|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Conversations with many of you at recent educator meetings have reinforced my view that, as educators, we have done a very inadequate job of showing the value-added component to our educational programs and profession. We continue to see programs close, and the reasons often include "hiring less skilled" workers. Why? What are they doing differently from our current workers, and what effects will they have on patient care? In addition to financial reasons, it appears that institutions will be hiring more CLT/MLTs. Where are they going to find them? The graduate numbers for this level have remained the same for the last 10 years. During this period, the number of graduates of CLS/MT programs has dropped to approximately 3, 200, about half the number from the early 1980s. Who is doing the work? From where will future competent practitioners come? What is the value of an educational program and its faculty? "Individuals form organizations to accomplish what they could not do as well or at all alone. "* Thus, regardless of institutional type, all components must contribute collectively to the achievement of an organization's mission and goals. This is obvious. But when was the last time we looked at our programs and even ourselves to identify exactly what we are contributing to the organization? The time to make this assessment is not when we are notified that the program is closing. Rather than talk about program survival, we need to examine opportunities for programs, students and ourselves. Too often, we are stuck "in the lab" not looking outside for ways to integrate our activities and function with others in the organization. Much as been written about the new skills necessary in the work place, but how many of us have developed them personally, much less taught them to students? On the list of new skills, I include quality improvement, communication, information systems, facilitation skills, team skills, care maps, outcomes research, grant-writing, regulatory issues, ethics, environ-mental and occupational health, and research proposal/grant development. The list is endless. Immediately you say, "But I can't afford to drop the technical topics. How do I fit them into the already packed curriculum?" I say that you cannot afford NOT to revise your curriculum and develop personally the necessary skills. Recently a colleague who is a certified physician assistant shared her experience about a job interview. Shortly before the interview she had completed facilitator training. She found that the whole interview revolved about her abilities to work with groups. Not one question was asked about her PA competencies. This confirms that the work place is changing, and our technical skills will be useful in the future only if coupled with competencies that allow us to work outside the laboratory. Tech-nical competence will be taken for granted, and employers will look for other contributions we can make to the organization. To prepare for the future, we must undergo a process of self-analysis -- both for our programs and graduates as well as for ourselves. For our programs, the reaccreditation process is an opportunity for systematic review of a program, where it is and where it should be. Too often, the Self-Study Report documents only the current status with no consideration of opportunities for improvement. Likewise, each of us completes a personal self-analysis on a periodic basis. But was does it assess? I propose that, for both our programs and ourselves, we engage in a meaningful review on a yearly basis. By doing so, we can be proactive participants in the change process. Reactive efforts alone are not successful in the current environment. The self-analysis or assessment process is similar to the strategic planning process used by institutions to develop crucial approaches, which permit them to grow within the context of the changing environment. One planning model consists of six analytic steps (remember analysis is one of the laboratorian's best attributes). The six steps are: (1) describing the historical and current situation; (2) reviewing the mission of the institution and determining the contribution that the program (or you) make to it; (3) identifying opportunities and threats; (4) identifying strengths and weaknesses; (5) completing benchmarking against similar programs and people, and (6) reviewing the collected data and selecting the top issues for action. These issues should be the four or five that, if addressed, will lead to growth and development into the next century. Even if you complete this process and identify key issues, there is no guarantee that your program will continue to thrive. If the program does continue, the plan is a map for the future. If the program closes, it may be a difficult transition for the educators who have devoted years to advancing the profession through education. In this case a similar assessment plan from a personal view will be invaluable in identifying future endeavors. It has been said that, "The meeting of preparation with opportunity generates the offspring we call luck. "** Are you prepared? Are you a "value-added" educator? * Richard Wynn and Charles Gutidus, Team Management: Leadership by Consensus (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Marrill Publishing, 1984). ** Anthony Robbins, Unlimited Power (New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1986).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||