Assessment Report – 2010
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2010
Report due March 31, 2011
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to Bea.Babbitt@unlv.edu
Program Information:
Nuclear Medicine
Program
Health Physics and Diagnostic Sciences
Department(s)
College School of Allied Health Sciences
Program Assessment Coordinator Joanie MacDonald
Report submitted by
(include phone/email) Joanie MacDonald, 53136, joan.macdonald@unlv.edu
2/18/2011
Date Submitted
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
1. Apply theoretical and practical applications of nuclear medicine in the workplace.
2. Find gainful employment locally, or regionally, as a staff or chief technologist.
3. Continue to acquire knowledge and experiences requisite to assuming a leadership role in the field of nuclear medicine.
4. Have learned many diverse aspects of nuclear medicine from routine to experimental through a wide range of clinical experiences.
5. Successfully write a national registry examination in nuclear medicine.
6. Have a sound academic foundation for graduate study.
7. Conduct themselves in an ethical and professional manner.
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned
assessments to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2010 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
Outcome #1
Two indirect measures that are utilized to asses the
student’s preparedness for practice are the Student Exit
Survey (table 1) and the Employer Survey (tables 2—5)
Outcome #3
Directly measured by surveying the Nuclear Medicine
community
Outcome #4
Directly measured through performance evaluations and
indirectly measured through student questionnaires.
Direct = clinical embedded practical examinations using
a clinical performance instrument, the Clinical
Competency Evaluation Form is completed by the
evaluator for each nuclear medicine procedure under
evaluation. Students receive scores or either “competent,”
minor deficiency,” major deficiency,” or “incompetent”
in 11 categories. Any score of “incompetency,” “major
deficiency,” or two “minor deficiencies” constitute a
failing grade and the student must perform remedial
training and repeat the exam. Each clinical procedure is
performed on real patients in hospitals or outpatient
clinics and when necessary through simulated testing.
Outcome #5
This is directly measured by the scores received on the
certifying exams (tables 6 and 7 below).
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Outcome #1
Outcome #1
We strive to achieve an 80% average (4/5) in all areas surveyed.
Outcome #3
Outcome #3
We expect a higher percentage of our graduates to assume a
leadership role in our affiliate hospitals/clinics.
Outcome #4
We expect all students to pass a minimum of 29 nuclear
medicine and patient care procedures that are mandated by our
certifying bodies during their course of study. The program
director must verify that each student is competent in each area
prior to taking their graduation. Students cannot pass the clinical
courses without passing these practical examinations and
showing competency in all 11 categories. National standards are
not applied directly to these competencies but rather indirectly
through the national examination scores we report following the
spring semester. Since our students historically perform above
the national mean and have a higher first-time pass rate on the
national examinations, we would expect our students to be above
the national mean if such statistics were maintained for clinical
competencies.
Outcome #5
All graduates will meet or exceed the national first time pass rate
with a score at least equal to the national average on one or both
of the certifying exam.
Outcome #4
Outcome #5
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below
what was expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Outcome #1 Results
The student exit survey response rate was 92% (11/12) and all scores exceeded our expected outcome of 80% minimum (table 1). Students
believe they have learned many diverse aspects of nuclear medicine through their clinical experiences and are prepared for the working
environment. Also as seen in the table, the 11 graduates who completed this survey were in strong agreement that the program met their
educational and clinical needs
Table 1: Summary of Student Exit Surveys (Spring 2010)
Evaluation metric
5
4
3
2
1
N/A
MEAN
The program met your educational expectations
11
5.0
The clinical education you received adequately
prepared you to meet the clinical requirements of nuclear medicine
10
1
4.9
The didactic education you received adequately
prepared you to perform in your modality
9
2
4.8
5 = Strongly agree
4 = Generally agree
3 = Neutral
2 = Generally disagree
1 = Strongly disagree
N/A = Not applicable
A 4th question asks the student “If you could make any changes to improve our program, what would you do?” Two of the eleven respondents
stated they would add more clinical time. Since similar comments have been made previously, the program has responded by adding more
clinical time (see use of results section below).
A total of 7 employers responded to the 2010 Employer Survey for a 58% response rate (7/12). The results demonstrate that there is a
fairly high degree of satisfaction with former students in the Program. Again, the minimum expectation of an 80% (4/5) was achieved in all
areas, suggesting the employers believe our students can apply theoretical and practical applications of Nuclear Medicine in the workplace.
Compared to last spring semester’s assessment, the means improved in all areas except one. The mean for evaluation metric, “Graduates have
the ability to communicate and interact effectively in a healthcare environment (table 4)” decreased from 4.3 to 4.1. All results are
summarized in tables 2—5 below:
Table 2: Knowledge Base (Cognitive Domain)
Evaluation metric
5*
4
3
Graduates have the patient care knowledge required to perform in a
5
2
health care environment
Graduates have the general medical knowledge required to perform in
4
3
a health care environment
Graduates have the ability to perform the duties required of an
4
3
imaging professional in their modality
2
1
N/A
MEAN
4.7
4.6
4.6
Graduates have the ability to use sound judgment while functioning in
3
3
1
a healthcare environment
*Same scoring scheme as in Table 1
Table 3: Clinical Proficiency (Psychomotor Domain)
Evaluation metric
5*
4
3
2
Graduates have the ability to perform a broad range of exams in their
3
3
1
chosen modality
Graduates have the ability to perform current procedures in their
5
2
chosen modality
Graduates have the skills to perform patient assessment
4
3
4.3
1
N/A
MEAN
4.3
4.7
4.6
*Same scoring scheme as in Table 1
Table 4: Behavioral Skills (Affective Domain)
Evaluation metric
5*
4
3
Graduates have the ability to communicate and interact effectively in a
3
2
2
healthcare environment
Graduates have the ability to be professional and ethical in their actions
4
2
1
Graduates have the ability to utilize their time efficiently while
4
2
performing the duties of their chosen modality
*Same scoring scheme as in Table 1
Table 5: Overall Rating
Evaluation metric
5*
4
Overall rating
5
2
2
1
N/A
4.4
1
3
MEAN
4.1
4.4
2
1
N/A
MEAN
4.7
*Same scoring scheme as in Table 1
In written comments, strengths of the graduates include:
(1) they are competent, can work independently and are happy to be employed
(2) the UNLV student graduates have a very good knowledge of health care and duties to perform in nuclear medicine
(3) they are comfortable, competent, and feel proud of their education and overall training
Weaknesses include:
(1) more exposure to equipment before the main clinicals begin. NUC 315 and 360 are a good start.
(2) better communication skills
Outcome #3 Results
Eight of our twelve affiliated nuclear medicine facilities (67%) have a UNLV graduate as its supervisor. Additionally, there are numerous
graduates in charge of nuclear cardiology, nuclear oncology, and general nuclear outpatient facilities that are not affiliated with the university.
Although there are no national statistics to which we can compare our findings, it is without question a very high percentage. There is, undoubtedly
some bias in that many graduates of our program remain in the Las Vegas area and continually advance to a supervisory level.
Outcome #4 Results
All graduates demonstrated competency in the required examinations, and, subsequently passed the three clinical practicums without
having to repeat one of these courses. They demonstrated proficiency in five general areas of patient care, radiation safety, instrumentation,
radiopharmacy and clinical procedures and received “competent” scores competency in the following 11 categories: #1) evaluation of
requisition and patient assessment #2) patient education #3) patient care and management #4) radiopharmaceutical handling #5)
radiopharmaceutical selection, dosage and quality control review #6) radiopharmaceutical administration and recording #7) equipment
configuration and operation #8) Positioning skills #9) radiation safety and protection #10) image processing and evaluation #11) anatomy,
physiology and pathophysiology related to each study.
Outcome #5 Results
Graduates of the Program typically take 1 of 2 national registry exams, or both: the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists for Nuclear
Medicine, ARRT (N), and the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board (NMTCB) Exam.
The ARRT (N) evaluates competency in five key areas (Sections) of importance to the profession: A = radiation protection; B = radionuclides
and radiopharmaceuticals; C = instrumentation and quality control; D = diagnostic and therapeutic procedures; E = patient care and education. Only
two graduates took this exam by the time of this report. The average section scaled scores were higher for our graduates than nationally as detailed
in table 6. Additionally, our students had an 8.6% higher first time pass rate than the national rate and their mean score was approximately 6%
higher than the national mean (table 7).
Table 6: 2010 ARRT(N) UNLV versus National Section Scaled Scores
A
B
C
D
UNLV
8.6
8.4
9.0
9.2
National
8.4
8.2
8.2
8.4
E
9.0
8.7
Table 7: 2010 ARRT(N) Section Scaled Scores and 1st Time Pass Rates: Comparisons
UNLV
National (2010)
TOTAL MEAN
89.5  0.7
83.8
1st time Pass Rate
100.0
91.4
Twelve of the May 2010 graduates showed a higher 1st time pass rate than the rest of the nation (table 8) and their median scaled score was also
higher. The NMTCB also categorizes students performance according to three classifications of passing: “pass” for a scaled value of 75—81;
“pass with distinction” for a scaled value of 82—84, and “pass with highest distinction” for a scaled value of 85 or better. Comparisions of
our graduates to the national averages is outlined in table 8. Two graduates are also registered with the ARRT.
Table 8: UNLV Students vs NMTCB National Scores
1st time Pass Rates, Median Scores, Performance Breakdown
UNLV (2010)
National (2010 Statistics)
1st Time Pass Rate
100
92.4
Median Score
81  2.9
80  3.8
Performance Breakdown
Pass
Pass with Distinction
Pass with High Distinction
Fail
Total
75.0
16.7
8.3
0
100.0
59.3
21.6
11.5
7.6
100.0
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act
on the findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
Two years ago, the nuclear (radio) pharmacies that provided field experience to our students merged and moved into one physical location.
Although advantageous for them, it has had a negative impact on our student’s ability to receive the desired amount of hands-on experience in
preparing, assaying, shipping, receiving, and disposal of radiopharmaceuticals. Cardinal Health is, however, in the process of acquiring a
larger facility that will, according to the chief radiopharmacist, be prepared to provide the training in the near future. Students continue to
receive adequate didactic preparation in this area and are simulating working with real radiopharmaceuticals using saline and blue dye. If this
is unattainable before the next class of students enrolls in the NUC 320 course, we will entertain the possibility of enlarging our “hot lab” and
bringing radioactive materials to campus.
The fact that one of the means on the employer surveys barely exceeded our expectation of 80% (4/5) is somewhat concerning, especially
since it involves communication and interaction in the health care environment. We will carefully monitor this metric to see if it is, indeed, a
legitimate concern or just an isolated incidence.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the
recommendation?
Since more than half of the student responses in 2009 and a couple in 2010 suggested adding more clinical time to the program, the
Nuclear Medicine program added 40 hours of clinical experience during the first semester specifically for instrumentation QA, department
QC and as an introduction to the clinical procedures. This change was well received by both students and our clinical affiliate supervisors. We
will increase the time to 56 hours (7 eight-hour days) for the next incoming class of students.