2004 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
CLINICAL PRODUCTIVITY OF FACULTY WHILE PRECEPTING STUDENTS- A one-year experience.
Baker RR, PhD RRT RCPT; Hall CR, MS RRT-NPS
RPFT; Mishoe SC, PhD RRT FARRC; Taft AA, PhD RRT; Dennison FD, MS RRT
RPFT; Reyes JJ, BS RRT-NPS; Hernlen K, MBA RRT; Lambert AM, MBA BSN.
Medical College of Georgia. Augusta, Georgia.
|Table 1: Faculty Productivity by Clinical Rotation|
|Clinic/ Setting||Procedures Performed||Procedures TWU (min)||Faculty Time (min)||Productivity (%)|
|Junior/ General Floors||1079||22,129||25,200||87.8%|
|Senior/ Initial ICU||395||7,111||9,090||78.2%|
|Senior/ Second ICU||495||7,721||6,990||110.5%|
Background: Successful clinical education
for students is time-intensive and requires instructors who possess
effective teaching behaviors. Clinical affiliates are often unable to
provide preceptors for the initial stages of clinical training when
departments are understaffed relative to patient volumes. In
addition, the perception exists that preceptors cannot meet staff
productivity goals while instructing students. A study was undertaken
to evaluate the clinical productivity of faculty-led respiratory
therapy student clinics.
Methods: A plan was developed between the respiratory therapy program and a primary clinical affiliate to restructure clinical rotations and better accommodate the staff scheduling of the clinical site. Sufficient faculty were scheduled in each rotation to achieve a faculty-to-student ratio of no more than 1:5 or 1:4 in the general floors or intensive care units, respectively. For the purposes of this study, faculty recorded the procedures performed at the end of each clinic day. Appropriate time work units (TWUs), adopted from the AARC Uniform Reporting Manual and used by the clinical site, were assigned to each procedure. Daily data was compiled at the end of each clinic. Total TWUs for procedures completed and total Faculty Time worked were recorded and used to calculate faculty productivity. Faculty Productivity in each clinic was compared with the productivity benchmark of the clinical site (i.e., 89%).
Results: Table 1 shows the number of procedures completed, the time work units (TWUs) in minutes for these procedures, and the amount of faculty time (in minutes) spent in each clinic. Faculty productivity was calculated by dividing total TWUs by faculty time. Total procedures completed and faculty time worked were dependent upon the number of students in each clinic, the length of the clinical rotation, and the experience of the students.
Conclusions: Faculty productivity was dependent upon the clinical experience of the students and the clinical setting. The combined clinical faculty productivity of 89.5% matched the benchmarked productivity expectations for clinical staff therapists. Faculty productivity was greatest during the senior students’ second ICU rotation. Thus, this faculty practice model met the productivity benchmarks required of clinical managers and contributed to both student education and patient care.