Agenda/Minutes Centura Professional Development Council
Agenda/Minutes – Centura Professional Development Council
Monday, March 7, 2011720-528-0408 or 866-382-0408 Access Code 5280567#
In person 109 Inverness Drive East, suite B or use call in above
Attendees: Noreen Bernard, Dave Noble, Scott Barber, Kathy Bradley, Lavone Hastings, Carrie McDermott, Sylvia Kurko, Laura McAnally, Penne McPherson, Roxanne Shaw, Lisa Strate
Absent: Carole Banville, Arleigh Carrier, Marie Caselnova, Darcy Copeland, Kim Crawford, Ruth Dahlin, Janice Fisher, Gerry Furlong, Laura Hetterle, Pat Marquez, Kate McCord, Jeannette McDonald, Dawn McWilliams, Peg Miller, Deb Nussdorfer, Kathy Pehanich, Andrea Rivers, Cathy Roberts, Janice Schmidt, Maribeth Trujillo, Theresa Wright
Content / Discussion / Follow Up / Actions / Status / Responsible /2:00-2:05 / Reflection and role call / Noreen w/ reflection. Learn from mistakes. Story about Thomas Edison.
2:05-2:25 / Heart Code ACLS and BLS pilot project – Carrie McDermott / Carrie, provided an analysis of the pilot project on Heart Code. 2009 Healthstream provide an inservice. LAH did a brief pilot; SAN utilized for a pilot, full year data. 2005 guidelines focused on compressions. Heart code, two concepts tactile and cognitive immersion. Micro Simulation technologies w/ immediate follow up. Positive/ negative responses from mannequins. Costs initially where not impressive, $5 difference between traditional instructors v. simulation check offs. Unchanged costs after a year. Currently a cost of $22 in favor of simulators w/ current staff. ACLS costs, computer use in hospital is paid, see hand out for costs. Difference is by hours, if staffs work from home to do online instruction, paying only for check off. Savings est. $3500 – 7K w/ 25 students. Course evaluations (see handout). Improvement from 1st phase to 2nd phase based upon costs and evaluations. Product is liked based upon convience, although harder than instructor check off. ACLS/ BLS software, competency grid used, understanding what the computer is asking regarding scoring.
See cost savings on powerpoint (in share drive folder). Summary: Heartcode appears to be same cost per employee as current BLS courses whereas significant cost savings comes with ACLS.
Questions/ Discussion:
BLS is for anyone, ACLS is for licensed staff. You don’t have to have an instructor onsite.
Cost of equipment $2400 w/ costs of site licenses. 1 adult, 1 baby
Up keep of mannequins, basic cleaning required by education staff.
ACLS up to 8 hours to complete online w/ some staff.
Tracking of student’s time and student issue.
Noreen, what are the next steps regarding the information presented. Re-evaluation of pilot. Individual facility decision regarding implementation. Concern w/ purchasing of licenses. IT directed project initially through a Visionscope process, most likely because of the software requirements. Next steps--work with IT, write project summary to IT and Nursing Council. Approval to move forward w/ potential to move this for other facilities.
In 2009, 37 licenses signed out, 8 rescinded by students these are lost once opened. Money is saved on textbooks. Textbook is linked to most current.
Documents in meeting minutes S drive. / Noreen/Carrie to write pilot project summary for IT and Nursing Council.
Noreen to explore Heartcode license and equipment options on 3/18 when meeting with Healthstream. Goal = to have a set of mannequins and available software for facilities interested in providing Heartcode as a convenient and economical option to obtaining BLS/ACLS certification.
2:25-2:45 / ENO and AORN course needs assessment and evaluation
§ Review materials from Elsevier
§ Assess needs—Centura has about 21 open OR positions and OR traveler utilization was 22,779 hours in 2010 CY
§ What are license needs at each facility for each course?
§ Relationship to budgeting process for FY2012
§ Determine next steps / There have been a variety of Centura individuals, including MRMC, requesting corporate pricing and availability to be considered for the Emergency Nurse Orientation (ENO)and Periop101 courses.
Noreen reviewed new pricing strategies from Elsevier for these courses.
Pricing strategies have changed for the ENO course, additional pricing tier is available as an option. $15K/ year and licensing fees, result in unlimited number of course licenses. Cost savings/ learner if your facility utilizes a significant number of course licenses. New pricing tier is based on 3 years worth of ER volume in facility specific ERs. Elsevier sent the break even numbers broken down by facility, Noreen had forwarded that information to CPDC members recently. The $15,000 annual fee would be split amongst the facilities, either evenly or based on utilization of the course.
Noreen reviewed the OR nursing FTE needs in Centura and the focus on professional development, recruitment, and retention of this employee group. There is also a leadership development program in the design phase for OR nursing leaders. Current average age of an OR nurse is 54. Kathy Bradley mentioned that there may also be a need to look at an ORT development program as there is high agency utilization of this associate type.
CPDC members currently utilizing these courses reported favorably as long as someone in the facility monitors the follow through on course completion with each student (ie, an educator)—there is a need for structure. Group also discussed the importance of blended learning with these courses, reinforcing what is learned online with hands on practice.
Audience for these courses includes new ER/OR nurses, new grads, and RNs looking to change/expand specialties.
Needs assessment:
SMC: currently using ENO very successfully (5 licenses per year) with increased course requests; plan to use Periop101 with new grads.
SAN: have used the ENO course and support the availability of it; may need 2-3 licenses/month for ENO; use 1-2 Periop101 licenses/year currently
PAH: only hires 2 ED nurses/annually, likely wouldn’t need that course; large need for Periop101 course for several OR openings
PSF: favorable past experience with these courses
Group agreed we should look at turnover rates for EDs/ORs across the system to determine potential needs as well as perform a more in-depth assessment of needs.
Question use of Mosby for all programs, AACN, etc. for all programs. Should we look at that for a common license fee for all programs through Mosby?
Action plan:
1. Form a taskforce—primary focus on development of OR nurses but will look at ENO needs as well
2. complete needs assessment
3. determine appropriate audiences for these courses
4. design a plan to meet the needs
5. recommend utilization of these courses where appropriate / Taskforce: Dave Noble, Noreen Bernard, Kathy Bradley, Joan Thies, Jan Stull, Lavone Hastings
Noreen to set up a meeting
ALL: check ENO/Periop 101 license numbers based upon facility needs to report at next CPDC meeting.
2:50-3:20 / LEARN modules—discussion
§ Length of modules, number of test questions
§ Level of CPDC authority
§ CPDC role in approving
§ CPDC role in facility EITs
§ Advance Directives module
§ Recommendations for structure and processes / Background given on recent LEARN module concerns, initially Advanced Directives. Small sub group met and changed the length of modules and the process of testing for this learning program. Other factors evolved, extending the time line to for the AD LEARN to June 30th or per your facility request. Result of these discussions is that the CPDC be a decision making, authoritative council regarding the management of LEARN modules for Centura Health.
Discussion included:
Control of quality of these modules, the numbers of modules popping up. Limitation of modules to minimal amount of time <15 minutes. Repetitive modules, poor quality modules are produced yet educators are held responsible regardless of module owner. Forced to correct materials that are being forced out to all facilities.
CEGs, EITs, non-nursing departments, and other committees forcing LEARN modules for their specific initiatives. No screening process in place for appropriate utilization of the learning management system. Need to develop a structure and process for this for all of Centura.
Discussed the difference between using LEARN for attestations versus learning, need to provide Centura guidance on the difference and methodologies appropriate for both.
Agency, travelers who must meet needs and dissemination of key clinical update information was discussed. LEARN also used for policy updates, talking points/ letters.
How to we integrate w/ EIT, lead by informatics? Educators are encouraged to be on these teams but not all teams consistently have education on them or not all facilities have an EIT. EITS creating tool kits and LEARN modules, CEGs also pushing things out. No clear process exists for how CPDC fits with the work of the CEGS and EITs.
Facilities must have a voice to get information out to staff. One size solution does not fit all entity needs.
Education of corporate leaders on the amount of materials being pushed out, and the impact to facilities. Need to assist in the development of a forecasting model that assists leaders in planning for upcoming learning and related requirements. Need to decrease the emergency/fire drill approach to learning and use of LEARN. Education generally is not an emergency.
People creating learning must be held accountable for materials being pushed out. CPDC does not want to become the content experts and owners for all topics rather; CPDC’s role is to consult/advise on educational methodologies best suited to meet the needs of our associates. CPDC should also have oversight and final approval of what LEARN modules are requested to be created. Need to build a process for this.
Discussed CPDC’s role is to focus on Centura wide LEARN strategies while allowing each entity to make local decisions on how the learning management system is utilized. Need to vet this out further.
The group also discussed the need to control the number of hours/year Centura associates are required to complete mandatory learning. We used to have a 4 hour/year limit and it seems much more than that presently. This needs evaluation as well as a clear role for CPDC related to this.
CPDC also discussed the need for a process flow, tool, structure to send out to groups, meeting specific guidelines for LEARN modules. A check off list for materials.
Timeline:
Noreen to meet with Kate McCord to review draft plan on 4/7.
Final presentation to Joint Council by Kate on 4/21 (documents ready by 4/13/11) / Taskforce—volunteers Roxanne Shaw, Lavone Hastings, Kathy Bradley, Scott Barber, Dave Noble, Lisa Strate, Carrie McDermott, Penne McPherson. Noreen will set up a retreat to design the structure and processes, roles and responsibilities.
Home work: think about key stakeholders at high level who need to be included in the vetting process:
IT (they create LEARN modules)
Pharmacy ?
Radiology ?
HR
Corporate Compliance
Nursing Council
CEGs/EITs
Etc.
3:20-3:40 / Update on standing agenda items
§ LEAP
§ ASCENT
§ ENMO
§ Mosby—relationship to new hire competency standardization / LEAP cohort #2 in south state--63, for session one and 53 for session two. The every other week schedule seems to be working well, will evaluate this at the end of the cohort prior to scheduling future cohorts.
Ascent is going well, next ASCENT in July.
New grads inquiring.
ENMO: 33 students are actively involved in the process of completing this course. Allocation of licenses is on a first come/ first served basis. Left up to facilities to determine WHO should be taking this course, considering who they want in their leadership pipeline. Additional slots still available.
3:35-3:45 / ER and ICU certification requirements / Awareness of what facilities doing currently.
Problem of different standards. May need to address in the future. Requirements reflect patient population and service lines. /
3:45-4:00 / Round Robin / University of Phoenix interest as a corporate partner. Strong presence at SAN. On site programs. What is the impact of having vendor programs coming into facilities? Discussed vendor process versus provision of discounted education as a benefit to associates.
Assessing programs, process for pursing programs.
Has to be a benefit to employee or facility to avoid conflict w/ union.
Nurse externship/ internship program interest. SAC will have an unpaid summer practicum program. Lisa will send out.
Gait belts/ lifting safe patient handling, being directed out of Occupational Health, confusion surrounds this program, information is fragmented, CHI pushing this out. Mary Ann Gotch is CHI contact person. More to follow, educational programs not fully developed by occ health.
EPB boot camp several openings still available. Porter is looking at frontline leadership for non-nursing staff. (Leadership Safari). Starting in fall.
Parker opened new learning wing. / Noreen to set up a taskforce to create a process with criteria for CPDC to approve (related to solidifying relationships with educational partners).
Next meeting / IN PERSON April 4th 2pm-4pm / Penrose Main, Board Room
Call in if not able to attend: 1-866-382-0408, code 5280567
Respectfully submitted, David Noble
1