Volume 68 - Winter 1998	Download

Evaluation of procedures and services of NAACLS

This is a continuing excerpt from a survey of constituent programs published in April 1997. Future issues will contain results of additional questions until the entire report has been published.

• By far, program directors are most frequently perceived as beneficiaries of NAACLS services.
  
• Perception of benefitting "a great deal" drops below 50 percent for all other groups and individuals.
  
• Respondents from the four institution types all responded similarly, except that thos from hospitals less frequently believe that upper administration (only 6 percent), department heads (14 percent), or patients (19 percent) benefit.

Program quality and reputation, increases in professional knowledge and maintenance of staff currency, and consultation with NAACLS staff and volunteers can all benefit various groups and individuals. Figure 3 shows the percentages of respondents who believe that selected groups benefit a great deal from NAACLS services.

• Administratiors are much more likely to perceive department heads as benefitting a great deal from NAACLS services (62 percent) than do program or medical directors (25 and 36 percent, respectively).
  
• Most program directors and administrators do not think that medical directors are major beneficiaries of NAACLS services. Medical directors themselves, however, are much more likely to say that they benefit a great deal.
  
• Program directors are somewhat less likely than the other two staff groups to state that they themselves benefit a great deal, although this difference is not great, and large majorities of all three staff groups perceive program directors as benefitting a great deal.

There are some interesting differences in perception of benefits which the three staff groups have of each other, as shown in Figure 4.

• Virtually everyone finds notification of renewal and self-study dates to be useful - most say very useful.
  
• In fact, three-fourths or more find all these steps useful, mostly very useful.
  
• The three staff groups evaluated the steps and procedures of the NAACLS accreditation/approval process similarly, except that medical directors are less likely to find notification of due dates very useful, and fewer program directors (38 percent) think that committee review is very useful. In fact, 16 percent of program directors think that committee review is not useful. In general, program directors were somewhat less likely than the others to find the steps very useful.
  
• Respondents from hospitals tended to find the steps very useful less frequently than those from other institutions, while staff from universities were somewhat more likely to find them very useful.

The questionnaire sought information on the usefulness to constituents of various steps in the accreditation/approval process (see Figure 5).

• Satisfaction with all five aspects is high; four of them are greater than 3. 5 on a four-point scale.
  
• The average rating across all five aspects is 3. 58.
  
• All three staff groups had similar averages for satisfaction with each aspect, with one exception. Program directors had a somewhat lower average (3. 36) for satisfaction with the knowledge of the NAACLS staff about their programs than did administators (3. 58) or medical directors (3. 54).
  
• Although the four institutional types had similar averages, respondents from two-year colleges had slightly lower ratings for ost of the aspects, and those from universities were consistently most satisfied.

Satisfaction with aspects of the accreditation/approval process was measured with a four-point scale (1 = not satisfied at all, 4 = very satisfied). Figure 6 shows the average satisfaction levels for five aspects.

Additional results from this survey will appear in future issues of NAACLS News.

Top of the News
			A call for volunteers
			APRC report by Steven Suvalsky, BSMT, MHS APRC Chairman
			Evaluation of procedures and services of NAACLS
			NAACLS celebrates 25 years of service to higher education by Frederick W. Pairent, PhD Secretary, Board of Directors
			New payment schedule for site visit fees
			The impact of teaching on productivity in the clinical laboratory A call for collaboration and a forum for discussion by William N. Bigler, PhD, and Mary Ellen Hermann, MS, MT(ASCP)
			Volunteering: the payoff may be bigger than you think! by Monica D. Mitchell Program Coordinator, Program Services
Features
			Bits n pieces
			Dear Dr. NAACLS Program length
			Executive Director’s corner Institutional and Program Rights by Olive M. Kimball, EdD Executive Director
			Helpful hints for program directors and volunteers by Jennifer Beyer Program Coordinator, Program Services
			Newly accredited and approved programs
			President’s report by Joeline D. Davidson, MBA, CLS(NCA), MT(ASCP) President, Board of Directors

	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