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% |
| Total FY03-04 | 1969 | 36,961 | 41,280 | 89.5% |
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.