Minutes

WVRHEP Evaluation Committee

March 17, 2003

 

Members Present:  Helen Baker, Jodie Jackson (Co-chair), Judy Koehler, Ken Shannon, Sonnie Strader (Co-chair)

 

Others present:  Hilda Heady, Michelle Kopf, Debra Riggs, Kim Robinson, Steve Thomas, Alicia Tyler, April Vestal

 

Members Absent:  Nancy Dunn, Brenda Michael, Cindy Moats, Nancy Nedrow, Joanne Raines, Teresa Richmond, Sheryll Tennant

 

The Evaluation Committee discussed whether students in technical programs outside institutions of higher learning should be counted in TRACKER.  Policy 98-02 was reviewed by the Committee.  The first condition of this Policy states that in order for a student to be classified as “RHEP”, the student must be “at a University System of West Virginia, State College System or independent higher education institution in the state of West Virginia”.  Alicia Tyler emphasized the importance of keeping a clear focus on the original intent of the RHEP program.   Hilda Heady stated that RHEP exists to get higher education more responsive to the state; that this is where we need to focus our work.  Higher education students get priority.  She stated that whatever the Evaluation Committee decided would need the blessing of the School Committee.  The Evaluation Committee voted to add the following line to the top of the RHEP document, “Definition of Type of Student” that defines RHEP, Extern, In, Out and Other Rural students:  “The following definitions will be used for higher education students in degree programs.  Students in non-degree programs may be allowed to participate in local activities at the discretion of local consortium boards but will not be tracked or reported by RHEP”.  Motion to add this sentence was made by Helen Baker and seconded by Judy Koehler.  Jodie Jackson will take this recommendation to the School Committee today.

 

The Evaluation Committee also decided that paragraph 2 of RHEP policy # 98-02 needs to conform to current practice and recommends that the School Committee review the definition of an acceptable rotation.  Specifically, the Evaluation Committee feels that the School Committee needs to consider or reconsider the following:

  1. minimum length/hours/days per week, etc to qualify as a rotation
  2. whether the student needs to be with a preceptor that is NOT one of the instructors/professors at the school/college/program that they attend.
  3. whether the student needs to be at a rural site away from their home institution.

 Jodie will take this recommendation to the School Committee today (March 17). 

 

The Committee also discussed the issue of rotations that are NOT with an RHEP preceptor (but at a rural site) where the school faculty require the student to attend IDS and participate in community service.  As the definition stands now, these rotations should be counted as “other rural”.  These students are often put into TRACKER by the Campus Coordinators as RHEP resulting in a situation where the site coordinator has to change the student status to “Other Rural”.  Some site coordinators have been having difficulty making this change in TRACKER because TRACKER does not allow them to “click on” a preceptor name since only RHEP preceptors are listed.  Anna Reno asked whether Mike McCarthy could put “Other non-RHEP preceptor:  ____________” (with a blank to fill in the non-RHEP preceptor’s name).  Jodie will bring this up to Mike.

Due to an inquiry of a WVSOM representative, Jodie Jackson brought forth the issue of when an “other rural” rotation should be listed in TRACKER under one of the 17 consortia and when it should be listed under the school’s consortia.  This issue has financial implications for consortia and has potential for double-counting the rotation in TRACKER if we are not careful.  The Evaluation Committee clarified that “other rural” rotations would go under the School consortium (WVU, MU WVSOM) if they meet the following 4 criteria: 

1) do not use an RHEP preceptor, 2) do not use site coordinator time in setting up a rotation, 3) do not use RHEP housing, and 4) do not participate in IDS or RHEP community service activities.

 

Ken Shannon, MD, reported that the analysis of SERFE data since 1/1/01 is currently being done and the Evaluation Team will be looking at which questions currently on the SERFE give the best outcome data.  Some questions will surely be eliminated.  Dr. Shannon hopes to report on this analysis in May.

 

The bar charts comparing the responses of the 17 consortia to questions 6-11 of the IDS evaluation that are handed out by site coordinators to their students at the end of each IDS session were discussed.  Jodie brought to the attention of the committee that the student responses are overwhelmingly positive and that there is not much difference among consortia.  There is a great likelihood of bias introduced due to lack of complete confidentiality.  The  Evaluation Committee recommended that consortia continue to evaluate their IDS sessions and enter data into TRACKER for the time being until the Evaluation Team, the subcommittee consisting of Jodie Jackson, Ken Shannon, Helen Baker, Sheryll Tennant, and Mike McCarthy, develops additional questions pertaining to IDS sessions for inclusion on the Student Evaluation of Rural Field Experience (SERFE), a questionnaire with greater confidentiality.  At that point, the Evaluation Committee will reconsider whether data entry into TRACKER of consortia’s IDS evaluation data is necessary.  In the interim, the Evaluation Committee concluded that bar chart analysis on the IDS questionnaire comparing consortia is not providing meaningful information and, so, should not be done.

 

A handout outlining the biannual SERFE response rates for each 6 month period between 01/01 – 12/02 was distributed to the Committee.