Volume 67 - Fall 1997	Download

Evaluation of procedures and services of NAACLS A survey of constituent programs by Olive M. Kimball, EdD Executive Director

A special report. . .

What do programs think about the services they receive from NAACLS? What modification to existing services would be helpful to programs? These are the kinds of questions that the Board of Directors and staff often ask informally. However, they have not been asked in a formal way for several years. In 1997, as NAACLS approached its 25th anniversary, the board authorized a comprehensive survey of constituent programs.

In the previous issue of NAACLS News, we provided preliminary comments about the Survey of Constituent Programs, which was conducted in the spring of 1997. In this issue we provide information that is more specific with graphical presentations of answers to a few questions. Future issues will contain results of additional questions until the entire report has been published.

The intent of the survey was to evaluate the services provided by NAACLS to programs and to solicit suggestions for new directions that NAACLS might take in the future. The Board of Directors contracted with an external agency to conduct a confidential survey of program directors, administrators, and medical advisors/medical directors. The agency selected was the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) at Northern Illinois University, a survey research center with a well established reputation. A mail survey went out to randomly selected individuals, stratified by role and program level. In the report, the roles of program director, administrator, and medical advisor/medical director are termed'staff groups. ' Analysis by institutional type and geographic location was carried out.

A preliminary letter of announcement was sent from the NAACLS office. All subsequent steps were carried out by the CGS. The 25-item questionnaire was mailed with a brief cover letter. Follow-up included a reminder post card, a second mailing of the questionnaire, and a telephone call to nonrespondents. After elimination of ineligible respondents, the effective response rate was 75 percent. Results were compiled and reported by the CGS and all respondents remained anonymous.

While the quantitative results of the survey indicate a high level of satisfaction with NAACLS' services, of equal importance to the board were the many excellent comments and suggestions that were included. The board will continue to act on the results of this survey as the NAACLS Strategic Plan unfolds.

by Olive M. Kimball, EdD, Executive Director

• The average score for all respondents was 4.52, indicating a very high perceived level of need for the work of NAACLS.
• All three staff groups had virtually the same averages.
• All four institutional types also had similar averages.
• Figure 1 also shows the percentage of responses to each value on the scale; about two-thirds of all respondents gave the highest rank of 5, and fewer than 2 percent chose a ranking of 1 or 2.
• Program quality and reputation were almost unanimously chosen as reasons for maintenance of NAACLS accreditation/ approval.
• Although much lower percentages indicated enhancement of knowledge for themselves or other staff, or consultation with NAACLS staff and volunteers, these are nonetheless reasons for a substantial minority of respondents.
• All three staff groups responded similarly to the reasons for maintaining their NAACLS accreditation/ approval, except that medical advisors/medical directors indicated less agreement than administrators and program directors with administrative encouragement (only 46 percent of medical directors), professional knowledge (only 33 percent of medical advisors/ medical directors), and the opportunity to consult with NAACLS volunteers (21 percent).
• Respondents from the four institutional types also gave similar reasons, with one exception: only 45 percent of respondents from hospitals indicated that they are encouraged by their institution's administration.

Evaluation of Accreditation/Approval Procedures and Services

Respondents were asked to use a scale of 1 to 5 to rate the value of NAACLS accreditation/approval to their programs (Figure 1)

There is a wide variety of potential reasons for constituents to maintain their NAACLS accreditation/ approval. But two stand out in importance (see Figure 2)

Top of the News
			A call for volunteers
			An evaluation of Essentials 20-23 by Norton I. German, MD CLSPRC Member
			Essential 17 and "essential functions" by Lucille Contois, MA, MT(ASCP) CLSPRC Chariman
			Evaluation of procedures and services of NAACLS A survey of constituent programs by Olive M. Kimball, EdD Executive Director
			Meet our new board member
			NAACLS Conducts Public Hearings on Clinical Assistant Standards & Competencies
			NAACLS develops Strategic Plan for next seven years by Joeline D. Davidson, MBA, CLS(NCA) Vice President, Board of Directors
Features
			Announcing newly accredited and newly approved programs
			Dear Dr. NAACLS CLT/MLT program increasing credit hours
			Executive Director's corner by Olive M. Kimball, EdD Executive Director
			President's report NAACLS celebrates its 25th anniversary by Cynthia Wells, EdD, CLS(NCA), MT(ASCP) President, Board of Directors
			Spring/Summer 1998 site visit schedule

	Select an Issue   Vol 109 - Fall 2011 Vol 108 - Summer 2011 Vol 107 - Spring 2011 Vol 106 - Volume 106 - Fall NAACLS News Vol 105 - Summer 2010 Vol 104 - Spring 2010 NAACLS News Vol 103 - Fall 2009 NAACLS News Vol 102 - Summer 2009 Vol 101 - Spring 2009 Vol 100 - Winter 2008 Vol 99 - Summer 2008 Vol 98 - Spring 2008 Vol 97 - Winter 2007 Vol 96 - Summer 2007 Vol 95 - Spring 2007 Vol 94 - Winter 2006 Vol 93 - Spring/Summer 2006 Vol 92 - Special Edition Vol 91 - Winter 2005 Vol 90 - Fall 2005 Vol 89 - Spring/Summer 2005 Vol 87 - Fall 2004 Vol 86 - Spring/Summer 2004 Vol 85 - Fall 2003 Vol 84 - Spring/Summer 2003 Vol 83 - Winter 2003 Vol 82 - Fall 2002 Vol 81 - Spring / Summer 2002 Vol 80 - Winter 2002 Vol 79 - Fall 2001 Vol 78 - Spring / Summer 2001 Vol 77 - Winter 2001 Vol 76 - Fall 2000 Vol 75 - Spring / Summer 2000 Vol 74 - Winter 2000 Vol 73 - Fall 1999 Vol 72 - Spring / Summer 1999 Vol 71 - Winter 1999 Vol 70 - Fall 1998 Vol 69 - Spring / Summer 1998 Vol 68 - Winter 1998 Vol 67 - Fall 1997 Vol 66 - Spring 1997 Vol 65 - Winter 1996 Vol 64 - Summer 1996 Vol 63 - Spring 1996 Vol 62 - Winter 1996 Vol 61 - Summer 1995 Vol 60 - Spring 1995 Vol 59 - Fall 1994 Vol 58 - Summer 1994 Vol 57 - Spring 1994 Vol 56 - Fall 1993 Vol 55 - Summer 1993 Vol 54 - Spring 1993 Vol 53 - Fall 1992 Vol 52 - Summer 1992 Vol 51 - Spring 1992 Vol 50 - Fall 1991 Vol 49 - Summer 1991 Vol 48 - Spring 1991 Vol 47 - Fall 1990 Vol 46 - Summer 1990 Vol 45 - Spring 1990 Vol 44 - Fall 1989 Vol 43 - Summer 1989 Vol 42 - Winter 1989 Vol 41 - Fall 1988 Vol 40 - April 1988 Vol 39 - December 1987 Vol 38 - September 1987 Vol 37 - Spring 1987 Vol 36 - Winter 1987 Vol 35 - October 1986 Vol 34 - November 1985 Vol 33 - November 1984 Vol 32 - July 1984 Vol 31 - November 1983 Vol 30 - November 1982 Vol 29 - November 1981 Vol 28 - December 1980 Vol 27 - August 1980 Vol 26 - September 1979 Vol 25 - August 1979 Vol 24 - June 1979 Vol 23 - February 1979 Vol 22 - October 1978 Vol 21 - July 1978 Vol 20 - April 1978 Vol 19 - October 1977 Vol 18 - July 1977 Vol 17 - April 1977 Vol 16 - February 1977 Vol 15 - November 1976 Vol 14 - September 1976 Vol 13 - June 1976 Vol 12 - December 1975 Vol 11 - October 1975 Vol 10 - August 1975 Vol 9 - July 1975 Vol 8 - June 1975 Vol 7 - April 1975 Vol 6 - February 1975 Vol 5 - December 1974 Vol 4 - November 1974 Vol 3 - September 1974 Vol 2 - August 1974 Vol 1 - June 1974