
• The Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Implication for the CAATE and AT Education
• Focus on outcomes to reduce the regulatory burden
• Greater emphasis on quality improvement• Increased consumer protection through greater
transparency and accountability• Consider key metrics of rating: access, cost, and
outcomes• Mindful of gainful employment mindset
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT -‐ CURRENT
Micki CuppeC, EdD, ATC ExecuAve Director
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Quality Improvement eAccreditation
• All Substantive Changes now done electronically– Request for degree change– Program director change– Change in college/school
• Benchmarking now available• CAATE Analytics Report
4/7/15
5
Benefits of A CAS
Programs • Free parAcipaAon • Exposure to wider
applicant pool • Benchmarking vs.
naAonal or idenAfied cohorts
• Maintain individual workflow and admissions standards
Applicants • Single online
applicaAon • Easy, intuiAve interface • 24x7 mobile access • Real-‐Ame updates • One point of contact
for support
AssociaAon • Real-‐Ame data &
common standards • Accurate staAsAcs on
professions • Assists with workforce
projecAons, future trends, and recruitment strategies
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Workshops• 2014 Conference a success
– Over capacity– 125 participants
• 6 Deans • 15 Department
Chairs• 61 Program Directors
• Site Visitor Workshops• District workshops
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Accreditation Conference 2015
• October 16-18, 2015• Hilton Tampa Downtown• Larger space with room for more attendees• 2 ½ days of programming geared toward program personnel and
administration
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE SITE VISIT PROCESS
Leslee Taylor, PhD, LAT, ATC CAATE Commissioner Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Site Visitor Training
Focus of the site visit teams, CAATE Committees, & Commission is to look for compliance NOT noncompliance
Training• Site Visitor Training & Administrator’s Session
– ATEC – ~35 site visitors & 26 Administrators– St. Louis– June 22-23, 2015
• Site Visitor Chair Training– CAATE Accreditation Conference October 2015
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Site Visit Purpose
• Validate the self-study report and compliance with the appropriate CAATE Standards
• To aid CAATE in reaching an accreditation decision that is defined, consistent, free of personal biases, free of conflicts of interest, free of non-sanctioned interpretations, and upholds respect for institutional autonomy.
4/7/15
6
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Site Visit ProcessOnce Program Submits Documents via eAccreditation
Site Visitor Selection & Notification• Site Visit Committee makes SV team assignments
– Size of Institution/Carnegie Classification, – Conflict of Interest (Site Visitor & Institution), etc.
• Three person team: – SV Chair– SV Team Member– SV Reader
• Within one week of receiving the SV assignment, the SV chair must make contact with the program and team members
– Please let the CAATE office know if you do not hear from your SV chair.
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Site Visit ProcessReview of Self Study• Pre-Site Visit Module in eAccreditation
– Each site visitor independently indicates a preliminary degree of compliance for each standard
• If needed, the SV chair will contact the program to request any additional materials or to clarify areas of question
– Via eAccreditation by reopening specific standards
Site Visit Agenda • All site visits will use the 3 day agenda
– Agenda lengthened to allow adequate time meet with everyone and visit clinical sites unrushed. Change made based on feedback from programs & site visitors
– On-going evaluation based on feedback
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Site Visit Process
On-Site Visit• Preliminary Conference
• Standards are the minimum requirements that a program must meet
• Meet with the program director daily to keep him/her
apprised of concerns, areas of non-compliance, etc.
• Exit Conference
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Site Visit ProcessSite Visit Report• Introduction – Brief History of the Program• Strengths – Positive Aspects of the Program• Standards – Report areas of non-compliance with a rationale
– If non-compliance cited, indication that the SV team cannot find compliance; the rejoinder allows the institution to demonstrate compliance
• Recommendations – Suggestions that might strengthen the program
• Individuals interviewed – List name, credentials, and role in program
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Quality AssuranceThe CAATE is striving to improve the SV process and increase the quality of its site visits. An integral part of our quality assurance process is obtaining valid feedback from all individuals (peer, program, and review team) involved in the site visit process.
• Cumulative data will be collected and sent to all site visitors. – Allows the site visitor to see his/her status compared to others – Aids Site Visit Committee in recommending retention and training
• Evaluation includes professionalism, knowledge of Standards, and preparedness for visit (i.e. fair and objective, maintained confidentiality, unbiased, and appropriately dressed).
• Only as good at the feedback we receive about the process and site visitors.
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Site Visit Numbers*
* All numbers beginning with 2015-‐2016 subject to change un;l documents submi=ed.
2014-‐2015
2015-‐2016
2016-‐2017
2017-‐2018
2018-‐2019
ConAnuing AccreditaAon
Professional (Bac & Post Bac) 22 29 27 52 83
Post-‐Professional Degree 0 5 5 4 -‐-‐
Residency 0 0 0 2 -‐-‐
SubstanAve Change – Level of Degree
Professional 6 8 5 3 -‐-‐
Post-‐Professional Degree 0 1 1 -‐-‐ -‐-‐
IniAal AccreditaAon
Professional (Bac & Post Bac) 4 12 -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐
Post-‐Professional Degree 0 -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐
Residency 3 -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐ -‐-‐
Total Number of Visits 35 55 38 61 83
4/7/15
7
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Substantive Change – Level of Degree• Purpose
– The Substantive Change Process is designed for Programs that are mid‐accreditation cycle and wish to voluntarily change the level of the without completing an entire self-study. (Professional & Post-Professional Degree)
• Eligibility– This process is available annually to programs that are mid-
accreditation cycle and are in good standing (i.e., not on probation).
• Timeline– MAY 1st – Notification of Intent & review fee are due– AUGUST 1st - Substantive Change Application & Documents are
due
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS
Paula Maxwell, PhD, ATC CAATE Commissioner James Madison University
Review CommiCee • Made up of non-‐CAATE Commissioners
– Review CommiCee Chair – Review Team Coordinators – Review Team Members (3-‐4 per team) – Three teams for Professional Programs; Two teams for Post Professional
Programs • Liaison from the Commission to the Review CommiCee
Review Commi?ee Chair
Review Team #1
Review Team #2
Review Team #3
Review Team #4
Review Team #5
Commissioner Liaison to the RC
CAATE Commission
Roles of Review Commi?ee Members
• Commissioner Liaison: – Resource person
• Review Commi?ee Chair: – Organizes and tracks reports – Assigns reports to teams according to Conflicts of Interest
– Resource person for the Review Teams – Reviews all reports for consistency and accuracy once RT finish
– Communicates with the CAATE and the Standards CommiCee
– Completes annual assessment of NCs to suggest areas for change or clarity
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Roles of Review Committee Members• Review Team Coordinator:
– Organizes team and reports within the individual team– Tracks reports and maintains timelines– Communicates with the Review Committee Chair and
other team Coordinators– Helps review reports with team members
• Review Team Members:– Review site visit reports, rejoinders and progress
reports– Communicate with the site visitors
Review Process Site visit report/rejoinder/progress report submiCed via
eAccreditaAon
Report checked for typos, grammaAcal errors, proper format, completeness
Review CommiCee Chair and Review Team(s) noAfied that report is ready
Review Team Reviews the report Call SV Team if SV Report
Review CommiCee Team #2 reviews report if complicated, has potenAal negaAve outcomes or if team members are not in agreement; Release back to RC Chair
for final review
Review CommiCee Chair reviews for accuracy, consistency, and appropriateness of NCs – Returns report
to CAATE Office via eAccred
Report forwarded to Commission for acAon
4/7/15
8
• The Review Team analyzes each Standard to determine its level of compliance. If a Standard is deemed “non-compliant,” the Review Team will ensure there is adequate evidence and sufficient description detailing why the Standard is non-compliant and what must be submitted to demonstrate compliance.
• Review process takes 6-8 weeks to complete• Multi-step process with several evaluators to gain accuracy and
consistency• No official NCs until the review process is complete
– Unless health and safety, discrimination or fair practices are involved, the Commission does not see or act on the Site Visit report until after the program has an opportunity to address the NCs (i.e. submit the Rejoinder).
Review Process
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
How to Get Involved
• Call for new members this spring
• Training in October – In conjunction with Accreditation Conference
• You are encouraged to apply
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT -‐ FUTURE
Mark Laursen, MS, ATC CAATE President Boston University
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
CAATE Vision
Improving Health by assuring and recognizing excellence in AT education.
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
eAccreditation Enhancements in the Future
• Focus Group from all Users– Program Administrators, Site Visitors, Review Team,
Annual Report
• Examine the platform to make the process more robust and user friendly
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Encouraging and Recognizing Excellence
• Creating standards and a process that encourages creativity and excellence.
• Create an environment that encourages innovative and new curricula that prepare athletic trainers for our future place in health care.
• Provide a purposeful continuum of education.
4/7/15
9
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Creating an educational format which produces graduates that……
• Have a strong scientific foundational knowledge.• Are clinically competent.• Want athletic training as a career.• Have a place in healthcare as a Level II
Provider.• Possess The Institute of Medicine Core
Competencies for Health Professionals
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Currently, the Commission believes:
• Standards should be continually examined
• Required professional knowledge needs to change as medical practice and needs change.
• There should be periods of full-time clinical engagement
• Programs should have faculty with specific areas of expertise
• AT programs should be housed within schools of health professions
Questions EXAMINING THE PROFESSIONAL DEGREE
Mark Laursen, MS, ATC CAATE President Boston University
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Examining the Professional Degree
• Currently, the Commission believes:– Compelling evidence indicates that better outcomes
are being achieved at the masters level – The elements of quality improvement we have
identified will be easier to implement at the masters level
– It is important to facilitate programs who want to transition their program to the post-baccalaureate level
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
The Commission also believes…..
• To accomplish our mission, changes need to
continue to be made in professional education
regardless of the level of the degree.
4/7/15
10
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Examining the Professional Degree
• Commitment to an objective evaluation and transparent process are warranted prior to making any decision. • Online solicitation of stakeholder feedback
– Current open comment • Evaluation of information as it becomes available• Collaboration with our strategic partners
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Examining the Professional Degree
• Electronic open comment – Began February – Ends March 20– # Comments to date =
• Discussing at meeting next week• Continue conversations with strategic partners
CommentsATEC 2015Dallas, TX
T R A N S F O R M I N G T H E P R O F E S S I O N T H R O U G H Q U A L I T Y E D U C A T I O N
Accreditation Conference 2015
• October 16-18, 2015• Hilton Tampa Downtown• Larger space with room for more attendees• 2 ½ days of programming geared toward program personnel and
administration