2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

advertisement
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
The Program Review Report assesses the viability and quality of credit and non-credit instructional programs to support program improvement through Area Improvement Plans,
as established by College Procedure 2.03.01.18: Program Review. The Office of Institutional Research provides the data, which are by academic year as of August 31, 2015; the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness produces the report, which presents the data by program. Standards are marked as “Met” or “Not Met” based on DISTRICT (“D”), not site, performance. Data
by site are shown where available (if unavailable, boxes are blank). Standards after slashes denote critical thresholds, which identify especially unacceptable performance (and if not met,
are marked "Not Met-Critical"). Results are color-coded, as follows:
STANDARD MET
STANDARD NOT MET
STANDARD NOT MET - CRITICAL
Viability Indicator scores 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompt formal review by the Program Review Committee. The Committee's authority
concerning program continuation is limited to recommending that the senior instructional administrators review the program's capacity to improve its service to students and the
community. The final decision on program continuation rests with the President.
Program Type: Health Career Program
Mandatory Accreditation: Yes
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review
Fully Accredited? (Y/N): Yes
Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above
50%
Reason Why Not Fully Accredited: N/A
THE PROGRAM’S RECENT PERFORMANCE SCORES (Citation of a year such as "1415" or "2015" refers to the 2014-2015 academic year.)
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
VIABILITY
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
57.89%
57.89%
57.89%
57.89%
QUALITY
100%
100%
100%
75%
RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
2012-2013
None
2013-2014
None
2014-2015
None
SOURCES 1. State Annual Data Profile, Mainframe, 2. Annual Data Profile and/or Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System, 3. Mainframe/State Lonestar, EMSI proprietary database, 4. Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District
Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 5. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), 6. Banner, 7. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), Fac. Employment Status (Mainframe), 8. SLO Assessment Task Force; TracDat database (All fields must have data for applicable
cycle—no blank fields), 9. Credit Student Faculty Evaluation, 10. Graduate Survey, 11. Employer Survey, 12. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, 13. THECB Statewide Annual Licensure Report, 14. Faculty Development Records, 15. Non-Credit Faculty
Evaluation, 16. Course Syllabus (Curriculum Office), 17. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 18. DACUM Audit (Curriculum Office), 19. Curriculum
Office, 20. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Employer Survey, 21. Student Banner Files, Budget Office, Public Community/Junior & Technical College Basis of Legislative Appropriations, 22. Credit Academic History.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Z:RS/2015-2016 RPT/PROGREVRPT1516-YR EMERGENCYMEDICALSERVICES
4/15/2016
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
1
VIABILITY (Overall viability score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee)
1516 Rpt
(District Data as
of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1. No. of Graduates Within latest 5-year period (Fall, Spring, Summer) provided by
the State (State counts graduates with more than 1 award more than once) (For info.
only, after the score: Latest 5-yr award total known to EPCC, if not the State) Source:
1 Standard: 25/<15
42. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 192
148. For
inf. Only,
EPCC
Data: 269*
268. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 341*
340. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 407*
2. Student Success Percent of students employed/transfer/enter military w/in 1 yr
of grad., for last 3 years provided by the State. Source: 2 Standard: 90%/<50%
92.9%
93%
96.4%
95.4%
1. Workforce Demand Whether the no. of new and replacement jobs in the field
forecast for El Paso, Hudspeth, Dona Ana, Luna, & Otero counties during the 5
years following this report’s publication meets/exceeds the no. of graduates during
the 5 years preceding this report’s publication. (See end of report for data) Source:
3 Standard: Yes
Yes, for 218
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for
169
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for 209
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 208
graduates in last
5 years.
2. Contact/Credit Hours per FT Faculty Sufficient contact/credit hours for all
discipline courses, District-wide, disregarding lecturers, for FT faculty workload for
last 3 years (F/Sp). (Excluding C.E. courses) (Unduplicated) (Cred. Tran. & Career
& Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 4 Standard: Yes/No
3. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full (Including C.E. students), based on
optimum and no. of students in each section for last 3 years on census date,
excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent Music study), MUSR
(recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas, NCBO, classes whose
instructors are not paid by EPCC; if room capacity is below optimum, score
reflects room capacity. (For info. only, after score the measure is also calculated
w/o concurrent students.) (For info. only, District average fill rate appears after
foregoing data (No. of seats filled divided by no. of seats available)) Source: 5
Standard: 80%/<50%
4. Enrollment Trends Seat count (including C.E. students) is increasing, level or
decreasing no more than 5% from the benchmark year (1st yr. of last 3 yrs.), based
on program-specific courses. (For info. only, after score measure calculated w/o
C.E. students.) (For info. only, appears the unduplicated no. of students by year)
Source: 6 Standard: Yes/>10% decrease
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 86%
Dist. Seat
Count:
92.5%
D: 85%
Dist. Seat
Count:
93.3%**
D: 83.8%
Dist. Seat
Count:
94%**
D: 78%
Dist. Seat
Count:
90.8%**
Lacks 3
yrs of
data †
73.8%
84.3%
D: Yes,
42%,
Undupl.
2010: 311,
2012: 375
D: Yes,
31%,
Undupl.
2011: 366,
2013:
402**
D: Yes,
11.6%,
Undupl.
2012: 374,
2014: 369**
D: No,
-34.8%,
Undupl.
2013: 402,
2015: 314**
Lacks 3
yrs of
data †
Yes,
1.7%
No,
-52.9%
5. Full-Time Faculty in Discipline There is at least 1 FT instructor with primary
teaching load in the discipline. (Sept. 1-May 1 of latest year) (Cred. Tran. & Career
& Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 7 Standard: Yes/No
6. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) For each 2-year cycle, has the program
documented & implemented the recommendations for its active SLOs and
completed its assessment process for its active SLOs? Source: 8 Standard: Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
INDICATOR
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STATE-MANDATED
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
*2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure increased the period of years covered from 3 to 5 and changed the standard from 15/<10 to 25/<15.
**2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure required that C.E. students be included in the scored calculation. For information only, a second calculation was required to be made without including C.E. students; the change may affect Advanced
Technology Industrial Manufacturing, Electrical Technology, HVAC, and Machining Technology.
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of data” if the campus has hosted the
program fewer than three years.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Z:RS/2015-2016 RPT/PROGREVRPT1516-YR EMERGENCYMEDICALSERVICES
4/15/2016
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
2
QUALITY
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1. Student Satisfaction with Program Based on fall/spring percent of students
satisfied with labs & technology averaged for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1 or
0 based on combined on averaged of responses: “Excellent”: 1, “Good”: 1,
“Acceptable”: 1, “Weak”: 0, “Unacceptable” = 0. Average of 1=Satisfaction)
Source: 9 Standard: 80%
2. Student Evaluation of Faculty Percent of satisfaction in fall/spring averaged
for last 3 years, based on question: "Would you recommend instructor?" Source: 9
Standard 80%
D: 95%
D: 90%
D: 89%
D: 89%
Lacks 3
yrs of
data †
95.3%
88.3%
D: 96%
D: 95%
D: 94.3%
D: 96%
Lacks 3
yrs of
data †
96.3%
90.7%
3. Graduate Satisfaction with Program Based on percent of cumulative
graduates satisfied with “usefulness of my major courses w/ respect to my job,”
“availability of courses in my major,” & “level of technology in my major.”
(Combined average of all 3 responses) for previous 3 years. Source: 10 Standard:
80%
4. Employer Satisfaction Percent of surveyed employers satisfied with graduates
for last 3 years. Names of employers surveyed provided by the Dean/District-wide
Coordinator. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the 8
responses: “Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0,
“Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates satisfaction) Source: 11 Standard:
80%
5. Advisory Committee Satisfaction with Program Percent of surveyed
members satisfied, based on averaged percent of satisfaction for the last 3 years.
(Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the eleven responses:
“Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0, “Unacceptable" = 0.
An average of 1 indicates satisfaction.) Source: 12 Standard: 80%
88%
94%
96.2%
98.1%
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3 yrs of
data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3 yrs of
data
6. Student Licensure/Certification, As Applicable Percent of
graduates/completers receiving licensure/certification, based on annual pass rate for
the most recent year. Source: 13 Standard: 90%
59%
72%
72%
71.7%
67%
89%
91%
81.8%
INDICATOR
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION/PROGRESS
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
1. Full-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of FT teaching
Faculty at 2 prof. development activities during the fall semester (1st day of fall
Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of
FT teaching Faculty at 2 such activities during spring semester (1st day of spring
FDW through last day of final exams). If FT faculty teach in 2 or more programs,
their attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 100%
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of
data” if the campus has hosted the program fewer than three years.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 3
INDICATOR
2. Part-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of PT teaching
Faculty at 1 prof. development activity during fall semester (1st day of fall Faculty
Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of PT
teaching Faculty at 1 such activity during spring semester (1st day of spring FDW
through last day of final exams). If PT faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their
attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 75%
3. Sections taught by Full-Time Faculty Percent of sections taught by FT
Faculty for last 3 years, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent
Music study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas,
NCBO, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC. Source: 7 Standard:
50%
4. Course Syllabus Reviewed/revised within the last 3 years, based on no. of
course syllabi in the program and the revision date of each syllabus. Source: 16
Standard: Yes
5. Advisory Committee Meetings Held at least once annually, based on the
meeting date(s) of each program advisory committee for the last 3 years. Source:
17 Standard: Yes
6. DACUM Completion within last 5 years, based on completion date of each
program DACUM. Source: 18 Standard: Yes
7. DACUM Findings Incorporated, as appropriate, into curriculum, based on
most recent DACUM Audit for each program. Source: 18 Standard: Yes
8. Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Percent of ISD requests
for articulation addressed through analysis of EPCC course objectives for last 3
years. Source: 19 Standard: 100%
9. Post-Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Written evidence
of attempted/revised articulation within the last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes
10. Program Accreditation, As Applicable Maintains/actively seeking voluntary
accreditation, based on documentation of accreditation or application for
accreditation for last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes
11. Community Benefit/Service Percent of surveyed advisory committee
members acknowledging program meets community needs for each of the last 3
years. Source: 12 Standard: 85%
12. Program Need Percent of surveyed employers acknowledging program is
needed for each of the last 3 years. Names of surveyed employers identical to
those used by Employer Satisfaction indicator. Source: 11 Standard: 85%
13. Competitive Advantage: Quality Percent of surveyed respondents
acknowledging EPCC meets/exceeds quality of proprietary schools for each of the
last 3 years. (Combined average of responses on both the Advisory Committee
Survey and the Employer Survey) Source: 20 Standard: 85%
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
11%
45%
18%
5.3%
D: 74%
D: 68%***
D: 81%***
D: 84.5%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3 yrs of
data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3 yrs of
data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3 yrs of
data
ASC
Lacks 3
yrs of
data †
FT.
BLISS
MdP
83.5%
NW
RG
TM
VV
84.3%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of
data” if the campus has hosted the program fewer than three years.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 4
VIABILITY INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INDICATOR 1 - WORKFORCE DEMAND
Measure: Whether the sum of new and replacement jobs in the field forecast for El Paso and Hudspeth Counties and the New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, Luna and Otero
during the 5 years following the publication of the Program Review Report meets or exceeds the number of graduates during the 5 years preceding the publication of the report. To ensure
that the data include career paths addressed by the program, each program shall provide the IE Office with a list of jobs for which it prepares graduates.
The listings are from the EMSI database, which was created in 2001, in consultation with the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), to track occupational demand and
wages nationally, by state and by region, drawing on some 91 databases, which include those of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number preceding each occupational title is the
unique Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) number assigned to each job title. Job titles were specified by the disciplines. Numerical anomalies may be
due to rounding.
TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR
SOC
Code
11-9161
21-1091
25-2032
29-2041
29-9091
29-9099
31-1011
31-1014
31-1015
31-9097
31-9099
43-5031
Occupation
Emergency Management
Directors
Health Educators
Career/Technical
Education Teachers,
Secondary School
Emergency Medical
Technicians and
Paramedics
Athletic Trainers
Healthcare Practitioners
and Technical Workers,
All Other
Home Health Aides
Nursing Assistants
Orderlies
Phlebotomists
Healthcare Support
Workers, All Other
Police, Fire, and
Ambulance Dispatchers
20
21
21
22
22
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
<10
147
417
150
426
154
434
156
442
159
449
843
875
903
928
49
84
51
87
52
89
2636
3313
163
272
415
2870
3414
165
280
424
327
333
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2013)
Education Required
$30.43
Bachelor's degree
28
80
$18.96
$25.55
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
945
202
$15.71
Postsecondary non-degree award
54
91
55
93
12
18
$21.08
$24.32
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
3079
3509
168
288
431
3270
3598
170
296
438
3406
3672
172
301
443
1010
629
22
51
61
$10.43
$10.55
$10.99
$13.19
$16.17
Less than high school
Postsecondary non-degree award
High school diploma or equivalent
Postsecondary non-degree award
High school diploma or equivalent
339
344
348
61
$15.78
High school diploma or equivalent
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 5
Download
Related flashcards

Corporate governance

23 cards

Corporate governance

32 cards

Create Flashcards