MINUTES
MEETING:
F/M Clinical Sites/Academic Faculty Collaborative Meeting
DATE:
October 24, 2006
PRESENT:
Clinical Sites representatives
Academic Faculty representatives
Clay Co. Public Health – Kathy Anderson, Kathy McKay
Concordia – Polly Kloster, Connie Peterson
Bethany Homes – Barb Kress
MSCTC – Kathy Burlingame, Carol Church
Elim – Kirsten Reile
MSUM – Barbara Matthees
Eventide – Melissa Heesch
NDSCS – Barb Diederick, Ruth Gladen
Family HealthCare Center – Maxine Henderson
NDSU – Mary Margaret Mooney, Carla Gross, Maggie Lee
Fargo Cass Public Health – Mary Kay Herrmann
Tri-College – Jane Giedt
Fargo VA – Karen Robinson
Hospice of the RRV – Margaret Dahl, Karen Smithson
Innovis – Kate Steinke, Trish Wetzel
MeritCare – Joyce Bloch, Joan Justesen, Ev Quigley, Jane Roggensack, Trish Strom
Prairie St. John’s – Diana Ketterling
Villa Maria – Betty Vetter
AGENDA ITEM
Welcome and
Introductions
Background
TIME CALLED TO ORDER:
TIME ADJOURNED:
LOCATION:
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION
Karen Robinson opened the meeting by introducing herself and Ev Quigley as cochairs. All participants were introduced.
Background:
Nurse leaders from clinical sites were convened three times. Representatives from
hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and Hospice met, with meetings being facilitated
by Karen Robinson and Ev Quigley.
The findings and recommendations from the ND Nursing Needs Study and a
recent meeting of the North Dakota Organization of Nurse Executives (NDONE)
and College and University Nursing Education Administrators (CUNEA) provided
emphasis for action at the local level. Findings included the environment in which
nurses work, future faculty needs, future supply & demand for RNs and LPNs,
available clinical sites and out-migration of nurses, especially new graduates.
Purpose, Outcomes,
Ground Rules
The outcomes of these three meetings resulted in the following:
Development of Common Themes which will be reviewed later today.
Agreement that a collaborative meeting with academic nurse leaders was
warranted.
A proposal was created for a collaborative forum such as an Education
Practice Council – structure to be developed. Subgroup leads: Trish Strom
and Kate Steinke.
Development of a Nursing Program Survey. Author: Trish Strom.
Purpose:
Bring together nursing leadership from F-M healthcare settings and academic
settings to discuss clinical capacity for undergraduate & graduate student nurse
3:00
5:00
Hospice of the RRV
RECOMMENDATIONS
OR ACTIONS
AGENDA ITEM
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION
experiences & to clarify educational opportunities available.
RECOMMENDATIONS
OR ACTIONS
Outcomes:
1. Increased awareness of clinical site capacity
2. Shared understanding of organizational and academic setting needs
3. Explore actions to jointly meet needs
4. Consider establishing an Education Practice Council
General consensus for the purpose and outcomes was given.
Highlights from each
academic facility
regarding program
Ground Rules:
Given the time & number of participants, it was suggested that one main ground
rule would be used – when one leader is speaking, attention will focus on the
speaker.
Trish Strom introduced the Nursing Program Survey - purpose was to show what
academic settings in this area offer, what sites are being used, what are not being
utilized to full capacity. She commented that UND and Presentation College were
not in the survey but they do use Fargo sites. Presentation College will be
teaching out of Shanley starting this fall.
Academic leaders were thanked for their timely response.
Each academic representative briefed the group on their program and how they
filled out the survey.
Listed below are some expanded highlights to the data in the survey:
Concordia – Later, Concordia concurred with NDSU’s report on high interest in
excellent GPAs.
MSTCS – Issues are: more students are coming in stressed, needing to work
more, needing to get out earning quickly. MSTCS is exploring how they can offer
more options for part-time tracks, on-line learning. Their best applicant pool is the
F-M area because of the size of the population. They have 4 sites (Moorhead,
Detroit Lakes, Wadena and Fergus Falls) and the population base is very different
in each of the 4 sites. Complete # of students: LPN and ADRN students equal 500
– 160 of these are LPN students.
MSUM – May begin clinicals in the OR – not sure yet – maybe in the summer.
NDSU – Their basic program is the basic pre-licensure program. They admit 60
students each summer. Seeing greater ethnic diversity - immigrants bringing the
most diversity to the program. Most students are traditional age students. Two or
2
AGENDA ITEM
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION
three students drop out each year – mostly for other reasons, not grades; they
also get 1-2 transfer students. Their minimum GPA for admission is listed as 3.0
but the lowest GPA admitted last year was 3.67. They allow students to apply
twice.
RECOMMENDATIONS
OR ACTIONS
NDSCS – Their maximum PN student total is 96 (all totaled).
Competition
Tri-College – The consortium is going to be discontinued next summer. Will
continue under independent programs. Will be an administrative restructuring but
the students won’t see a difference because they are admitted through the
separate colleges. They have about 60 students. Require a baccalaureate degree
from a nationally recognized nursing school. Biggest problem is lack of qualified
instructors – could expand the program if they had more faculty.
“Competition” on the survey meant students competing to get in, but competition
for clinical sites and competition for qualified nursing faculty are also big problems.
Hardest areas to find space for clinical experience were pediatrics, maternal child,
critical care, inpatient mental health.
Academic faculty representatives said they do not feel they are competing for
students. Students shop around and may have applied to several programs, and
may not decide until the first day of class which school they are going to attend.
Common Themes
Discussion
Would be ideal if we could get to the point of where the students with the lower
GPA being turned away could be referred to MSCTC. (Kathy Burlingame)
Karen Robinson summarized the “Common Themes” document which clinical site
representatives had created during their 3 meetings earlier this year. Themes
echoed what was in the ND Nursing Needs Study.
Discussion divided into 2 issues: (1) general orientation; and (2) areas where
students need development or don’t have the option to spend more time (such as
OR). Maybe there is a way for all students to do this together.
Reality: More is taught now than in the past – but nothing is ever given up –
decision needs to be made regarding what really needs to be taught.
ACTION:
Explore opportunities for redesign or new
ways of meeting requirements
Discussion re: general orientation:
Packaged/standardized orientation (HIPAA, infection control, etc.) – all could use
the same forms, modules, etc. Check out the Oregon Center for Nursing web page
– they have done a lot of this. Could use modules – they could go through these
before they show up to begin their orientation & clinical. Are there orientation
modules that have been used for staff that could be adapted for use by students?
Ruth Gladen said NDSCS is already using modules.
3
AGENDA ITEM
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION
Trish Strom commented that MeritCare’s legal counsel interprets the HIPAA law to
say that each facility needs to teach the students. If we could have this in writing,
standardized, at least all facilities could use the same information.
There could be one form – each school would sign off that the students had done
their HIPAA, CPR, has updated MMR, etc;. and have it on file. Another
suggestion: Oregon has a “clinical passport” which each student has to carry with
them – they can be asked to show it at any time. MSCTC is trying this out.
RECOMMENDATIONS
OR ACTIONS
ACTION:
Area for further follow-up
Discussion re: areas where students need development:
Discussion regarding OR (lack of interested candidates) – can we highlight a small
# of students who have an interest in this? Feedback has said that the quality of
the experience in the OR, not the amount of time, was most important.
Simulation – is there some kind of staffed, one person simulation unit that all
would have to go through? MSCTC has simulation equipment – can it be adapted
to OR and infection control?
Suggestion: if the student really knows they want to get a job in a certain area,
maybe they should get more in-depth experience (preceptorship) in that area.
Maybe every student doesn’t need to go to every clinical experience if they know
they will never be interested in working in that area. Problem with that: almost no
students would ever take the LTC experience if allowed out of it – but many of
those students find that they have a real calling for working with the elderly. This
would never be discovered if they didn’t have clinical experience in a NH.
ACTION:
Conduct an inventory of availability &
application of simulation
Possibly students should stay longer in a unit – if they come for only one day, can
you really call that a clinical experience? They may have no action that day. If they
stay longer, they may see much more. Even if they did not get the opportunity to
do something technical, they can be using their assessment skills, interacting with
the family, etc. – they are always learning something they will use as a nurse.
Update on recent CNO
conference – with
JCAHO
Another suggestion: why can’t we use the background a C N A instructor uses – a
lot of students are required to have this before they can apply. Can we give this up
because of duplication. Another view: C N A basic instruction does not teach the
same way or towards the same purpose. CNAs are not taught as much decisionmaking / it may be hard to make that transition.
Joan Justesen updated the group on a recent CNO conference she attended.
They spent a full day at JCAHO headquarters getting insight into the future of
nursing standards. If anyone is interested in the information and CDs she
obtained, please contact her at 234-6956 or at joan.justesen@meritcare.com.
ACTION:
There was not consensus in the group that
C N A was the entry level to nursing
education – further exploration
4
AGENDA ITEM
Short brainstorming re:
topics for further
collaboration
Next Steps
Next Meeting
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION
Trish Strom stated clinical sites are required to validate the competencies of
academic clinical faculty.
Joan also reported that there was evidence of an increased requirement for BSNprepared nurses by the healthcare facilities in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Suggestions for topics for further collaboration were:
How can we prove competence of the faculty coming into our clinical sites?
Drug screens – how do academic settings do this? Can you request a drug
screen of students who you suspect?
Background checks
GPA levels
Job shadowing – there is a big difference in doing actual clinical work in a NH
and just job shadowing – are goals really attainable when just following an RN
around – are they getting anything from it?
Clinical simulation – availability & application
Discuss going outside the F/M area – Hospice has 6 offices, UND &
Presentation College are using other sites – can other organizations provide
some of this clinical experience?
Discuss C N A fundamentals – look at curriculums
Best practice info (from the Nursing Program Survey) has not yet been
discussed
Observation – noted increasing volume – explore purpose & outcomes
Discuss the possibility of an Education Practice Council – a smaller group with
representatives from clinical sites & academia
Members agreed that a follow-up meeting was needed. Members supported that
the present co-chairs continue to facilitate the next meeting & work on the interim
basis. Discussion continued around dividing into smaller task forces – each one to
discuss a different topic. Then everyone could get together again as a large group
and discuss the findings/recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
OR ACTIONS
ACTION:
Trish will provide Mary Lake with these
requirements for distribution.
ACTION:
The minutes will be distributed &
responses & suggestions will be sought.
Karen Robinson & Ev Quigley will
continue to co-chair.
Possible work groups could be:
1. Simulation – inventory availability &
application
2. JCAHO Clinical Competency
Validation
3. Standard Student Orientation
4. Job Shadowing/Observation –
purpose & benefits
5. Develop purposes & structure for a
Collaborative Education Council.
Mary Lake will arrange. If anyone has anything to suggest or submit, please e-mail
to Mary at mary.lake@meritcare.com
Karen Robinson/Ev Quigley, Co-Chairpersons
Mary Lake, Recorder
5