150 likes | 357 Views
THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE. CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FOR MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS WORK IN PROGRESS. CLINICAL EDUCATION - CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES MARCH 28, 2004. THE STUDY. CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FOR MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS COSTS, BENEFITS AND ALTERNATIVES
E N D
THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL LABORATORY SCIENCE CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FORMEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTSWORK IN PROGRESS CLINICAL EDUCATION - CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES MARCH 28, 2004
THE STUDY CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FOR MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS COSTS, BENEFITS AND ALTERNATIVES February - September 2004 Conducted by the CSMLS Funded by Health Canada
THE INFORMATION GAPS • incomplete information on MLT programs • partial information on costs • acknowledged need for data on health professions • urgent need to address human resources issues through educational processes
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Which models for clinical placements are currently in use in Canadian medical laboratory programs? 2. Do the different models for clinical placement produce discernible and significant differences in student performance? 3. What are the costs and benefits of (and possible alternatives for) clinical placements in the education of Canadian MLTs?
PROJECT OUTLINE Phase 1 • Mailed surveys to program directors • Outcomes • table and details of program variations • identification of program models • preliminary observations on student outcomes • selection of sites for Phase 2
PROJECT OUTLINE Phase 2 • Mailed surveys to laboratory directors, clinical instructors and students and five sites • Site visits and interviews at up to 5 sites • Outcomes • multiple perspectives on the costs and benefits of clinical education • a C&B algorithm that includes intangibles, observations of stakeholders, correlations between models and student outcomes
PHASE 1 : CHALLENGES • encompassing MLT & specialties • within-program variations • programs in transition • differences in titles and terminology • defining ‘student outcomes’ for this study
CRITERIA FOR MODELS • program length & type • length & timing of clinical placement • use of simulations • assignment of clinical instructors • compensation to clinical sites
RESPONDENTS’ CONCERNS • Insufficient numbers of sites • Inability to expand program • Fluctuations in numbers of places: • Withdrawal of sites • Unavailability of teaching technologists • Geographical issues for students • Concerns about quality of learning experience
RESPONDENTS’ WISH LIST • More sites and more student places! • Funding for teaching sites • Alternatives to on-site placement • More support for clinical instructors and sites • Better integration of theory and practice • Reorganization away from discipline orientation • Changing timing of clinical placement in the program • Longer/shorter rotations
COSTS & BENEFITSA CAVEAT TANGIBLE INTANGIBLE COSTS BENEFITS
COSTS & BENEFITS. . . TANGIBLE INTANGIBLE BENEFITS EMPLOYERCOSTS
COSTS & BENEFITS. . . Benefits to students, clinical instructors, sites, non-teaching staff • “vital” • “invaluable” • “essential” • “irreplaceable” • “The benefits outweigh any costs incurred”
AVAILABILITY OF FINDINGS Phase 1: From CSMLS after April 1, 2004 Phase 2 From CSMLS after October 1, 2004