CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FOR MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS WORK IN PROGRESS

1
CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FORMEDICAL LABORATORY
TECHNOLOGISTSWORK IN PROGRESS
THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL LABORATORY
SCIENCE

• CLINICAL EDUCATION - CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES
• MARCH 28, 2004

2
THE STUDY

• CLINICAL PLACEMENTS FOR
• MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS
• COSTS, BENEFITS AND ALTERNATIVES
• February - September 2004
• Conducted by the CSMLS
• Funded by Health Canada

3
THE INFORMATION GAPS

• incomplete information on MLT programs
• partial information on costs
• acknowledged need for data on health professions
• urgent need to address human resources issues
  through educational processes

4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• 1. Which models for clinical placements are
  currently in use in Canadian medical laboratory
  programs?
• 2. Do the different models for clinical placement
  produce discernible and significant differences
  in student performance?
• 3. What are the costs and benefits of (and
  possible alternatives for) clinical placements in
  the education of Canadian MLTs?

5
PROJECT OUTLINE

• Phase 1
• Mailed surveys to program directors
• Outcomes
• table and details of program variations
• identification of program models
• preliminary observations on student outcomes
• selection of sites for Phase 2

6
PROJECT OUTLINE

• Phase 2
• Mailed surveys to laboratory directors, clinical
  instructors and students and five sites
• Site visits and interviews at up to 5 sites
• Outcomes
• multiple perspectives on the costs and benefits
  of clinical education
• a CB algorithm that includes intangibles,
  observations of stakeholders, correlations
  between models and student outcomes

7
PHASE 1 CHALLENGES

• encompassing MLT specialties
• within-program variations
• programs in transition
• differences in titles and terminology
• defining student outcomes for this study

8
CRITERIA FOR MODELS

• program length type
• length timing of clinical placement
• use of simulations
• assignment of clinical instructors
• compensation to clinical sites

9
RESPONDENTS CONCERNS

• Insufficient numbers of sites
• Inability to expand program
• Fluctuations in numbers of places
• Withdrawal of sites
• Unavailability of teaching technologists
• Geographical issues for students
• Concerns about quality of learning experience

10
RESPONDENTS WISH LIST

• More sites and more student places!
• Funding for teaching sites
• Alternatives to on-site placement
• More support for clinical instructors and sites
• Better integration of theory and practice
• Reorganization away from discipline orientation
• Changing timing of clinical placement in the
  program
• Longer/shorter rotations

11
COSTS BENEFITSA CAVEAT

• TANGIBLE INTANGIBLE
• COSTS
• BENEFITS

12
COSTS BENEFITS. . .

• TANGIBLE INTANGIBLE
• BENEFITS

EMPLOYERCOSTS
13
COSTS BENEFITS. . .

• Benefits to students, clinical instructors,
  sites, non-teaching staff
• vital
• invaluable
• essential
• irreplaceable
• The benefits outweigh any costs incurred

14
AVAILABILITY OF FINDINGS

• Phase 1
• From CSMLS after April 1, 2004
• Phase 2
• From CSMLS after October 1, 2004

15
(No Transcript)