WEBVTT 00:00:11.068 --> 00:00:13.153 position:50% align:middle - [Brendan] Hello, everyone, and welcome back. 00:00:13.153 --> 00:00:16.450 position:50% align:middle So this is the second session that we've dedicated for the questions 00:00:16.450 --> 00:00:17.556 position:50% align:middle that you've submitted. 00:00:17.878 --> 00:00:20.880 position:50% align:middle We've been provided with a list of the questions that you have submitted 00:00:20.880 --> 00:00:22.607 position:50% align:middle since our last Q&A session. 00:00:22.934 --> 00:00:28.909 position:50% align:middle So I'm actually going to kick things off because the very first question related 00:00:28.909 --> 00:00:31.264 position:50% align:middle to the demonstration that I did, and so I thought that this would be 00:00:31.264 --> 00:00:34.566 position:50% align:middle an opportunity to kind of see SAS do its magic too. 00:00:34.790 --> 00:00:38.350 position:50% align:middle So the specific question was Program number 8 in Illinois had 5 00:00:38.350 --> 00:00:41.870 position:50% align:middle directors over the last 5 years and yet was rated as medium risk, 00:00:41.870 --> 00:00:46.557 position:50% align:middle but it had a 95% NCLEX pass rate, is the algorithm actually working? 00:00:46.557 --> 00:00:48.330 position:50% align:middle I think that is an excellent question. 00:00:48.554 --> 00:00:49.870 position:50% align:middle So we're going to look at SAS here. 00:00:49.870 --> 00:00:53.180 position:50% align:middle So this is what we weren't able to show a little bit earlier, but you can see in SAS 00:00:53.180 --> 00:00:54.450 position:50% align:middle we pulled in the raw data. 00:00:54.450 --> 00:00:56.160 position:50% align:middle So this is the view that you got. 00:00:56.160 --> 00:00:58.345 position:50% align:middle So we're focusing in here on Program 8. 00:00:58.859 --> 00:01:01.716 position:50% align:middle What we're going to do, and I think that this is a good reminder 00:01:01.716 --> 00:01:08.050 position:50% align:middle of what we're doing with this algorithm, we're going to run essentially all of the 00:01:08.050 --> 00:01:10.870 position:50% align:middle data in using the coding that we had and we're going to look 00:01:10.870 --> 00:01:12.865 position:50% align:middle at Program 8 specifically. 00:01:13.190 --> 00:01:15.790 position:50% align:middle And the person who submitted this question was absolutely right. 00:01:15.790 --> 00:01:19.710 position:50% align:middle So you can see that essentially there were five directors in the last five years. 00:01:19.710 --> 00:01:22.245 position:50% align:middle So that would indicate one potential deficiency. 00:01:22.410 --> 00:01:25.160 position:50% align:middle But then when you get to NCLEX pass rate, it's 95%. 00:01:25.160 --> 00:01:28.280 position:50% align:middle So this is one of the, you know, kind of throughout, I think a common 00:01:28.280 --> 00:01:29.582 position:50% align:middle thread for this presentation. 00:01:29.582 --> 00:01:34.720 position:50% align:middle We've tried to kind of focus a little bit on moving beyond the NCLEX pass rate. 00:01:34.720 --> 00:01:37.485 position:50% align:middle So for this program, NCLEX pass rate would look excellent. 00:01:37.485 --> 00:01:41.444 position:50% align:middle But you can see the very last criteria here is accreditation, and this program is 00:01:41.444 --> 00:01:46.720 position:50% align:middle not accredited, so that is the reason why essentially it would be a medium risk. 00:01:46.720 --> 00:01:50.735 position:50% align:middle So, you can see as you go along that you can see it actually threw a flag 00:01:50.735 --> 00:01:54.880 position:50% align:middle for number of directors and then it also threw a flag for not 00:01:54.880 --> 00:01:56.345 position:50% align:middle being nationally accredited. 00:01:56.430 --> 00:01:59.850 position:50% align:middle So, in this instance, that is why if you pull up the data, 00:01:59.850 --> 00:02:03.542 position:50% align:middle you can see essentially that the two deficiencies that are coming up for our 00:02:03.542 --> 00:02:06.997 position:50% align:middle performance indicator tier would designate that program as 00:02:06.997 --> 00:02:09.554 position:50% align:middle a medium at-risk institution. 00:02:11.004 --> 00:02:16.833 position:50% align:middle - [Nancy] And, particularly, I think that five directors on five years is 00:02:16.833 --> 00:02:18.289 position:50% align:middle really a big one. 00:02:18.456 --> 00:02:22.760 position:50% align:middle - And I think it's an important reminder to recognize that all of these work 00:02:22.760 --> 00:02:26.080 position:50% align:middle in concert with each other, that there's more than one performance 00:02:26.080 --> 00:02:29.632 position:50% align:middle indicator and not to maybe put too much emphasis on one. 00:02:29.769 --> 00:02:33.414 position:50% align:middle - Right. And I think that's what this performance indicator does. 00:02:33.414 --> 00:02:35.300 position:50% align:middle Or maybe we can call it the PI. 00:02:35.300 --> 00:02:40.495 position:50% align:middle - And Jan made an excellent point, too, off-air that this is also fake data. 00:02:40.620 --> 00:02:45.220 position:50% align:middle So, part of this was a little bit manipulated by me to show examples of how 00:02:45.220 --> 00:02:49.200 position:50% align:middle you could actually see good examples of the program indicators, 00:02:49.200 --> 00:02:52.490 position:50% align:middle quality indicators, but there might be other deficiencies that are important 00:02:52.490 --> 00:02:53.355 position:50% align:middle to keep in mind. 00:02:53.610 --> 00:02:56.265 position:50% align:middle - Because remember NCLEX pass rates are lagging. 00:02:56.265 --> 00:02:58.386 position:50% align:middle So maybe the next group... 00:02:58.386 --> 00:03:00.095 position:50% align:middle - [Janice] It's true. - ...isn't going to be 95%. 00:03:00.095 --> 00:03:00.602 position:50% align:middle - Correct. 00:03:00.602 --> 00:03:05.040 position:50% align:middle - So if you see those other factors, this would be a good opportunity for this 00:03:05.040 --> 00:03:07.897 position:50% align:middle education consultant to talk to the program. 00:03:08.550 --> 00:03:14.246 position:50% align:middle So you've had five directors in five years, do you know why they're leaving? 00:03:14.246 --> 00:03:14.899 position:50% align:middle - Correct. 00:03:14.899 --> 00:03:16.211 position:50% align:middle - Do you know what's going on? 00:03:16.393 --> 00:03:17.391 position:50% align:middle - Correct. Yeah. 00:03:17.391 --> 00:03:22.870 position:50% align:middle And going back to the whole discussion of this algorithm and the purpose for it, 00:03:22.870 --> 00:03:27.113 position:50% align:middle it's meant to inform, it's not meant to necessarily drive one action, 00:03:27.113 --> 00:03:31.024 position:50% align:middle or activity, or decision, or another, it's really just for informational 00:03:31.024 --> 00:03:34.766 position:50% align:middle purposes and to, hopefully, you know, better facilitate the good work that 00:03:34.766 --> 00:03:36.284 position:50% align:middle you're already doing at the board level. 00:03:38.737 --> 00:03:39.772 position:50% align:middle - Great. 00:03:40.638 --> 00:03:43.679 position:50% align:middle So the next question is for me. 00:03:43.679 --> 00:03:48.741 position:50% align:middle Is there an expense associated with partnering NCSBN on the annual report 00:03:48.741 --> 00:03:50.914 position:50% align:middle data collection and analysis? 00:03:51.260 --> 00:03:53.823 position:50% align:middle And there is not an expense. 00:03:53.823 --> 00:03:58.360 position:50% align:middle So you can feel pretty comfortable doing that free of charge. 00:03:58.360 --> 00:04:05.643 position:50% align:middle We really want to work to make your jobs easier or as easy as we possibly can. 00:04:05.643 --> 00:04:07.880 position:50% align:middle And that was one of our reasons for coming up with it. 00:04:07.880 --> 00:04:13.770 position:50% align:middle And, you know, we have been asked in the past for a template so that they could 00:04:13.770 --> 00:04:17.164 position:50% align:middle already have something in place, but then this, providing a link, 00:04:17.164 --> 00:04:20.290 position:50% align:middle I think, is, you know, very helpful to them. 00:04:21.170 --> 00:04:23.250 position:50% align:middle And Brendan, I think you're going to take the next one. 00:04:23.250 --> 00:04:23.974 position:50% align:middle - Yes. 00:04:23.974 --> 00:04:28.060 position:50% align:middle So the next question was, what are your thoughts regarding the indicator multiple 00:04:28.060 --> 00:04:30.627 position:50% align:middle sites and how it contributes to a sound program? 00:04:31.141 --> 00:04:32.792 position:50% align:middle This is an excellent question. 00:04:32.792 --> 00:04:35.322 position:50% align:middle And it's something that we kind of started to address. 00:04:35.730 --> 00:04:39.750 position:50% align:middle This is one of those variables that we think it's highly likely is correlated 00:04:39.750 --> 00:04:41.756 position:50% align:middle with other performance indicators. 00:04:42.277 --> 00:04:45.072 position:50% align:middle I think that this is really the advantage of standardized data tracking 00:04:45.072 --> 00:04:46.959 position:50% align:middle across jurisdictions moving forward. 00:04:47.190 --> 00:04:50.898 position:50% align:middle I think if we had all of this information complete across all of the boards, 00:04:50.898 --> 00:04:54.530 position:50% align:middle we would be better able to assess multiple sites while adjusting 00:04:54.530 --> 00:04:56.162 position:50% align:middle for other important indicators. 00:04:57.220 --> 00:05:00.830 position:50% align:middle You know, without being able to do that, I cannot comment on whether or not that 00:05:00.830 --> 00:05:02.088 position:50% align:middle this would stick. 00:05:02.220 --> 00:05:06.224 position:50% align:middle But, for instance, we were able to show that essentially those programs with a 00:05:06.224 --> 00:05:11.280 position:50% align:middle public standing, those institutions that often were also those institutions that 00:05:11.280 --> 00:05:15.510 position:50% align:middle offered multiple programs sites and had larger enrollments. 00:05:15.510 --> 00:05:18.040 position:50% align:middle So we already know that there's some relationships there. 00:05:18.260 --> 00:05:22.250 position:50% align:middle The key is moving forward once we have all the data to really understand how they 00:05:22.250 --> 00:05:24.490 position:50% align:middle interact once assessed simultaneously. 00:05:24.490 --> 00:05:27.321 position:50% align:middle - Right. Because I will say, I was surprised at that one. 00:05:27.321 --> 00:05:31.885 position:50% align:middle You know, usually, you think with, you know, focusing on one site 00:05:31.885 --> 00:05:33.420 position:50% align:middle and doing the best from rather having all these. 00:05:33.420 --> 00:05:35.878 position:50% align:middle - Right. Not spreading yourself too thin. Right. 00:05:36.105 --> 00:05:38.164 position:50% align:middle - I mean, I don't know what your experience is. 00:05:38.164 --> 00:05:43.525 position:50% align:middle - Well, I was a director of a program that had a site on the other side of Missouri 00:05:43.525 --> 00:05:48.037 position:50% align:middle and that was the biggest stress of my job because it was too hard to know what 00:05:48.037 --> 00:05:49.121 position:50% align:middle was going on. 00:05:51.045 --> 00:05:56.625 position:50% align:middle - So the next question is, is calculation of some sticky variables 00:05:56.625 --> 00:05:59.554 position:50% align:middle like attrition standardized? 00:05:59.554 --> 00:06:03.910 position:50% align:middle And, you know, from my perspective, and Brendan's going to answer this 00:06:03.910 --> 00:06:08.020 position:50% align:middle one too, we wanted to get at it. 00:06:08.020 --> 00:06:10.850 position:50% align:middle It does not have a standardized definition. 00:06:10.850 --> 00:06:12.545 position:50% align:middle Even IPEDS admits that. 00:06:12.930 --> 00:06:18.399 position:50% align:middle For them, they don't consider any of the part-time students, for example. 00:06:18.970 --> 00:06:21.637 position:50% align:middle But Brendan, what is your thought? 00:06:21.637 --> 00:06:24.614 position:50% align:middle - Yeah, I really think that this relates to another question that we're going 00:06:24.614 --> 00:06:27.040 position:50% align:middle to get regarding, kind of, a data dictionary. 00:06:27.369 --> 00:06:31.006 position:50% align:middle I think the key here... I would absolutely echo your comments. 00:06:31.347 --> 00:06:35.322 position:50% align:middle I think, when in doubt, try to mirror with the department of education doing, 00:06:35.322 --> 00:06:39.080 position:50% align:middle it's not a bad starting point, but I really do think a lot of this, when 00:06:39.080 --> 00:06:43.070 position:50% align:middle we're asking these types of variables, education, defining the variable 00:06:43.070 --> 00:06:45.179 position:50% align:middle for people proactively, I think that that's really going 00:06:45.179 --> 00:06:47.338 position:50% align:middle to benefit us, ultimately. 00:06:47.338 --> 00:06:51.859 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. And, you know, we did... Jo and I were working together to try 00:06:51.859 --> 00:06:55.630 position:50% align:middle to find what the IPEDS did and the question that they had just didn't seem 00:06:55.630 --> 00:06:56.490 position:50% align:middle to work for us either. 00:06:56.490 --> 00:06:59.990 position:50% align:middle So, I mean, right now, we just have what is your attrition rate and we're going 00:06:59.990 --> 00:07:01.730 position:50% align:middle to give them that definition. 00:07:02.130 --> 00:07:03.443 position:50% align:middle So, we'll see. 00:07:03.443 --> 00:07:08.600 position:50% align:middle And, you know, right now, we're putting this together, and everything isn't worked 00:07:08.600 --> 00:07:13.120 position:50% align:middle out, and maybe down the line, things will be changed once we get data back. 00:07:13.120 --> 00:07:14.784 position:50% align:middle So we'll just have to see. 00:07:16.090 --> 00:07:20.821 position:50% align:middle So the next one is, I know you found a number of quality indicators related 00:07:20.821 --> 00:07:22.044 position:50% align:middle to faculty. 00:07:22.044 --> 00:07:26.032 position:50% align:middle Was faculty workload beyond student-faculty ratio 00:07:26.032 --> 00:07:27.641 position:50% align:middle found to be an issue? 00:07:27.660 --> 00:07:32.700 position:50% align:middle Well, if you remember, in the site visit study, it was found to be an issue. 00:07:33.450 --> 00:07:40.360 position:50% align:middle It just didn't come out as much to be included in the approval guidelines. 00:07:40.360 --> 00:07:43.842 position:50% align:middle But it did come out to be an issue with those programs that were failing. 00:07:44.510 --> 00:07:50.175 position:50% align:middle It's a hard thing because it's hard for boards to get at that, don't you think? 00:07:50.364 --> 00:07:50.920 position:50% align:middle - Yes. 00:07:50.920 --> 00:07:55.432 position:50% align:middle We usually ask about faculty workload when we're visiting with faculty, 00:07:55.883 --> 00:07:58.143 position:50% align:middle and we get a variety of answers. 00:07:58.880 --> 00:08:03.360 position:50% align:middle A discouraging thing to faculty is when the workload expectations are not the same 00:08:03.360 --> 00:08:04.883 position:50% align:middle for every faculty member. 00:08:05.040 --> 00:08:08.977 position:50% align:middle So there should be a definite workload that everyone is expected, 00:08:08.977 --> 00:08:11.988 position:50% align:middle and that workload should be related to their teaching. 00:08:12.270 --> 00:08:18.089 position:50% align:middle So most workload, you look at how many required courses for you to teach, 00:08:18.089 --> 00:08:21.271 position:50% align:middle figuring in clinical as a part of that. 00:08:21.530 --> 00:08:25.400 position:50% align:middle Because the other work that has to do with teaching is planning your courses, 00:08:25.400 --> 00:08:29.290 position:50% align:middle grading, evaluating students, advising students. 00:08:29.290 --> 00:08:30.601 position:50% align:middle They all take time. 00:08:30.601 --> 00:08:33.818 position:50% align:middle So you really can't just say 40 hours a week. 00:08:33.818 --> 00:08:35.798 position:50% align:middle - Right. Right. 00:08:35.798 --> 00:08:39.479 position:50% align:middle And, you know, you're, kind of, getting into their operations... 00:08:39.479 --> 00:08:41.874 position:50% align:middle - Yes. - ...and that's difficult too. 00:08:41.920 --> 00:08:43.850 position:50% align:middle But I agree with you, being equal. 00:08:43.850 --> 00:08:49.210 position:50% align:middle And there are some workload calculations out there that are pretty good, I think, 00:08:49.210 --> 00:08:50.385 position:50% align:middle that faculty use. 00:08:50.385 --> 00:08:53.900 position:50% align:middle - And one thing that happens in nursing education is that a lot of the faculty 00:08:53.900 --> 00:08:58.811 position:50% align:middle teach overload because it improves their salary, which gets down to the salary. 00:08:59.221 --> 00:09:04.930 position:50% align:middle And so they're using up their time teaching a lot of courses, 00:09:04.930 --> 00:09:09.896 position:50% align:middle but not having time for other activities involved in their instruction. 00:09:09.896 --> 00:09:10.708 position:50% align:middle - Right. 00:09:12.772 --> 00:09:18.090 position:50% align:middle So, this board has had several questions about adding supplemental questions 00:09:18.090 --> 00:09:19.300 position:50% align:middle to the annual report. 00:09:19.300 --> 00:09:23.321 position:50% align:middle Nancy and Brendan, would you please address the ability to alter the template 00:09:23.321 --> 00:09:25.130 position:50% align:middle to add board-specific questions? 00:09:25.130 --> 00:09:28.674 position:50% align:middle Well, we've had those questions as well, because remember this is 00:09:28.674 --> 00:09:29.650 position:50% align:middle under construction. 00:09:29.650 --> 00:09:33.420 position:50% align:middle If you remember that slide, we're just developing it now. 00:09:33.420 --> 00:09:38.610 position:50% align:middle The way I envision...and Brendan you might be different, but the way I envision is 00:09:38.610 --> 00:09:42.970 position:50% align:middle that each board that wants to participate will have their own link, 00:09:42.970 --> 00:09:47.620 position:50% align:middle we'll build in those separate questions in Qualtrics, we'll put your logo and our 00:09:47.620 --> 00:09:54.930 position:50% align:middle logo on it, then we'll send it to you, you'll send it to your programs, and then 00:09:54.930 --> 00:09:57.560 position:50% align:middle we'll get all that data back and send you the report. 00:09:57.560 --> 00:09:59.680 position:50% align:middle So they'll all be individual. 00:09:59.680 --> 00:10:04.606 position:50% align:middle Now, when we do the descriptive report for you, it'll include all your 00:10:04.606 --> 00:10:05.780 position:50% align:middle extra questions. 00:10:05.780 --> 00:10:12.080 position:50% align:middle However, when Brendan does that aggregate core data analysis, you know, 00:10:12.080 --> 00:10:16.700 position:50% align:middle that we're going to do yearly, that will only include the 50 questions 00:10:16.700 --> 00:10:18.108 position:50% align:middle from the core data. 00:10:18.510 --> 00:10:20.220 position:50% align:middle So that's the way I see it. 00:10:20.220 --> 00:10:21.413 position:50% align:middle Do you have anything else to add to that? 00:10:21.413 --> 00:10:23.060 position:50% align:middle - I completely agree. I have nothing to add. 00:10:23.060 --> 00:10:23.525 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. 00:10:23.525 --> 00:10:27.232 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. I think that the key for the annual statistical analysis 00:10:27.232 --> 00:10:29.082 position:50% align:middle will be complete data. 00:10:29.746 --> 00:10:34.440 position:50% align:middle And so, when thinking about tailoring and tweaking certain supplemental questions 00:10:34.440 --> 00:10:36.423 position:50% align:middle to your jurisdiction, I think that's a good idea. 00:10:36.423 --> 00:10:39.845 position:50% align:middle If you think that that information will be useful and can be used proactively. 00:10:40.110 --> 00:10:46.760 position:50% align:middle For the purposes of aggregating the data nationally, we more likely than not would 00:10:46.760 --> 00:10:51.057 position:50% align:middle not be able to do that unless a sufficient subset of the boards all asked 00:10:51.057 --> 00:10:52.807 position:50% align:middle the same supplemental questions. - Yeah. Right. Yeah. 00:10:52.807 --> 00:10:55.501 position:50% align:middle And if they do, we maybe should add it to the template. 00:10:55.501 --> 00:10:56.007 position:50% align:middle - Sure. Sure. 00:10:56.978 --> 00:11:01.978 position:50% align:middle - And remember, we're still working on this, you know, we're going to send 00:11:01.978 --> 00:11:06.720 position:50% align:middle that template out to a group of people from boards to have them review it. 00:11:06.720 --> 00:11:11.014 position:50% align:middle We're going to be sending you surveys to see when to do this 00:11:11.912 --> 00:11:13.600 position:50% align:middle and if you're interested. 00:11:13.600 --> 00:11:17.748 position:50% align:middle So it's all very beginning, but we're very excited for it. 00:11:19.804 --> 00:11:21.410 position:50% align:middle The next one, I think, is yours, Brendan. 00:11:21.410 --> 00:11:21.890 position:50% align:middle - Sure. 00:11:21.890 --> 00:11:25.254 position:50% align:middle So the specific question, this is the one that I alluded to earlier, 00:11:25.468 --> 00:11:28.840 position:50% align:middle will there be a data dictionary defining field lengths and formats 00:11:28.840 --> 00:11:31.024 position:50% align:middle for responses to the annual report questions? 00:11:31.030 --> 00:11:32.110 position:50% align:middle The answer is yes. 00:11:32.110 --> 00:11:34.676 position:50% align:middle So this is similar to the expense question. 00:11:34.840 --> 00:11:36.787 position:50% align:middle We absolutely will provide that. 00:11:37.090 --> 00:11:41.350 position:50% align:middle We'll provide definitions for what type of criteria we're looking for, 00:11:41.350 --> 00:11:44.640 position:50% align:middle how it's to be measured, and any format requirements. 00:11:44.640 --> 00:11:49.650 position:50% align:middle So, for instance, if we ask a question where the natural response item would be a 00:11:49.650 --> 00:11:56.162 position:50% align:middle numeric field, we would restrict that field to numeric, just as an example. 00:11:57.433 --> 00:11:58.836 position:50% align:middle - The next question is mine. 00:11:59.068 --> 00:12:04.133 position:50% align:middle Are there any findings regarding why the for-profit programs have more sanctions? 00:12:05.180 --> 00:12:09.700 position:50% align:middle Well, you remember that came in the site visit study, and probably it's because 00:12:09.700 --> 00:12:13.961 position:50% align:middle they just didn't meet their rules and regulations, you know, 00:12:14.449 --> 00:12:20.729 position:50% align:middle they didn't have their director turn around their faculty qualifications. 00:12:22.840 --> 00:12:23.350 position:50% align:middle Do you have anything to say about...? 00:12:23.350 --> 00:12:27.710 position:50% align:middle - Most boards only place sanctions on programs that are not compliant 00:12:27.710 --> 00:12:28.697 position:50% align:middle with our rules. 00:12:28.697 --> 00:12:29.170 position:50% align:middle - That's right. 00:12:29.170 --> 00:12:33.853 position:50% align:middle - Anything outside of that would just be a suggestion, it's not a sanction. 00:12:34.099 --> 00:12:38.207 position:50% align:middle - But, certainly, you know, this was done by Allison Squires, 00:12:38.207 --> 00:12:42.339 position:50% align:middle and, you know, and who looked at all the data, and it certainly wasn't anything 00:12:42.339 --> 00:12:45.680 position:50% align:middle that was done to get back at for-profit programs. 00:12:45.680 --> 00:12:47.161 position:50% align:middle It was just looking at everything. 00:12:47.161 --> 00:12:50.869 position:50% align:middle It so happened that they had, you know, they happened to be for-profit. 00:12:50.869 --> 00:12:55.350 position:50% align:middle - And this did dovetail with the quantitative data analysis, too, where we 00:12:55.350 --> 00:13:00.080 position:50% align:middle saw that they, for-profit institutions, tended to be less likely to be fully 00:13:00.080 --> 00:13:03.730 position:50% align:middle approved and tended to report lower NCLEX pass rates. 00:13:03.860 --> 00:13:05.620 position:50% align:middle So, again, I think we're left. 00:13:05.620 --> 00:13:08.230 position:50% align:middle You know, the quantitative analysis didn't tell us why either. 00:13:08.230 --> 00:13:12.210 position:50% align:middle I think, again, that's the key of getting more data and more data elements so we can 00:13:12.210 --> 00:13:13.477 position:50% align:middle see those interactions. 00:13:13.477 --> 00:13:14.970 position:50% align:middle But it was in concert with. 00:13:14.970 --> 00:13:19.374 position:50% align:middle - And that Patricia Pittman national study, you know, that was in JNR, 00:13:19.374 --> 00:13:20.490 position:50% align:middle that as well. 00:13:20.490 --> 00:13:24.520 position:50% align:middle So there's something there, but we haven't quite gotten to what it is. 00:13:24.520 --> 00:13:27.692 position:50% align:middle - And just to echo your point, you know, it's not as if, you know, 00:13:27.692 --> 00:13:29.480 position:50% align:middle we're after for-profit programs. 00:13:29.480 --> 00:13:33.487 position:50% align:middle It could very well be if we were able to control for other important criteria, 00:13:33.487 --> 00:13:35.470 position:50% align:middle for-profit programs wouldn't be a problem. 00:13:35.470 --> 00:13:37.410 position:50% align:middle You know, maybe that's not really what's driving it. 00:13:37.410 --> 00:13:38.420 position:50% align:middle - Well, that's true too. 00:13:38.420 --> 00:13:41.133 position:50% align:middle But I think the Pittman study, she did. - The evidence. 00:13:41.133 --> 00:13:41.929 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. 00:13:43.931 --> 00:13:50.900 position:50% align:middle The next question, was there any specific percentage of faculty turnover identified? 00:13:50.900 --> 00:13:56.238 position:50% align:middle We had that with the directors, but we looked for that for faculty, 00:13:56.238 --> 00:13:58.080 position:50% align:middle we just weren't able to identify that, correct? 00:13:58.080 --> 00:13:58.811 position:50% align:middle - Right. Yeah. 00:13:58.811 --> 00:14:00.656 position:50% align:middle And this was, there just weren't enough boards that were 00:14:00.656 --> 00:14:01.699 position:50% align:middle collecting that type of information. 00:14:01.699 --> 00:14:05.961 position:50% align:middle - Do you think, in the future, if there are more boards that do that 00:14:05.961 --> 00:14:08.460 position:50% align:middle core data template, that we'll be able to, or...? 00:14:08.889 --> 00:14:12.340 position:50% align:middle - Yeah, I think, you know, the key is understanding how all of the 00:14:12.340 --> 00:14:14.554 position:50% align:middle different criteria kind of work in concert with each other. 00:14:14.554 --> 00:14:18.420 position:50% align:middle And if that's something based on the core data template that we're able to get 00:14:18.420 --> 00:14:20.090 position:50% align:middle moving forward, I think that that would be excellent. 00:14:20.090 --> 00:14:22.242 position:50% align:middle I think that that's an important criteria too. 00:14:22.600 --> 00:14:25.760 position:50% align:middle With the director, it's just a lot easier to track because, typically, 00:14:25.760 --> 00:14:28.977 position:50% align:middle the director was identified at the top of each annual report. 00:14:29.127 --> 00:14:32.844 position:50% align:middle And so, really, ultimately, what we did for the analysis was we just quantified 00:14:32.844 --> 00:14:34.637 position:50% align:middle how many times did that name change? 00:14:35.654 --> 00:14:39.170 position:50% align:middle You know, for faculty, that's a little bit more difficult because 00:14:39.170 --> 00:14:43.170 position:50% align:middle you would have to move beyond essentially saying, "We have three full-time faculty 00:14:43.170 --> 00:14:45.705 position:50% align:middle this year, four the next year, or five the next year." 00:14:45.705 --> 00:14:47.305 position:50% align:middle We would need to know the composition. 00:14:47.863 --> 00:14:49.430 position:50% align:middle And so I think that's really the key. 00:14:49.430 --> 00:14:53.040 position:50% align:middle We could ask that question directly, but, again, it's not placing too much of a 00:14:53.040 --> 00:14:57.312 position:50% align:middle burden on the respondent to then understand and kind of ascertain, 00:14:57.312 --> 00:15:00.586 position:50% align:middle you know, are they, the five faculty, year to year, all the same, 00:15:00.586 --> 00:15:01.975 position:50% align:middle you know, etc., etc. 00:15:01.975 --> 00:15:02.887 position:50% align:middle - Right. 00:15:04.878 --> 00:15:09.770 position:50% align:middle The next question is, is there a standard for the teaching 00:15:09.770 --> 00:15:11.835 position:50% align:middle workload of a program director? 00:15:13.194 --> 00:15:15.220 position:50% align:middle As far as I know, there isn't. 00:15:15.220 --> 00:15:17.360 position:50% align:middle I know there isn't from our studies. 00:15:17.360 --> 00:15:18.712 position:50% align:middle Do you know of anything? 00:15:20.450 --> 00:15:24.830 position:50% align:middle - We have a limit for our in-program directors, only three hours 00:15:24.830 --> 00:15:25.968 position:50% align:middle a week teaching. 00:15:26.180 --> 00:15:28.999 position:50% align:middle We do not have that for VN programs. 00:15:28.999 --> 00:15:35.595 position:50% align:middle And we started to put something in place, but because of the North Carolina 00:15:35.595 --> 00:15:42.141 position:50% align:middle decision, and that this might keep someone from earning money, 00:15:42.141 --> 00:15:44.090 position:50% align:middle we did not put anything in place. 00:15:44.090 --> 00:15:45.032 position:50% align:middle - Oh, okay. 00:15:45.700 --> 00:15:46.930 position:50% align:middle So, because of the FTC? 00:15:46.930 --> 00:15:48.156 position:50% align:middle - Yes. - Okay. 00:15:49.250 --> 00:15:52.692 position:50% align:middle So, as far as I know, no. 00:15:53.243 --> 00:16:00.260 position:50% align:middle Obviously, one state did have something but pulled it out, and I just don't have 00:16:00.260 --> 00:16:02.730 position:50% align:middle any more information on that. 00:16:03.616 --> 00:16:09.870 position:50% align:middle The next question is for Brendan, I think, more than anything, but will you qualify 00:16:09.870 --> 00:16:13.871 position:50% align:middle the definition of an orientation program for new faculty? 00:16:13.871 --> 00:16:16.080 position:50% align:middle There's a difference across programs. 00:16:16.080 --> 00:16:19.933 position:50% align:middle The quality of the orientation program can range from poor, such as a 00:16:19.933 --> 00:16:23.057 position:50% align:middle simple checklist, to great, formal well-designed program, 00:16:23.057 --> 00:16:27.183 position:50% align:middle and if the question is asked on the core report, "Do you have an orientation 00:16:27.183 --> 00:16:30.820 position:50% align:middle program for new faculty?" I believe the question needs to be quantified. 00:16:30.820 --> 00:16:33.097 position:50% align:middle And I think that's an excellent question. - It is. 00:16:33.097 --> 00:16:35.645 position:50% align:middle - And we probably should do that. 00:16:35.645 --> 00:16:39.245 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. And the nice thing about this, so programming into Qualtrics and 00:16:39.245 --> 00:16:43.367 position:50% align:middle kind of sending out, like, a standardized, like, core data survey. 00:16:44.480 --> 00:16:48.490 position:50% align:middle The one real nice advantage of that is we could base this on for those 00:16:48.490 --> 00:16:49.953 position:50% align:middle familiar with, like, survey methodology. 00:16:49.953 --> 00:16:51.360 position:50% align:middle We could base that on a skip pattern. 00:16:51.360 --> 00:16:53.740 position:50% align:middle So, you know, if you say, no, you don't have formal, 00:16:53.740 --> 00:16:56.197 position:50% align:middle we don't need to ask you to rate it, obviously. 00:16:56.210 --> 00:17:00.123 position:50% align:middle But if you say yes to that, I think the idea of inserting basically a 00:17:00.123 --> 00:17:04.188 position:50% align:middle Likert scale of, you know, grade essentially the quality 00:17:04.188 --> 00:17:05.010 position:50% align:middle of that training. 00:17:05.010 --> 00:17:05.962 position:50% align:middle I think it is important. 00:17:05.962 --> 00:17:08.827 position:50% align:middle And I think that this is an excellent example of, you know, 00:17:08.827 --> 00:17:11.855 position:50% align:middle where I think we're really going to look for your feedback moving forward 00:17:11.855 --> 00:17:15.040 position:50% align:middle because we have what the kind of the evidence that we are able to aggregate 00:17:15.040 --> 00:17:17.361 position:50% align:middle to date suggest is important. 00:17:17.770 --> 00:17:20.060 position:50% align:middle But you, as the end-user, as the practitioners, 00:17:20.060 --> 00:17:23.090 position:50% align:middle the people in the field, I think, are really going to be the ones 00:17:23.090 --> 00:17:24.141 position:50% align:middle to inform on the template. 00:17:24.141 --> 00:17:27.430 position:50% align:middle - Right. And I think, you know, that is really good feedback, by the way. 00:17:27.430 --> 00:17:31.240 position:50% align:middle And I think this is good feedback for the future of going forward with this. 00:17:31.240 --> 00:17:36.520 position:50% align:middle And it just shows me that we really need your input in a lot of this because what 00:17:36.520 --> 00:17:42.010 position:50% align:middle I'm thinking is maybe we could even change it to a mentorship program with a seasoned 00:17:42.010 --> 00:17:43.644 position:50% align:middle faculty for a year. 00:17:43.644 --> 00:17:44.150 position:50% align:middle - Sure. 00:17:44.150 --> 00:17:46.580 position:50% align:middle - That does quantify it a bit. - Yes. Yes. 00:17:46.580 --> 00:17:48.290 position:50% align:middle - So great question. 00:17:48.290 --> 00:17:50.504 position:50% align:middle And well, it's something that we can think about. 00:17:50.504 --> 00:17:56.390 position:50% align:middle - And this may need to be qualified that it's nursing orientation because the 00:17:56.390 --> 00:18:01.650 position:50% align:middle college or the university always has an orientation for new faculty, 00:18:01.650 --> 00:18:03.070 position:50% align:middle but it's not to the nursing group. 00:18:03.070 --> 00:18:04.665 position:50% align:middle - Right. Good point. 00:18:05.980 --> 00:18:07.342 position:50% align:middle Great questions. 00:18:09.144 --> 00:18:13.258 position:50% align:middle Our current annual survey reflects the rules on our nurse practice act, 00:18:13.258 --> 00:18:18.632 position:50% align:middle are you suggesting we replace that with the NCSBN survey every year? 00:18:18.632 --> 00:18:19.547 position:50% align:middle Yes. 00:18:21.700 --> 00:18:29.862 position:50% align:middle If it's in your rules and not your statute, that's more easily changed. 00:18:30.448 --> 00:18:35.281 position:50% align:middle Is it so specific what you collect on the annual report in your rules? 00:18:36.309 --> 00:18:37.058 position:50% align:middle - No. 00:18:37.282 --> 00:18:38.047 position:50% align:middle - No. 00:18:38.120 --> 00:18:42.890 position:50% align:middle So, for some states that could be something they'd have to change? 00:18:42.890 --> 00:18:45.717 position:50% align:middle - But it is in statute that we have the right to collect data. 00:18:45.717 --> 00:18:47.616 position:50% align:middle - That you do an annual report, right. 00:18:47.980 --> 00:18:51.125 position:50% align:middle But it's not something that says, "These are the questions that 00:18:51.125 --> 00:18:52.853 position:50% align:middle have to be," correct? - No. 00:18:54.006 --> 00:18:57.351 position:50% align:middle - And in fact, even moving forward, we would recommend not saying, " These are 00:18:57.351 --> 00:18:58.870 position:50% align:middle the..." because the idea... - I know. 00:18:58.870 --> 00:19:03.490 position:50% align:middle - The idea is that this is a living thing, and as we collect more evidence, 00:19:03.490 --> 00:19:06.855 position:50% align:middle we'll be able to refine that analysis and then maybe we'll see certain things 00:19:06.855 --> 00:19:08.517 position:50% align:middle drop out and others emerge. 00:19:08.517 --> 00:19:09.965 position:50% align:middle - That's exactly right. 00:19:12.203 --> 00:19:16.890 position:50% align:middle Based on the information presented, what rule changes or new rules do you 00:19:16.890 --> 00:19:18.240 position:50% align:middle think should be made? 00:19:18.240 --> 00:19:24.380 position:50% align:middle And I think this might go to a few other questions about the model rules. 00:19:24.380 --> 00:19:28.199 position:50% align:middle Will the annual report and site visit template be included in the model rules? 00:19:29.449 --> 00:19:34.620 position:50% align:middle And will NCSBN model rule language have been updated to reflect 00:19:34.620 --> 00:19:35.623 position:50% align:middle the research findings? 00:19:35.623 --> 00:19:39.156 position:50% align:middle Well, I will tell you this, we did work with a model rules committee. 00:19:39.156 --> 00:19:44.037 position:50% align:middle Maryann Alexander, who's been working with us on this as well, 00:19:44.037 --> 00:19:49.930 position:50% align:middle and I worked with them to update the education model rules to reflect, 00:19:49.930 --> 00:19:53.320 position:50% align:middle especially, some of the evidence that we have found. 00:19:53.320 --> 00:19:57.530 position:50% align:middle Because the new model rules that we're going to be...I think you're going to be 00:19:57.530 --> 00:20:01.783 position:50% align:middle voting on in August, really they're trying to make them 00:20:01.783 --> 00:20:03.278 position:50% align:middle more evidence based. 00:20:03.278 --> 00:20:05.860 position:50% align:middle So, at least I gave direction. 00:20:05.860 --> 00:20:09.500 position:50% align:middle I'm not on that committee, but I gave direction about what evidence 00:20:09.500 --> 00:20:10.970 position:50% align:middle they may include in there. 00:20:10.970 --> 00:20:17.604 position:50% align:middle But for the specific question about, will the site visit template be included 00:20:17.604 --> 00:20:21.386 position:50% align:middle in the annual report template and the model rules? No. 00:20:21.480 --> 00:20:26.000 position:50% align:middle I think, if anything, they're trying to shorten the model rules, 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:27.494 position:50% align:middle making them real. 00:20:27.494 --> 00:20:31.022 position:50% align:middle Well, not that they're not evidence based, but I don't think you would put a template 00:20:31.022 --> 00:20:35.537 position:50% align:middle in the model rules, but maybe just say something like, "Jan said that, you know, 00:20:35.537 --> 00:20:39.598 position:50% align:middle 'The board collects an annual report,' and that would be enough that you could, 00:20:39.598 --> 00:20:43.786 position:50% align:middle you know, collect the information that you find that you should collect. 00:20:45.410 --> 00:20:49.170 position:50% align:middle And then there's a question, where and when we'll be able to find the 00:20:49.170 --> 00:20:51.662 position:50% align:middle templates on the NCSBN website. 00:20:51.662 --> 00:20:53.840 position:50% align:middle That's a good question too. 00:20:53.840 --> 00:20:57.360 position:50% align:middle One of the things I'm going to do, if some of you, you know, 00:20:57.360 --> 00:21:02.120 position:50% align:middle know about the education section on the website, we have a big area there 00:21:02.120 --> 00:21:06.172 position:50% align:middle on approval, and that was really based on what we did in 2012, so I'm going to be 00:21:06.172 --> 00:21:10.070 position:50% align:middle updating that, and all of this new information will be there and it'll 00:21:10.070 --> 00:21:11.570 position:50% align:middle be available there. 00:21:11.570 --> 00:21:13.831 position:50% align:middle But, you know, it isn't available yet. 00:21:13.831 --> 00:21:17.280 position:50% align:middle So, again, we're going to send these booklets out to your board. 00:21:17.280 --> 00:21:20.260 position:50% align:middle It's going to look something, I don't know if you can see this, 00:21:20.260 --> 00:21:22.198 position:50% align:middle but something like this. 00:21:22.198 --> 00:21:28.780 position:50% align:middle So something like the template that's up on the PowerPoints, and, again, 00:21:28.780 --> 00:21:33.114 position:50% align:middle we're going to pass it out at mid-year, and we'll send the PDF of it out to you. 00:21:33.260 --> 00:21:35.630 position:50% align:middle So, definitely be available. 00:21:35.630 --> 00:21:41.270 position:50% align:middle You know, a lot of this we're still kind of working on now, so that's where 00:21:41.270 --> 00:21:42.343 position:50% align:middle we are there. 00:21:43.748 --> 00:21:47.597 position:50% align:middle I think that's it for the questions unless, Jo... 00:21:47.597 --> 00:21:49.439 position:50% align:middle - One more. - ...are there any other questions? 00:21:49.593 --> 00:21:50.556 position:50% align:middle - [Jo] Yes. 00:21:50.984 --> 00:21:52.050 position:50% align:middle Thank you, Nancy. 00:21:52.050 --> 00:21:55.812 position:50% align:middle Yes, there is a question, a couple of more questions here. 00:21:55.990 --> 00:21:58.699 position:50% align:middle When will the survey be ready for distribution? 00:21:59.404 --> 00:22:02.758 position:50% align:middle - Oh, you know what, I forgot to say anything about that. 00:22:02.758 --> 00:22:06.190 position:50% align:middle Well, we are under construction, as I said. 00:22:06.950 --> 00:22:11.100 position:50% align:middle My first job, probably next week, will be to send out surveys to find 00:22:11.100 --> 00:22:17.150 position:50% align:middle out how many times we should send this out a year? 00:22:17.150 --> 00:22:20.000 position:50% align:middle We'd like to do it once, as I said, if we could do it every January, 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:23.553 position:50% align:middle that would be beautiful, but maybe some of you need it at a 00:22:23.553 --> 00:22:25.615 position:50% align:middle different time and we could do it twice. 00:22:26.219 --> 00:22:28.641 position:50% align:middle So that's the first thing that we need to do. 00:22:28.641 --> 00:22:33.430 position:50% align:middle And then we need to, you know, put it past some of the boards just 00:22:33.430 --> 00:22:40.360 position:50% align:middle to review the template and, make the questions, and then we'll probably 00:22:40.360 --> 00:22:44.506 position:50% align:middle have to, you know, send those out just to have people test the questions. 00:22:44.506 --> 00:22:56.310 position:50% align:middle And I would guess that it would be ready by the summer, but I just can't promise 00:22:56.310 --> 00:23:00.920 position:50% align:middle anything because you know how long things take when you... 00:23:00.920 --> 00:23:03.860 position:50% align:middle We thought these approval guidelines would be done. 00:23:03.860 --> 00:23:06.150 position:50% align:middle And remember, our committee was a year long. 00:23:06.150 --> 00:23:08.900 position:50% align:middle We thought we'd have them, and we just had to do more. 00:23:08.900 --> 00:23:15.490 position:50% align:middle So I don't have a specific date, but I'd like it to be ready by the summer 00:23:15.490 --> 00:23:18.100 position:50% align:middle so that we could, you know, begin to input the data. 00:23:18.100 --> 00:23:22.368 position:50% align:middle We'd also have to get from everybody what your extra questions are. 00:23:22.900 --> 00:23:27.950 position:50% align:middle And, you know, Qiana McIntosh, who does the CEs for this, 00:23:27.950 --> 00:23:31.960 position:50% align:middle she'll be doing the whole thing with Qualtrics, so she's going to a special 00:23:31.960 --> 00:23:34.406 position:50% align:middle workshop at Qualtrics. 00:23:34.510 --> 00:23:40.502 position:50% align:middle They're doing a conference to learn about how, you know, we can do the reports 00:23:40.502 --> 00:23:43.560 position:50% align:middle in a way that, you know, you would really find useful. 00:23:43.560 --> 00:23:47.387 position:50% align:middle And I think we might have to talk to each of you as well about what you'd 00:23:47.387 --> 00:23:48.990 position:50% align:middle like in the reports. 00:23:48.990 --> 00:23:53.130 position:50% align:middle So it's work-intensive for us, but we're hoping, you know, 00:23:53.130 --> 00:23:56.867 position:50% align:middle once it gets into a system, it'll go well. 00:23:56.970 --> 00:23:58.946 position:50% align:middle I know that was a non-answer, wasn't it? - Yeah. 00:23:58.946 --> 00:24:02.492 position:50% align:middle - That guy at that conference would've said, "This was a yes or no question." 00:24:04.310 --> 00:24:04.870 position:50% align:middle Anything else? 00:24:04.870 --> 00:24:06.165 position:50% align:middle - Yes, yes. 00:24:06.190 --> 00:24:10.040 position:50% align:middle Have the quality indicators been mapped to accreditation standards? 00:24:11.880 --> 00:24:13.710 position:50% align:middle - Have the quality indicators, what? 00:24:13.710 --> 00:24:14.240 position:50% align:middle - Been mapped. 00:24:14.240 --> 00:24:17.830 position:50% align:middle - The quality indicators in the approval guidelines, have they been mapped 00:24:17.830 --> 00:24:19.780 position:50% align:middle to the accreditation standards? 00:24:19.780 --> 00:24:23.278 position:50% align:middle I'm assuming they meant the national nursing accreditation standards. 00:24:24.123 --> 00:24:25.997 position:50% align:middle - And that's a good question as well. 00:24:25.997 --> 00:24:31.238 position:50% align:middle What we did and what I'm kind of proud of is that this is 00:24:31.238 --> 00:24:33.428 position:50% align:middle really purely regulation. 00:24:33.428 --> 00:24:37.660 position:50% align:middle We based everything on the approval or not. 00:24:37.660 --> 00:24:43.990 position:50% align:middle So we see these as regulatory guidelines, and so we really didn't feel the need 00:24:43.990 --> 00:24:48.011 position:50% align:middle to do a crosswalk because we see that as a separate process. 00:24:48.011 --> 00:24:52.910 position:50% align:middle If you remember our committee in 2012 that recommended accreditation, 00:24:52.910 --> 00:24:58.970 position:50% align:middle we still recommended it but thought approval should still be maintained and 00:24:58.970 --> 00:25:02.780 position:50% align:middle that boards should have that authority over their programs and be able to step 00:25:02.780 --> 00:25:06.142 position:50% align:middle in at different points because it's different. 00:25:06.200 --> 00:25:10.140 position:50% align:middle It's a different mission, they're looking at different indicators. 00:25:10.140 --> 00:25:16.700 position:50% align:middle So we had the accreditors on our original cause, but we really didn't crosswalk 00:25:16.700 --> 00:25:18.870 position:50% align:middle things because we just see it as regulation. 00:25:18.870 --> 00:25:23.160 position:50% align:middle - And I might just add, too, and not to get too deep into the weeds 00:25:23.160 --> 00:25:27.230 position:50% align:middle in research speak, but just the mere fact that we were able 00:25:27.230 --> 00:25:31.300 position:50% align:middle to model accreditation, national accreditation as a predictor 00:25:31.300 --> 00:25:34.710 position:50% align:middle in the analysis, confirmed for us that there were programs that were 00:25:34.710 --> 00:25:36.882 position:50% align:middle not accredited, which were fully approved. 00:25:37.360 --> 00:25:42.295 position:50% align:middle So to be able to model something statistically, you have to have, 00:25:42.295 --> 00:25:46.670 position:50% align:middle essentially, events and non-events in both sides of your predictor. 00:25:46.670 --> 00:25:49.500 position:50% align:middle So, if you were accredited, you have to have ones that were not 00:25:49.500 --> 00:25:52.370 position:50% align:middle approved and approved, and if you were not accredited, 00:25:52.370 --> 00:25:54.999 position:50% align:middle you have to have both programs that were approved and not approved. 00:25:54.999 --> 00:25:56.825 position:50% align:middle It's the only way that the model will work. 00:25:57.110 --> 00:26:00.090 position:50% align:middle So, just the fact that we were able to derive any estimates using 00:26:00.090 --> 00:26:02.530 position:50% align:middle national accreditation, we have examples of nationally accredited 00:26:02.530 --> 00:26:06.450 position:50% align:middle programs that were not approved, and we have examples of programs that were not 00:26:06.450 --> 00:26:08.094 position:50% align:middle accredited, who were approved. - Yeah. 00:26:08.094 --> 00:26:13.630 position:50% align:middle - So I think, again, you know, to just suggest not over-relying 00:26:13.630 --> 00:26:14.700 position:50% align:middle on one criteria. 00:26:14.700 --> 00:26:18.160 position:50% align:middle So similar to the NCLEX, you know, I think it is an important piece 00:26:18.160 --> 00:26:18.942 position:50% align:middle of the puzzle. 00:26:18.942 --> 00:26:21.660 position:50% align:middle I think it's a piece of the puzzle that has to be assessed, and certainly, 00:26:21.660 --> 00:26:25.756 position:50% align:middle on an ongoing basis, but never kind of pigeonholing ourselves 00:26:25.756 --> 00:26:28.165 position:50% align:middle into one lens or another. 00:26:28.165 --> 00:26:31.950 position:50% align:middle - And the accreditation organizations are very aware of this work. 00:26:31.950 --> 00:26:33.210 position:50% align:middle We've talked to them on the phone. 00:26:33.210 --> 00:26:34.259 position:50% align:middle - Oh yes, very aware. 00:26:34.259 --> 00:26:36.794 position:50% align:middle - And they're very interested in the findings. 00:26:38.848 --> 00:26:42.419 position:50% align:middle - And we did find in this study that accreditation does matter. 00:26:42.419 --> 00:26:43.660 position:50% align:middle - Yeah, we did. - So I mean... 00:26:43.660 --> 00:26:44.667 position:50% align:middle - And so they're happy. I know. 00:26:44.667 --> 00:26:49.120 position:50% align:middle - So these results do suggest that accreditation, it does play out when 00:26:49.120 --> 00:26:50.060 position:50% align:middle looking at approval. 00:26:50.726 --> 00:26:53.617 position:50% align:middle I just think that there are other quality indicators, too, that are important 00:26:53.617 --> 00:26:54.204 position:50% align:middle to keep in mind. 00:26:54.204 --> 00:26:54.968 position:50% align:middle - Right. 00:26:56.690 --> 00:26:57.900 position:50% align:middle Anything else, Jo? 00:26:58.244 --> 00:26:59.018 position:50% align:middle - No, Nancy. 00:26:59.018 --> 00:27:03.272 position:50% align:middle I think at this point, we don't have any more questions. 00:27:03.360 --> 00:27:04.617 position:50% align:middle - Great. 00:27:04.652 --> 00:27:11.304 position:50% align:middle So, we are going to move on, and I had asked some of you about, 00:27:11.304 --> 00:27:15.606 position:50% align:middle how will your board or NRB use this information? 00:27:15.690 --> 00:27:20.921 position:50% align:middle And, you know, I don't think we got any answers for that, did we? 00:27:21.420 --> 00:27:25.260 position:50% align:middle So I was just going to throw this to our colleague here, Jan. 00:27:25.260 --> 00:27:27.020 position:50% align:middle - Well, since I was in the committee... 00:27:27.020 --> 00:27:30.268 position:50% align:middle - First of all, do you think you're going to use the annual report template? 00:27:30.582 --> 00:27:33.750 position:50% align:middle We need to hear from Jan. - Yes, we do a massive annual report. 00:27:33.750 --> 00:27:38.930 position:50% align:middle But we don't mind doing this because we feel that having national database would 00:27:38.930 --> 00:27:41.054 position:50% align:middle be so valuable to us. 00:27:41.820 --> 00:27:42.369 position:50% align:middle So... 00:27:42.369 --> 00:27:45.670 position:50% align:middle - So some of you that do have something you're really happy with, 00:27:45.670 --> 00:27:50.050 position:50% align:middle maybe do it Jan's way and have, you know, look at this, and so then you can 00:27:50.050 --> 00:27:52.826 position:50% align:middle at least look at the aggregate data to see how your... 00:27:52.826 --> 00:27:54.397 position:50% align:middle - Sure, absolutely. - ... programs compare. 00:27:54.397 --> 00:27:55.132 position:50% align:middle Okay. Sorry I interrupted. 00:27:55.132 --> 00:27:58.760 position:50% align:middle - But as far as how we're going to use this, unfortunately, 00:27:58.760 --> 00:28:03.190 position:50% align:middle since I've been on the committee and kind of underhandedly already been using 00:28:03.190 --> 00:28:07.018 position:50% align:middle the information that we have found when I've evaluated programs. 00:28:08.140 --> 00:28:14.940 position:50% align:middle For one thing, it will help us to watch for warning signs because we know 00:28:14.940 --> 00:28:16.939 position:50% align:middle specific warning signs. 00:28:17.211 --> 00:28:22.430 position:50% align:middle And also, we will be able to evaluate how programs measure up to the quality 00:28:22.430 --> 00:28:27.740 position:50% align:middle indicators because they are statements of quality, and if they don't measure up, 00:28:27.740 --> 00:28:29.288 position:50% align:middle we'll recognize that. 00:28:29.830 --> 00:28:35.420 position:50% align:middle The findings will provide evidence-based rationales for approval decisions, 00:28:35.420 --> 00:28:38.980 position:50% align:middle requirements, recommendations, even suggestions. 00:28:38.980 --> 00:28:44.629 position:50% align:middle So we can say, "The rule says this, the evidence from the program is this, 00:28:45.200 --> 00:28:50.049 position:50% align:middle the research shows this, so our requirement is this." 00:28:50.049 --> 00:28:55.862 position:50% align:middle So it just gives us a better baseline for writing our sanctions if you want 00:28:55.862 --> 00:28:56.886 position:50% align:middle to call them that. 00:28:58.150 --> 00:29:02.130 position:50% align:middle I wondered if they would be useful in writing self-study reports. 00:29:02.130 --> 00:29:06.280 position:50% align:middle That's just a question I have for myself, that programs might be able to look 00:29:06.280 --> 00:29:12.660 position:50% align:middle at those quality indicators as they're evaluating problems in their own programs. 00:29:14.130 --> 00:29:15.807 position:50% align:middle They can guide rulemaking. 00:29:15.807 --> 00:29:22.267 position:50% align:middle I think that when we are considering making changes to rules, and most boards 00:29:22.267 --> 00:29:27.430 position:50% align:middle have a regular cycle for looking through all the rules, we can refer to that 00:29:27.430 --> 00:29:29.826 position:50% align:middle and see, "Do we need a rule for this?" 00:29:31.830 --> 00:29:35.571 position:50% align:middle They will help in considering proposals for new programs. 00:29:35.950 --> 00:29:38.340 position:50% align:middle We read a lot of proposals. 00:29:38.340 --> 00:29:43.125 position:50% align:middle Since 2006, we've approved 84 new programs. 00:29:43.719 --> 00:29:48.660 position:50% align:middle And I think this will help us to see if the program promises to be a 00:29:48.660 --> 00:29:50.103 position:50% align:middle success or not. 00:29:52.230 --> 00:29:56.879 position:50% align:middle It will help us respond to programs' questions with evidence. 00:29:57.732 --> 00:30:03.226 position:50% align:middle And it will help in identifying factors that may have contributed to pass rate 00:30:03.226 --> 00:30:08.632 position:50% align:middle or other negative outcomes for planning corrective measures. 00:30:09.310 --> 00:30:12.163 position:50% align:middle So I think they will be very valuable. 00:30:12.739 --> 00:30:17.210 position:50% align:middle - You know, some of you may know that I teach an ICRS course on the role 00:30:17.210 --> 00:30:18.840 position:50% align:middle of the education consultant. 00:30:18.840 --> 00:30:24.716 position:50% align:middle So, we had this site visit template, and, you know, I presented that, and one of the 00:30:24.716 --> 00:30:29.300 position:50% align:middle education consultants was rather new, hadn't made a site visit, and used it 00:30:29.300 --> 00:30:34.240 position:50% align:middle for her first visit and really felt like it organized things for her. 00:30:34.240 --> 00:30:38.410 position:50% align:middle I think sometimes those first site visits can be very difficult because they just 00:30:38.410 --> 00:30:40.580 position:50% align:middle don't know where to go to first. So... 00:30:40.580 --> 00:30:47.239 position:50% align:middle - You're overwhelmed with information, and you can get lost in the details. 00:30:47.239 --> 00:30:53.750 position:50% align:middle - So I think a site visit document really would be interesting to use for the boards 00:30:53.750 --> 00:30:55.797 position:50% align:middle when they orient new education consultants. 00:30:55.797 --> 00:30:56.542 position:50% align:middle - Yes. 00:30:56.542 --> 00:31:02.591 position:50% align:middle - I think the annual report template is going to be...at collection, would be 00:31:02.591 --> 00:31:06.554 position:50% align:middle really important if you want to decrease your workload and maybe be 00:31:06.554 --> 00:31:08.724 position:50% align:middle a part of that core data. 00:31:08.724 --> 00:31:13.354 position:50% align:middle The approval guidelines, like Jan said, just helping you when 00:31:13.354 --> 00:31:19.005 position:50% align:middle you're approving, and using them, knowing that you have that data there. 00:31:19.670 --> 00:31:24.947 position:50% align:middle Another thing that I think we've alluded to but maybe haven't said outright, 00:31:24.947 --> 00:31:29.050 position:50% align:middle remember we've talked about the NCLEX being a lagging kind of indicator? 00:31:29.050 --> 00:31:33.780 position:50% align:middle Well, with some of these indicators and the approval guidelines, 00:31:33.780 --> 00:31:39.940 position:50% align:middle you can go in and turn those programs around before they begin to fail. 00:31:39.940 --> 00:31:44.384 position:50% align:middle And that, I think, will really make your legislators, your board, 00:31:44.384 --> 00:31:47.980 position:50% align:middle everybody happy because nobody wants to close a program. 00:31:47.980 --> 00:31:53.840 position:50% align:middle If you can step in and help them make those changes or make those suggestions 00:31:53.840 --> 00:31:57.325 position:50% align:middle before they fail, that's really the best way to do it. 00:31:59.520 --> 00:32:02.893 position:50% align:middle And, you know, I know there are programs out there that you make suggestions to 00:32:02.893 --> 00:32:04.651 position:50% align:middle and they don't follow through. 00:32:04.880 --> 00:32:10.244 position:50% align:middle But for the most part, I mean, like the one that you just made, 00:32:10.244 --> 00:32:13.676 position:50% align:middle where she got an assistant. - Yes. Yes. 00:32:13.676 --> 00:32:14.401 position:50% align:middle - And that was you're... 00:32:14.401 --> 00:32:17.720 position:50% align:middle - But when we make a recommendation or requirement, and I'm sure other boards do 00:32:17.720 --> 00:32:22.320 position:50% align:middle this too, we give them a deadline, "You must respond no later than..." 00:32:23.104 --> 00:32:24.209 position:50% align:middle And they do. 00:32:25.935 --> 00:32:26.647 position:50% align:middle - Great. 00:32:26.647 --> 00:32:30.353 position:50% align:middle - And, you know, just to kind of build on that, I think we have discussed, 00:32:30.353 --> 00:32:35.550 position:50% align:middle you know, in other contexts, the fact that moving forward as programs 00:32:35.550 --> 00:32:39.419 position:50% align:middle proactively address some of these deficiencies potentially in real-time, 00:32:39.419 --> 00:32:41.340 position:50% align:middle that it actually might level the playing field. 00:32:41.340 --> 00:32:44.160 position:50% align:middle So then when we go to doing another analysis, certain indicators might just 00:32:44.160 --> 00:32:48.240 position:50% align:middle fall off because boards have done such an effective job at addressing it that it's 00:32:48.240 --> 00:32:49.210 position:50% align:middle no longer an issue. 00:32:49.210 --> 00:32:50.540 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. - It's true. 00:32:50.540 --> 00:32:51.914 position:50% align:middle - Do we have another question? 00:32:51.914 --> 00:32:54.930 position:50% align:middle - Not questions, but we have several comments. 00:32:54.930 --> 00:32:55.860 position:50% align:middle - Oh, several comments. 00:32:55.860 --> 00:32:57.217 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. Yes. 00:32:57.386 --> 00:33:03.160 position:50% align:middle A board has said that they've been waiting to write rules and revise their annual 00:33:03.160 --> 00:33:06.935 position:50% align:middle report until this information's been available. 00:33:07.080 --> 00:33:11.190 position:50% align:middle Another has said that they've already started using director and faculty 00:33:11.190 --> 00:33:13.558 position:50% align:middle turnover as risk factors when... 00:33:13.558 --> 00:33:15.250 position:50% align:middle - No? - ...consultants do site visits. 00:33:15.250 --> 00:33:15.972 position:50% align:middle - Way ahead. 00:33:15.972 --> 00:33:20.540 position:50% align:middle - And, you know, one brought up the important fact that the programs really 00:33:20.540 --> 00:33:22.540 position:50% align:middle like to benchmark with each other. 00:33:22.540 --> 00:33:26.560 position:50% align:middle And they think that this will be really useful for their state to benchmark 00:33:26.560 --> 00:33:27.447 position:50% align:middle with other jurisdictions. 00:33:27.447 --> 00:33:29.141 position:50% align:middle - Right. The benchmark, and that's a great idea. 00:33:29.141 --> 00:33:32.100 position:50% align:middle - Yeah. And this will provide a national benchmark... 00:33:32.100 --> 00:33:34.379 position:50% align:middle - It would. - ...to your earlier comment too. 00:33:34.379 --> 00:33:36.090 position:50% align:middle - Yes. - This will be across all boards. 00:33:36.090 --> 00:33:36.743 position:50% align:middle - And, who knows? 00:33:36.743 --> 00:33:41.125 position:50% align:middle Internationally, in the future. - Internationally. Exactly. Exactly. 00:33:41.125 --> 00:33:42.303 position:50% align:middle - That's it? - Yes. 00:33:42.303 --> 00:33:43.128 position:50% align:middle - Okay. 00:33:43.128 --> 00:33:44.566 position:50% align:middle Well, thank you, everybody. 00:33:48.802 --> 00:33:54.520 position:50% align:middle So just to kind of wind up here, I just really like this little image 00:33:54.520 --> 00:33:56.977 position:50% align:middle that took me...it looks like it was real easy to make, 00:33:56.977 --> 00:34:01.263 position:50% align:middle but it took me so long to make, because it kind of puts everything together that 00:34:01.263 --> 00:34:02.444 position:50% align:middle we've talked about. 00:34:02.444 --> 00:34:08.240 position:50% align:middle Using the annual report for core data, looking at, you know, 00:34:08.240 --> 00:34:13.366 position:50% align:middle the performance indicator from it, which is something new today that 00:34:13.366 --> 00:34:15.530 position:50% align:middle we haven't talked about at all before. 00:34:15.530 --> 00:34:17.622 position:50% align:middle And I think that is so exciting. 00:34:17.910 --> 00:34:24.020 position:50% align:middle And then using that site visit template, as we said, and probably, your seasoned 00:34:24.020 --> 00:34:26.880 position:50% align:middle education consultants already know what they do when they go out, 00:34:26.880 --> 00:34:29.581 position:50% align:middle but really good for orienting new people. 00:34:29.710 --> 00:34:34.320 position:50% align:middle And then the approval guidelines, of course, where all of this kind of 00:34:34.320 --> 00:34:39.450 position:50% align:middle comes together to the guidelines that are all evidence based, and 00:34:39.450 --> 00:34:43.621 position:50% align:middle in those guidelines, again, we have where that evidence is. 00:34:43.740 --> 00:34:50.170 position:50% align:middle And so, then, if they're evidence based, legally defensible, and, in the end, 00:34:50.170 --> 00:34:54.970 position:50% align:middle so at the end of the little arrow there, you know, it will help you 00:34:54.970 --> 00:35:00.599 position:50% align:middle to save on your workload, it'll provide a national database, but, 00:35:00.599 --> 00:35:07.080 position:50% align:middle I think, almost best of all, that it helps your workload, but also it'll help the 00:35:07.080 --> 00:35:13.428 position:50% align:middle boards to be proactive and taking those steps before programs start to fail. 00:35:14.980 --> 00:35:22.410 position:50% align:middle So, using this in the future, building that core data, 00:35:24.822 --> 00:35:30.160 position:50% align:middle what do you see as beneficial to nursing and to the boards 00:35:30.160 --> 00:35:31.210 position:50% align:middle but to nursing in general? 00:35:31.210 --> 00:35:35.730 position:50% align:middle - Well, I think we're entering a new era with the next-generation NCLEX and greater 00:35:35.730 --> 00:35:38.040 position:50% align:middle teaching toward clinical judgment. 00:35:38.720 --> 00:35:43.289 position:50% align:middle Now we have tools that will help us evaluate programs and keep them on track. 00:35:43.660 --> 00:35:46.696 position:50% align:middle So I expect we'll have a better nursing workforce. 00:35:47.580 --> 00:35:50.058 position:50% align:middle - And aggregate data. 00:35:50.414 --> 00:35:53.710 position:50% align:middle - Yeah, I mean, for me, I wouldn't even broaden it beyond nursing 00:35:53.710 --> 00:35:59.793 position:50% align:middle because I think nursing is... I come at most topics from a research bias. 00:36:00.183 --> 00:36:03.303 position:50% align:middle I always think, "One more tool in the toolkit." 00:36:03.700 --> 00:36:07.052 position:50% align:middle We're not saying you have to use these performance indicators. 00:36:07.220 --> 00:36:09.550 position:50% align:middle We're not prescribing what the next steps are. 00:36:09.550 --> 00:36:11.767 position:50% align:middle I think it's one more bit of information. 00:36:12.520 --> 00:36:16.630 position:50% align:middle And I have yet to see any industry that couldn't benefit from one more piece 00:36:16.630 --> 00:36:18.461 position:50% align:middle of information, at least, to consider. 00:36:19.050 --> 00:36:22.220 position:50% align:middle And so, yeah, I think it will be really beneficial. 00:36:22.220 --> 00:36:26.990 position:50% align:middle I think, in particular, to have kind of a national standard and to understand, 00:36:26.990 --> 00:36:31.010 position:50% align:middle as Jan has mentioned multiple times, you know, how your own jurisdiction might 00:36:31.010 --> 00:36:32.159 position:50% align:middle measure up to that. 00:36:34.933 --> 00:36:41.655 position:50% align:middle - So, we will end today with a quote by Florence Nightingale, 00:36:42.050 --> 00:36:45.600 position:50% align:middle "Were there none who were discontented with what they have, 00:36:45.600 --> 00:36:48.749 position:50% align:middle the world would never reach anything better." 00:36:49.035 --> 00:36:52.640 position:50% align:middle And I think that's a very timely quote because, as you know, 00:36:52.640 --> 00:36:56.161 position:50% align:middle this was the year of Florence Nightingale's 200th birthday, 00:36:56.161 --> 00:37:01.260 position:50% align:middle and, certainly, boards have been discontented in the past. 00:37:01.260 --> 00:37:06.990 position:50% align:middle Actually, when I came in 2002, even then, they were talking about quality 00:37:06.990 --> 00:37:12.800 position:50% align:middle indicators, and now we have, really, a multipronged strategy. 00:37:12.800 --> 00:37:19.239 position:50% align:middle If you look back at this arrow, a multipronged strategy to look 00:37:19.239 --> 00:37:25.736 position:50% align:middle at changing that approval process to being evidenced based and legally defensible. 00:37:26.000 --> 00:37:32.919 position:50% align:middle So, I think we have done what Florence Nightingale wanted us all to do. 00:37:34.790 --> 00:37:39.830 position:50% align:middle Remember, we will send you the approval guidelines, all of you who are registered, 00:37:39.830 --> 00:37:42.727 position:50% align:middle and if you're not registered, then send us an email, 00:37:43.374 --> 00:37:45.620 position:50% align:middle as well as the PowerPoints. 00:37:45.620 --> 00:37:49.579 position:50% align:middle And don't forget, if you want CEs, that's 4.2 CEs, 00:37:49.579 --> 00:37:53.256 position:50% align:middle to fill out that evaluation, and if you're not registered, 00:37:53.256 --> 00:37:58.097 position:50% align:middle send Qiana the requests that you want CEs. 00:37:58.097 --> 00:38:03.046 position:50% align:middle And is there anything else? Any other questions or anything from IS? 00:38:04.195 --> 00:38:07.550 position:50% align:middle - So if you leave discontented, you've done exactly what 00:38:07.550 --> 00:38:08.980 position:50% align:middle Florence Nightingale wished. 00:38:12.331 --> 00:38:15.032 position:50% align:middle - Right. Well, thank you. - But we have the answers. 00:38:15.032 --> 00:38:16.177 position:50% align:middle - Yes, we do. 00:38:17.150 --> 00:38:20.236 position:50% align:middle Thank you, everybody, for joining us... 00:38:20.236 --> 00:38:21.212 position:50% align:middle - Thank you, Nancy. - ...for participating. 00:38:21.212 --> 00:38:25.779 position:50% align:middle - I do want to acknowledge Nancy, and Jo, and Qiana, and Brendan 00:38:25.779 --> 00:38:30.222 position:50% align:middle for all the work they've done over the past more than three years 00:38:30.222 --> 00:38:32.035 position:50% align:middle in getting this together. 00:38:32.035 --> 00:38:35.082 position:50% align:middle It's a tireless job. - We're very excited, yeah. 00:38:35.719 --> 00:38:36.893 position:50% align:middle So, thank you. 00:38:36.893 --> 00:38:40.910 position:50% align:middle It's been great working with all of you, and your questions were wonderful.