WV RHEP Faculty Development Committee Subcommittee on Application of Technology to Faculty Development Minutes October 29, 1997, Lakeview Conference Center, 12:20 - 1:40 p. m. Participants: Helen Baker, Chair; Rex Adamson, *Dan Brody, Jill Cochran, *Chuck Conner, *Dan Doyle, *Rosie Cannarella, *LaRue DeBastiani, *Norm Ferrari, *Darryl Hale, *Hilda Heady, *Bill Shires Also distribute to: Greg Doyle, Jeannette Flanagen, *Bob Foster (R.Ph.), *Arnie Hassen, *Mike McCarthy, *Rusty Russell, Ron Seaton, Ron Stollings, *Amy Reasinger, Tom Steele, *April Vestal, *Don Weston * = distribution of minutes electronically Action: Dr. Baker presented the background for the Subcommittee, and noted that it included representation from the Faculty Development Committee, the Learning Resources Committee, field faculty, and other faculty/staff involved with application of distance technology. The charge to the subcommittee was reviewed: To develop specific goals, strategies, and timelines for use of distance-learning technology in support of RHEP's faculty development efforts: that is, to help rural practitioners be better teachers within the RHEP program. To be considered are electronic mail; development of an RHEP Faculty Development "web page"; faculty development programs using of Mountaineer Doctor TeleVision; and other similar use of distance-learning technology. Participants introduced themselves and described their backgrounds regarding both RHEP and use of distance technology. Participants were invited to review the current version of the RHEP Website (http://ruralnet.marshall.edu/wvrhep), provide in the meeting room by Darryl Hale. Participants discussed potential uses of distance technology and obstacles to its use within the RHEP program. Dr. Baker was authorized to summarize these findings for presentation to the full RHEP Faculty Development Committee, which would be meeting the next day, October 30, 1997. (Note: if any item was inadvertently omitted or if readers have other suggestions for consideration, please send suggestions to Helen Baker, with copies to Dr. Cannarella and Ms. Heady, for future consideration.) There was AGREEMENT that the subcommittee would meet again only if further meeting seemed necessary. Meeting ADJOURNED at 1:40 p.m., with thanks to all participants. enc. WV RHEP Faculty Development Committee Subcommittee on Application of Technology to Faculty Development October 29, 1997, Lakeview Conference Center POSSIBLE GOALS FOR TECHNOLOGY: - Reduction in paper: goal of having RHEP Advisory Board materials available "on line" rather than distributed as reams of paper. - Current committee information: goal of having information such as committee member lists, committee meeting minutes, and policies available "on line", not just to save paper but to better inform all involved with the program. - Current site information: having information, such as that previously updated only yearly in the "site directory", be current and correct, and include information which would be of interest to potential students as well as to administrators and/or other field faculty. It was noted that sites vary in the degree to which the information in the RHEP Website is current. It was not clear to subcommittee Participants who is responsible for updating information. - Current School information: participants reported attempting to access a campus web-page for directory information and receiving the message that they "did not have access" to what appeared to be non-confidential information (such as, a dental faculty member's e-mail address). - Electronic phone books: to have current "e-mail" addresses of all field faculty/campus faculty/administration, to facilitate communication. If there is a current/correct directory, participants did not have information on how to find or access it. - Assistance in access to the "web" from home: Participants reported mixed results in gaining "web" access for their home computers. Some sites pay for "WVNET" access for home computers by field faculty: others neither pay the monthly line charges nor provide assistance in "set up" to gain access, apparently because of a question of whether this was appropriate use of RHEP resources. Participants noted that Mike McCarthy had offered to provide "set up" for home computers brought in when he was visiting the site. Ms. Heady also noted that RHEP currently does not have a staff member with such set-up as a major responsibility. - Access to computers in the clinic, rather than only at the LRC: It was noted that to be appropriate role models, Field Faculty need to be using computers as part of patient care activities. When the LRC is immediately adjacent to the clinic, this is feasible; however, if the faculty member must drive to another site to reach the LRC, the Field Faculty use of computers for both patient care and student education is substantially decreased. The recommendation was made that clinic-based computers be provided, as possible, for field faculty. Field faculty noted that they often do not have time to use computers during standard office hours, and that they sometimes do not have access to either the computers or knowledgeable staff after standard work hours. There was agreement that more information is needed regarding computer access and use by field faculty: the survey that the Faculty Development Committee plans to mail in November may assist with this information need. - Students as teachers regarding information technology: It was noted that some campus programs are requiring students to be proficient in computer skills, and that selected students could assist their Field Faculty in development of these skills. There was agreement that Schools should suggest this to their students. There was also agreement that students who providing such assistance should be credited for "community service" for this activity, with prior approval by the appropriate site coordinator.. - Internet access for LRC computers. Some participants stated that their LRC computers were "too old" to be able to provide Internet access. Darryl Hale pointed out that the old 386 computer he is using is probably as old as any in the LRC system, and that (with proper software) it has Internet access, so the access problem is probably not hardware, but programming, technical assistance, or staff development. Mr. Hale noted that sites differ in the extent to which LRC computers are fully operational. - MARS communication as a teaching tool: Dr. Doyle described one way he has used the "MARS" consultation assistance, having a student present the case using a speakerphone. The value of this mechanism was noted, and the suggestion made that more field faculty should learn of this strategy. The possibility was discussed of using e-mail for similar consultation. Some participants said they would like the option of "leaving a message" for the consultant, rather than knowing that he/she would be interrupted to answer a call. - Need for computers to be "user friendly": Participants gave "horror stories" of multiple attempts to "get on-line" or otherwise use information technology. They asked if technical assistance could be provided to make the programs more "user-friendly": "All I want to have to do is click on the right button, not struggle for over an hour to make it work." There was agreement that field faculty need more information regarding how to get the technical support which is already available, and that there may be need for allocation of more resources for technical support. - Standardization/CD-ROM technology: Participants wondered the degree to which CD- ROM technology were available at the RHEP LRCs. One participant stated that using CD- ROM resources "are a lot more reliable and less frustrating" than attempting to get on Internet. Participants at this meeting knew that there is a "minimum standard" for RHEP LRC computers, but did not know what that standard is or the degree to which LRCs have CD-ROM technology. *The LRC Committee is herewith asked to provide the Faculty Development Committee with this information, to the extent possible. - Use of "WVRTC-L: Dr. Doyle reported on use of this "discussion list," which has about 30 to 40 members. Subsequent discussion led to the recommendation that each site be asked to name at least one faculty member in each discipline at each site to become members of the list, and that more campus-based faculty also be recruited. - Use of Mountaineer Doctor TeleVision for IDS, perhaps quarterly: The suggestion was made that MDTV be used to conduct some statewide "IDS" sessions. Dr. Ferrari suggested that it might be possible to use one of the slots now categorized as a "grand rounds" (as, "pediatric grand rounds") and therefore involve a broader base of campus-based faculty. Ms. Heady indicated that the RHEP budget would be able to support IDS via MDTV, at least on a trial basis. Several participants indicated that they felt that some of the sites "would be ready now" to conduct such sessions. - Use of information technology for statewide cooperative research: The suggestion was made that information technology could be used to identify a set of Field Faculty with similar research interests, who could collaborate on community-based research. If the research were conducted at multiple sites, students could work on the project at more than one site, making their participation more meaningful. The suggestion was made that the WVRTC-L, if more broadly used, might be a mechanism for initiating such contacts. Recommended Action involving only the Faculty Development Committee: 1. Seek a volunteer to conduct the first statewide IDS, perhaps during a time slot on MDTV now held by "grand rounds". (Target date for identification and announcement of faculty member: January 15, 1998. Target date for having conducted IDS: April 30, 1998) Note: Chuck Conner has agreed to coordinate this activity. 2. Conduct a Survey of field faculty regarding their current use of e-mail or other computer resources (draft survey will be considered at the Faculty Development Committee's meeting on 10/31/97). Target date for having mailed survey: January 15, 1998. Target date for report from survey: March 30, 1998. Note: this survey is drafted, and we expect to mail it in November. 3. Include with the Survey a separate page with information about the "WVRTC-L", and an invitation to subscribe. Also, ask Site Coordinators to provide a list of at least one Field Faculty member in each discipline from each site who uses computers to participate in this discussion list. (Implement by April 30, 1998.) If such Field Faculty cannot be identified, consider other strategies as necessary to recruit/train Field Faculty to participate. (By December 15, 1998.) Request for information, to be sent to LRC Committees: - Request for information about LRC computer capabilities, to LRC Committee (see detail in above report, at *). Recommendations for implementing Application of Technology for Faculty Development: a. All RHEP meeting minutes should be posted electronically, within two weeks of the meeting, and that a mechanism be developed by the Executive Director to clarify who is responsible for such postings (as, the Committee Secretary or the central office staff). b. Each consortium's "Webpage" should be updated electronically, at least once each month, by the Site Coordinator or designee. Changes in Field Faculty listings should be simultaneously forwarded to School Representatives in the appropriate Disciplines (either automatically, if possible, or by some other mechanism). The possibility of a "what's changed" section, which would highlight all additions or changes, should also be explored. Site Webpages should include the location of computers which are available to students and Field Faculty for access to Internet and other RHEP resources, and the hours of their availability. c. The "schools" Webpage section should be revised, to immediately designate the RHEP contacts for each School (as now listed in the printed Site Directory), in addition to having links to a) each School's Homepage (if the School has a Homepage) and b) each school's computerized "phone book" or faculty/staff directory, if the school has such a directory. The "RHEP School contact" section if the RHEP Webpage should be updated monthly, by a person to be designated by each school's' Dean. The Schools are encouraged to include in their RHEP "School Information" listing the name of a contact person regarding the school's Homepage and Directory, it any, in case problems are encountered with access. d. A new section should be added to the RHEP Webpage, regarding "Faculty Development." A "Editor" or multi-disciplinary "editorial team" for this section should be recruited from RHEP faculty or staff. This Webpage would provide links to resources for faculty development. (Note: volunteers were solicited at the RHEP meeting on October 31, and at least three names were received by Dr. Cannarella.) e. If a student is well prepared regarding information technology, teaching his/her preceptor or other Field Faculty to use this technology can appropriately be categorized as "community service" activity, with prior agreement of the appropriate Site Coordinator. Similarly, if interested students assist with surveys of Provider knowledge/use of computer resources, this may be categorized as either Community Service or Research, with prior agreement by the appropriate Site Coordinator. Students approved to assist with set up of computers should be advised that their setup must conform with set-ups used for RHEP LRCs. It is recommended that these parameters be placed on the RHEP "Webpage" for easy access. f. By December 31, 1998, an instructional guide should place on or beside every RHEP computer, regarding that computer's capabilities and any exceptional characteristics (as, any non-standard programs or special instructions for Internet access). These instructional guides are the responsibility of the Site Coordinator, in cooperation with technical assistance provided by the campuses. Such Guides should be updated as necessary but at least by August 1 of each year. g. Vacancies within West Virginia for rural practitioners should be listed in or linked to the RHEP Website. Assistance may be possible from the RHEP "Recruitment and Retention" Committee. h. Program participants should be advised that, at the discretion of the local Consortium board, RHEP resources may legitimately be used to upgrade the clinic or home computers of Field Faculty to give them Internet access for these machines. To insure compatibility, all computer set-ups should conform to standards used for RHEP LRC computers. i. Sites which have not already done so are asked to arrange a local Faculty Development Program in Spring, 1998, to assist Field Faculty with computer use. It is also recommended that sites which have not already done so host "bring in your computer" session, for field faculty to obtain access to the Internet from their home computers. ### RHEP-FD, 10-29-97.min 6