Volume 78 - Spring / Summer 2001	Download

Broader Interpretation of Essential 1 by Shauna C. Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) Member, NAACLS Board of Directors

Essential 1 states that a sponsoring institution must have a current, signed affiliation agreement with clinical and/or academic affiliates. The document must address the general purposes of the agreement, such as reasons for the agreement, the responsibilities of the academic and clinical facilities and the joint responsibilities. In addition, specific items must be addressed, i.e., supervisory responsibilities for the students, student professional liability coverage, student health and safety policies, provision for renewal, a termination clause providing for program completion of enrolled students and documented annual review to assure provisions of the agreement are current.

The process for securing a signed affiliation agreement is no longer an easy task. Most institutions, academic and clinical, have a review process that passes through many layers of administration and may take up to one year to complete. Numerous programs and affiliates have written a clause in the agreement that states the agreement is in force until either party notifies the other to the contrary. Drawing frequent attention to affiliation agreements has been problematic for some programs.

The NAACLS Board of Directors has recommended to the Review Committees that they be as flexible as possible in regard to how they interpret what is meant by a "current, signed affiliation agreement" and "documented annual review to assure provisions of the agreement are current" and still protect both parties and the student. In other words, if the affiliation agreement is signed by both parties, even at the levels involving laboratory management and program officials, that contract may be considered in effect until notification of either party to the contrary. It need not be signed every year. Furthermore, the "annual review" may be either a formally signed document or may be the minutes of the required annual meeting where both parties were present and discussed and reviewed the agreement. The signed informal reviews or minutes of the meeting must be filed and available for review by site visitors as evidence of the annual review.

It is hoped that this broader interpretation of Essential 1 will provide flexibility for programs. At the same time, it should not compromise the quality of the programs that are accredited or approved.

Top of the News
			Accreditation and Approval Similarities and Differences by Susan E. Phelan, MHS, MT(ASCP) Chair, Programs Approval Review Committee
			Announcing Initially Accredited and Approved NAACLS Programs
			Broader Interpretation of Essential 1 by Shauna C. Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) Member, NAACLS Board of Directors
			Competencies Versus Objectives Clarification of Intent by Kathy Waller, PhD, CLS(NCA) Secretary, NAACLS Board of Directors
			NAACLS to Conduct Workshop and Open Hearing at ASCLS Meeting by Megan Hennessy Eggert Meetings and Publicity Coordinator
			Program Resources Required for the Number of Students Admitted by Jean Holter, EdD, MT(ASCP), CLS(NCA) Member, NAACLS Clinical Laboratory Sciences Programs Review Committee
Features
			CEO's Corner Updating Essentials and Standards by Olive M. Kimball, EdD Chief Executive Officer
			Dear Dr. NAACLS Site visit cost
			NAACLS' Summer/Fall 2001 Meeting Dates
			President's Report NAACLS Plans Strategy for the Future by Joeline D. Davidson, MBA, CLS(NCA), MT(ASCP) President, Board of Directors
			Programs to be Site Visited Fall 2001/Winter 2002 Cycle
			Reminders From NAACLS Fee Increase

	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