1 / 14

Needs Assessment Committee Report

Needs Assessment Committee Report. Presented to RAC By Martha Alexander-Miller March 20, 2014. Committee Members. Martha Alexander-Miller (Microbiology & Immunology) Bridget Brosnihan (Hypertension & Vascular Research ) Steve Kridel (Cancer Biology) Todd Lowther (Biochemistry)

axel-mclaughlin
Download Presentation

Needs Assessment Committee Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Needs Assessment Committee Report Presented to RAC By Martha Alexander-Miller March 20, 2014

  2. Committee Members • Martha Alexander-Miller (Microbiology & Immunology) • Bridget Brosnihan (Hypertension & Vascular Research) • Steve Kridel (Cancer Biology) • Todd Lowther (Biochemistry) • John Parks (Molecular Medicine) • Kathy Poehling (Pediatrics) • Linda Porrino (Physiology & Pharmacology) • Janet Tooze (PHS) • Lynne Wagenknecht • Laurie Molloy • Jason Kaplan

  3. Insights from survey • Many faculty are not aware of instrumentation and core services currently available at the institution • In many cases available instruments/ technologies are in need of a core structure with a faculty director (with dedicated effort) to promote effective utilization

  4. Limitations to the data set • 134 faculty responded, concern that data do not reflect a comprehensive sampling, coincidental conversations with faculty seem to support this • Cores/technologies often scored as needs improvement with limited details of what these improvements should be

  5. Process 1) Looked at • Overall utilization • Priority score (1 or 2) 2) In depth analysis of the most utilized areas assessed by respondent as high priority that indicated need for improvement • Imaging • Microscopy • Flow Cytometry • Biostatistics • Informatics • Mass Spectrometry • Clinical Research Unit • Genomics/Proteomics 3) What are the needs in these areas?

  6. Current and Predicated Use of Established Cores The survey only gathered these data for established cores. Some technologies, e.g. imaging, made it to the list based on the frequency and priority ranking that came when respondents entered their priority needs (as these were write-in boxes not restricted to cores).

  7. Process 1) Looked at • Overall utilization • Priority score (1 or 2) 2) In depth analysis of the most utilized areas assessed by respondent as high priority that indicated need for improvement • Imaging • Microscopy • Flow Cytometry • Biostatistics • Informatics • Mass Spectrometry • Clinical Research Unit • Genomics/Proteomics 3) What are the needs in these areas?

  8. Outcomes from committee discussions • List of recommendations for the current fiscal year (smaller scale) as well as the next 3 years • The recommendations from the committee are based on the assumption that existing cores will continue to be funded at current level

  9. Already in process • DAU (Design and Analysis Unit, OR) – implementation of new lower rate structure • Website with comprehensive list of technologies that are available at the institution (includes description and faculty contact)=one stop shopping • This is happening as a result of the survey and discussion within the committee

  10. Proposal for investment

  11. Current Fiscal Year • Upgrade software for existing equipment that is heavily used • Aria and Canto flow cytometers (+computer as new software won’t run on current) • mass spec • microscopes • Staff infrastructure to provide coordination, billing, technical support, etc. and modest supply budget for film developer in Gray 5070 • Server space and system for backup of large data sets for instruments where this is currently not available

  12. Year 1 • Confocal microscope on Hawthorne campus with faculty director • Imaging core: infrastructure with unified director, dedicated instrument time for research use, supported time for pilot scans to generate preliminary data • Establish core setting for existing Multiphoton microscope • Biomedical informatics support • Clinical research data (from Wake One and other sources) • OMICS data • Technician to provide services for VevoPhotoLazer (0.5 FTE) • Provide a small number (2-5 hours) of no-charge biostatistical support per faculty member per year for work not supported by grants

  13. Year 2 • Establish Proteomics Core • Recruit faculty director with significant dedicated time to facilitate use • Purchase necessary equipment as determined by faculty recruit • Place available genomics services under a unified core setting with director (paid effort) • IVIS camera and software upgrades

  14. Year 3 • Establish Metabolomics Core • Recruit faculty director with significant dedicated time as director to facilitate use • Purchase equipment as determined by faculty recruit

More Related