Program: Nursing (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Dec 26, 2012 - 5:45:04 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene
Department of Nursing
HSNC Competencies, BS, MS & PHD Program Outcomes
The competencies arise from the understanding of nursing as a theory-guided, evidenced -based discipline. Graduates from the curriculum are expected to possess distinctive values, attitudes, habits and skills in both professional behaviors and nursing care competencies that are described in this document. The professional competencies--define the values, attitudes and practices that competent nurses embody and may share with members of other professions; the nursing care competencies--define relationship capabilities that nurses need to work with clients and colleagues, the knowledge and skills of practicing nursing and competencies that encompass understanding of the broader health care system. In all cases, the client is defined as the recipient of care, is considered active participant in care, and includes the individual, family or community. Nursing care competencies recognize that a competent nurse provides safe care across the lifespan directed toward the goals of helping clients (individuals, families or communities) promote health, recover from acute illness and/or manage a chronic illness and support a peaceful and comfortable death. The following document describes the key competencies within the context of professional expectations for baccalaureate, masters and PhD prepared nurses. At the conclusion of the program each graduate from the UHM SONDH is prepared to begin practice in their respective role guided by these professional competencies and expectations.
COMPETENCIES
Professional actions are based on core nursing values, professional standards of practice, and the law. |
Develops insight through reflective practice, self-analysis, and self care |
Engages in ongoing self-directed learning and provides care based on evidence supported by research |
Demonstrates leadership in nursing and health care |
Collaborates as part of a health care team |
Practices within, utilizes, and contributes to the broader health care system |
Practices client-centered care |
Communicates effectively and uses technology |
Demonstrates clinical judgment/critical thinking in the delivery of care of clients while maintaining safety |
BACCALAUREATE NURSING |
MASTERS IN NURSING |
PHD IN NURSING |
1. A competent nurse’s professional actions are based on core nursing values, professional standards of practice, and the law. |
||
1.1 Core nursing values include social justice (from the ANA statement), caring, advocacy, respect for self and others, collegiality, and ethical behavior. |
1.1. The Master’s prepared nurse demonstrates accountability for specialist legal scope of practice, professional standards and code of ethics. |
1.1. It is expected that the nurse prepared at the PhD level will lead efforts in professional organizations to develop policy and standards for nursing practice. |
2. A competent nurse develops insight through reflective practice, self-analysis, and self care through the understanding that… |
||
2.1. Ongoing reflection, critical examination and evaluation of one’s professional and personal life improves nursing practice. |
2.1. The Master’s prepared nurse continually engages in self reflection in order to design strategies that promote lifelong learning of self to guide advanced practice. |
2.1. The PhD nurse critically examines data-based sources and individual experiences to analyze and develop leadership strategies for dealing with social, ethical, cultural, economic and political issues related to nursing, health care, and research. |
3. A competent nurse engages in ongoing self-directed learning and provides care based on evidence supported by research with the understanding that . . . |
||
3.1. Knowledge and skills are dynamic and evolving, in order to maintain competency one must continuously update their knowledge using reliable, current sources of information from the biological, social, medical, public health, and nursing sciences. |
3.1. The Master’s prepared nurse critically examines and utilizes evidence-based sources to support advanced practice. |
3.1. The PhD nurse develops and uses existing and evolving knowledge to improve nursing education and practice. |
4. A competent nurse demonstrates leadership in nursing and health care through the understanding that … |
||
4.1. An effective nurse is able to take a leadership role to meet client needs, improve the health care system, and facilitate community problem solving. |
4.1. The Master’s prepared nurse is expected to demonstrate leadership skills and decision making in the provision of nursing care, team coordination, and accountability for care delivery at the micro-systems level. |
4.1. The PhD nurse assumes a leadership role in the development of research and clinical practice models to improve outcomes to meet health care needs of culturally diverse populations. |
5. A competent nurse collaborates as part of a health care team. |
||
5.1. The client is an essential member of the healthcare team. |
5.1. Collaborative strategies are required in the design, coordination, and evaluation of patient-centered care. |
5.1. The PhD nurse participates in collaborative team(s) to generate empirical knowledge that improves practice, health care outcomes, and policy change. |
6. A competent nurse practices within, utilizes, and contributes to the broader health care system. |
||
6.1. All components of the healthcare system must be incorporated when providing interdisciplinary care. |
6.1. The Master’s prepared nurse is charged with bringing the nursing perspective to policy development by advocating for policies that improve the health of the public and the profession of nursing. |
6.1. The PhD nurse assumes a leadership role in the political process to improve the quality and safety of health care and advance nursing education. |
7. A competent nurse practices client-centered care. |
||
7.1. Effective care is centered around a respectful relationship with the client that is based on empathy, caring, mutual trust, and advocacy. |
7.1. Advanced nursing includes advocating for patients, families, caregivers, and members of the healthcare team. |
7.1 The PhD nurse generates nursing knowledge about health care systems and care models. |
8. A competent nurse communicates and uses technology effectively through the understanding that … |
||
8.1. Effective use of communication is an essential part of all interventions to establish caring and therapeutic relationships to educate and advocate for clients. |
8.1. The Master’s prepared nurse demonstrates effective communication across and within all professional spheres including the interdisciplinary team, peers, clients and the community. |
8.1. The PhD nurse participates in collaborative team(s) to generate empirical knowledge that improves practice, health care outcomes, and policy change. |
9. A competent nurse demonstrates clinical judgment/critical thinking in the delivery of care of clients while maintaining safety through… |
||
9.1. Analysis and integration of available data. |
9.1. The Master’s prepared nurse must critically analyze the best evidence to determine practice implications. |
9.1. The PhD nurse systematically investigates a clinically focused area of nursing to advance health care in culturally diverse populations. |
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.nursing.hawaii.edu/sites/web41.its.hawaii.edu.www.nursing.hawaii.edu/files/documents/DON%20Student%20Handbook%202010-2011.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: All course objectives are on course syllabi and are directly linked to the overall SLO's listed on Q#1
Other: Accreditation documents
Other:
3) Select one option:
- File (03/16/2020)
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%
5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)
No (skip to question 14)
6) For the period June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
The program is effective in fulfilling its mission and goals as demonstrated by aggregate student and faculty outcomes. The accomplishments of graduates of the program with the strong alumni and employer satisfaction attest to the effectiveness of the program. Data on program effectiveness is collected regularly and used to foster ongoing program improvement.
In the School’s Strategic Plan 2010-2012, the DON identified a strategic imperative for Educational Effectiveness to support progression and successful graduation of all students, including those from underrepresented groups (i.e., Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders). The DON Logic Model provides a pictorial view of the resources, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact for the educational programs. The ADAA and the Department/Graduate Chairs are responsible to ensure confidential and consistent data collection; timely analysis and dissemination to stakeholders; and to assure program response to outcome analyses. Curriculum and Evaluation Committees are charged to act on outcomes that fail to meet benchmarks. The School’s quality management effort is designed to assure that CCNE and UHM standards are met or exceeded.
The DON Evaluation Matrix outlines the type of evaluation, purpose, point person, frequency of administration, and the review process for quantitative data collection, as well as providing established benchmarks aligned with CCNE standards (Question 6). Processes are in place for the regular collection of aggregate student outcome data. All information is confidential and individual student identifiers are not traceable. As we expand use of electronic tools for data collection, we are continually reviewing data sources and improving processes to increase response rates. The DON administration, ADAA, and Dean, meet regularly with students for informal “talk story” sessions. The Student Nurses Organization provides valuable input to administration. The DON Bylaws include student representatives on student affairs and the curriculum and evaluation committees.
7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.
Table 1: DON Evaluation Matrix: BS, MEPN, MS & PhD Programs including Data Sources, Purpose, Point Person, Data Collection, Review Process, and Benchmarks
Form |
Purpose |
Point Person |
Frequency of Administration |
Frequency of Review |
Results Reviewed by |
Comments/Notes |
Course Evaluations |
Summative Evaluation of students perceptions about meeting course objectives and course delivery |
Evaluation Specialist |
Every semester |
Every semester |
Academic Team*, Department Chair, Faculty Member, Undergraduate & Graduate Curriculum & Evaluation Committees (CEC) |
|
Process: Online distribution directly to students enrolled in each course about 1 week prior to the end of the semester (with 3 follow up email reminders) for all courses except those that require a HESI/Kaplan. For HESI/Kaplan courses, evaluations are done online prior to HESI/Kaplan testing. Evaluation specialist creates reports and distributes to Dean/ADAA (first review) and Department Chairs, Faculty Member and CEC. CEC provides recommendations based on these evaluations to Department Chairs. Department Chairs follow up on recommendations. |
||||||
Clinical Site Evaluations: Students |
Summative Evaluation of students experiences at clinical agencies |
Evaluation Specialist & Course coordinators |
Annual, |
Annual |
Undergraduate: Academic Team*, Course Coordinators (Course specific data only), & Clinical Agencies (Agency specific data only) |
|
Process: Evaluation Specialist (ES) sends the online survey to students with 3 email reminders. Reports are distributed for review/action to above people. Clinical site evaluations are combined with course evaluations when applicable. |
||||||
Clinical Site Evaluations: Clinical Agencies |
Summative Evaluation of clinical agencies experiences with students and faculty |
Evaluation Specialist & Course coordinators |
Annual, |
Annual |
Undergratuate: Academic Team*, Course Coordinators (Course specific data only), & Clinical Agencies (Agency specific data only) |
|
(continued) |
Process: Evaluation Specialist (ES) contacts the course coordinators during the Fall semester and get the names and emails of the head nurses on the clinical units to the lead people working with students at healthcare agencies. The ES sends the online survey to the agency contact person with 3 email reminders. Reports are distributed for review/action to above people. |
|||||
Clinical Site Evaluations: Faculty |
Summative Evaluation of faculty members experiences with clinical agencies |
Evaluation Specialist & Course coordinators |
Annual, |
Annual |
Undergratuate: Academic Team*, Course Coordinators (Course specific data only) & Clinical Agencies (Agency specific data only) |
|
Process: Evaluation Specialist (ES) contacts the course coordinators during the Fall semester and get the names and emails of the faculty teaching each section of clinical rotations. The ES sends the online survey to the faculty member with 3 email reminders. Reports are distributed for review/action to above people. |
||||||
Student Experience Survey |
Formative Evaluation re: Experiences as a School of Nursing student |
Evaluation Specialist |
Annual, |
Annual |
Academic Team*, Director Student Services, Director of Technology, Director of IT, Director of MEPN (MEPN responses only), Directors for each Graduate Programs (graduate responses only), PhD Director (PhD responses only), Students (In a summary format) |
|
Process: Online distribution to all levels of students by Evaluation Specialist in March with a 4 week response rate time (with 3 email reminders). Data summarized by total responses and also by type of student (BS, MEPN, MS, Post-MS, and PhD) and Master of Science Specialties (Nurse Practitioner, Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, Family Nurse Practitioner, Dual NP (FNP or PNP) with Advanced Public Health Nursing, Advanced Public Health Nursing, Adult Health Clinical Nurse Specialist , Nursing Administration). Executive reports compiled for Department of Dental Hygiene and Department of Nursing to include qualitative analysis of open-ended responses, recommendations and considerations. Reports distributed in May distributes to Dean/ADAA (first review) and Department Chairs with responses for action related to data due to the ADAA by July. |
||||||
Undergraduate & Graduate Alumni Survey |
Summative Evaluation of perceived preparation for nursing roles by graduates at 1 and 3 years post-graduation. |
Evaluation Specialist |
Every semester for alumni, 1 & 3 years post graduation |
Annually, Fall semester |
Academic Team* |
|
Process: Evaluation Specialist obtains names and email of graduates from the previous 1 and 3 years from the Office of Student Services. This list is sent to EBI for email distribution of the alumni surveys with automated reminders; the survey remains open for 4 weeks. Once complete, the Evaluation Specialist obtains the report online from EBI and distributes for review and action (if any). |
||||||
Undergraduate & Graduate Employers Survey |
Summative Evaluation of perceived preparation for nursing roles by employers of University of Hawaii School of Nursing & Dental Hygiene alumni at 1 and 3 years post-graduation. |
Evaluation Specialist |
Every semester, 1 & 3 years post graduation |
Annually, Fall semester |
Academic Team* |
|
Process: This survey is linked to the alumni survey. Once a person completes the alumni survey, they are asked to provide the name and email of their employer. EBI automatically sends out the employer’s survey to the employer. Once complete, the Evaluation Specialist obtains the report online from EBI and distributes for review and action (if any). |
* Academic Team = Dean, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Associate Dean for Research, Director of OREP, Department Chair for Nursing and Graduate Chair, Director PhD Program, and President DON Faculty Senate.
OTHER DATA COLLECTED & Reviewed By Department Chair, Graduate Chair, Associate Dean for Academics:
- NCLEX First Time & Repeat Pass Rates (Reported Annually, Updated monthly)
- National MS Certification Rates (Updated Annually)
- Graduation Rates (Updated Annually)
- Employment Rates (Updated Annually)
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
The process for data collection for each assessment is described in Question 5. All MS students were sent electronic surveys via email. Other data was obtained from official reporting mechanisms (i.e. National Certification pass rates).
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean/Director
Other: Evaluation Specialist
10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
Other:
11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
· N605: The mean for the course was 2.8 with 13 of 17 students responding.
o Problem: There were incorrect student learning objectives used for the evaluation of the course. After adjusting for the incorrect objectives the average was still below 3.5 (3.32). This was the first course for this faculty to teach for UH DON.
o Solution: The incorrect SLOs were brought to the attention of the evaluation specialist so that the correct SLOs would be used in the future. A meeting between the faculty and the Graduate Chair was held. During the meeting, the course evaluation was reviewed with suggestions made regarding how to improve her online course work (primarily timely responses to students and clarity about course expectations).
· N612L: The mean for the course was 2.68 with 6 of 7 students responding.
o Problem: The faculty for this course was not engaged in the laboratory activities with the students. This was also observed by the N612 course coordinator who attempted to mentor the faculty over the semester. Solution:
o Solution: A meeting was already scheduled between the faculty and the Department Chair to address issues with other courses that this faculty was teaching including undergraduate courses. During that meeting, this course evaluation was reviewed with suggestions made regarding how to improve her teaching in this laboratory course as well as her online courses. Mentoring of this faculty by senior faculty had been ongoing but was offered again to assist her with her development of teaching skills. This faculty resigned from her teaching position in August 2012 for family reasons.
· N625: The mean for the course was 3.34 with 11 out of 21 students responding.
o Problem: The faculty had taught this course previously and received similar evaluations. The main issue was limited communication with the students for this online course.
o Solution: In the past, this faculty had met with the Department Chair to discuss ways to improve her teaching and the timely response to students. The faculty left UHM at the end of the Spring semester 2012 before the results of this evaluation were available to review with her.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Student Experience Survey
In response to the results of this survey the following strategies were implemented:\\
- Short-Term: A activities in response to the results of this survey included:
- The initiation of faculty workshops to improve and provide consistency among the online courses being offered by the faculty of the School of Nursing (SON).
- An increase in the number of information technology (IT) staff available to assist both faculty and students with online courses as needed
- The provision of support for additional IT staff positions specifically focusing on support for faculty online course design, implementation and evaluation.
- Long-Term: Planned activities to address the results of this survey include:
- Monitor the 2013 Student Experience Survey and Course Evaluations and revise action as needed.
Clinical Site Surveys
- Short-Term: Spring 2012 activities in response to this survey included:
- The SONDH hired an education evaluation specialist who worked with the ADAA, Department Chair and Graduate Chair to develop strategies to improve response rates for all surveys administered by the SONDH.
- The MPCEC review of the clinical site surveys along with other evaluation methods with recommendations being made for streamlining the evaluation instruments, as well as recommendations to improve response rates (e.g., online administration of these surveys to clinical preceptors and agencies). The Graduate Chair conveyed the recommendations of the MPCEC to the ADAA who worked directly with the evaluation specialist to incorporate the suggestions.
- Long-Term: Planned activities include:
- The SONDH continuing to work with the evaluation specialist to implement, evaluate and improve the response rates for SONDH program evaluations including the Clinical Site Surveys.
EBI End of Program Student Feedback
In response to the high priority action items identified by the DON from earlier years Learning Outcomes from Didactic/Clinical section of the survey, the following activities were implemented:
- The student portfolio system, which was initiated as a pilot system (2010), is now a required element of the MS students’ activities. The purpose of the portfolio is to provide a mechanism by which students’ learning activities and professional development are documented (in addition to the grades that students’ receive for courses that they complete). Each student’s portfolio is reviewed by her/his Program Director at least once a year and at the beginning of the capstone course during the final semester of the student’s enrollment in order to ensure that all of the required specialty competencies are completed prior to graduation. Thereby, any deficits identified in the student’s program of study are to be addressed prior to or during the capstone course.
- A clinical skills and procedures course for advanced practice nurses (NURS 615) was developed and was been implemented this academic year (2011-2012). It is a required course for all nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist students. Evaluation and revision of the course will be ongoing in response to student and faculty input.
13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.
No
14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.
None