HEALTH SCIENCES TASK FORCE
May 23, 2013
Meeting Minutes
Present: Paul Vanderburgh, Kevin Kelly, Phil Anloague, Jayne Brahler, Carissa Krane, Kathleen
Scheltens, Mary Buchwalder
1. PV Review of recent constituent meetings
a. Marjorie Bowman (Dean of WSU Med School), and Rosalie Mainous (Dean of WSU
Nursing School, 4/23/13, with Mary Buchwalder)
i. They recommended not pursuing MPH (WSU, UC, OSU, have them and all are
affiliated with med schools).
ii. They questioned the need for translational medicine program – that need would
seemingly be addressed by MPH-trained professionals.
iii. We affirmed that UD was not interested in BS degree completion programs for PTA,
OTA, and other associates degree level programs.
b. Claire Dixon Lee (Executive Director of Commission on Accreditation of Health
Informatics and Information Management 4/11/13)
i. Health Informatics is very new to accreditation; only two programs accredited and
only at the masters level (Oregon Health and Science University, University of Illinois
Chicago). NOTE: Marshall University obtained accreditation since 4/11/13.
ii. Health informatics professionals are in higher demand than health information
management professionals due largely to the computer science skills.
iii. Health informatics draws on resources of computer science, computer engineering,
MIS, and life sciences.
iv. UD take-away: if we wish to have a Health Informatics program, we should acquire
accreditation (unlike many for-profit programs that are not and appear to be of
diluted rigor).
c. Dale Courte (Chair of UD’s Computer Science Dept, 5/9/13) and Jay Prasad (Chair of
UD’s MOD Dept, 4/30/13), about the Health Informatics program
i. Both were intrigued by the idea of such a program – not necessarily to house it but
to be involved in the discussion and development of it.
ii. Dale is stepping down as chair, new chair (external hire) will be on board 7/1/13.
We would need to assess interest of new chair.
iii. Dale is more familiar with the nature of Health Informatics and felt we have the
resources to teach the relevant programming courses.
iv. Jay believes we have the faculty to teach utilization of databases and networks.
2. The TF discussed in detail the remaining four programs from the April 8 meeting at which
Occupational Therapy, Health Informatics, MPH and Speech Pathology were discussed.
a. Prosthetics/Orthotics. TF recommended Definitely Consider based on societal demand
relative to very few programs (13 nationally); the interdisciplinary draw on engineering,
biology, electrical engineering, and physical therapy; scholarship and innovation
potential; and intersection with resources currently existing. Concerns included the
need for approx. three certified prosthetists, start-up costs, and the need for graduates
to relocate for employment.
b. Translational Medicine. TF recommended Consider based on the current assets
available, increased demand for clinical trials practitioners, and an alternative for premed students who no longer aspire to medicine or research careers. Concerns included
the fact that no such programs exist in this form, substantial marketing needs, few
existing data on the marketability and demand.
c. Athletic Training. TF recommended Definitely Consider based on interface with the DPT
program as dual degree and/or undergrad pathway to DPT, marketability for PT’s
aspiring to sports medicine careers, a solution to the declining pre-PT enrollments,
minimal resources needed, and the value of the undergraduate AT degree. Concerns
included the number of nearby undergraduate programs (WSU, Cedarville, Wilmington,
Mt. St. Joe, UC, Miami, Toledo, OSU, BGSU, and Xavier).
d. Health Services Management. TF discussed the MBA vs. MHA versions of such a
program. The MHA would likely be more for current clinical professional who needs a
masters degree for career progression. The MBA version, likely more rigorous, would be
for those who aspire to running the business of the health-related enterprise. Time
constraints prohibited completion of the discussion which will ensue at the next
meeting.
3. TF will meet again within two weeks to finalize discussion of Health Services Management
and Global Health (proposed as an alternative to the MPH to be presented by Carissa Krane)
and to finalize our evaluations and recommendations for the final report. PV and KK will
then draft this report for everyone’s review.
4. Homework: Task force members will bring a short narrative of the major benefits and
challenges of their proposed program(s) to the next meeting. To assist, here is the original
TF charge and the TF criteria used to evaluate programs.








TF Charge
Review the landscape of demand for health care-related programs, with primary interest in
graduate education
Assess how new programming might match under-utilized campus resources
Determine feasibility and fit of certain programs
Make specific new program recommendations that include strategies, benefits,
disadvantages, resource needs, and assessment plans for each to the Provost
Criteria
Important societal needs/demand
Value to the graduate
Research productivity
Fit with existing programs



Potential for uniqueness
Fit with external partners
Financial viability
5. Next Meeting: Thursday, June 6, 2:30 – 4:30 pm, SM 113B (meeting invitation sent).