No abstract

The purpose of this study was to sample the experiences and recommendations of clinicians in allied health fields about gross anatomy courses. The objective was to determine if practicing clinicians recommended a course in gross anatomy, and, if so, their recommendations for course content and teaching methodology. Questionnaires were mailed to a random selection of occupational therapists (OTs), physician assistants (PAs), and physical therapists (PTs) licensed in the state of Texas. In addition to demographics, the survey asked 14 questions regarding the experiences and recommendations in seven areas of interest about gross anatomy courses. The responding sample appeared to be representative of the target population. A course in human gross anatomy during professional school was recommended by 96% of OTs, and 100% of PAs and PTs. The single most recommended teaching method was student dissection of human cadavers. Although significant differences were found regarding primary course orientation, a majority favored some form of combined systems and regional oriented courses. A majority of clinicians in each field recommended a gross anatomy course at the beginning of professional training. Specific recommendations were given for content of systems and regional oriented gross anatomy courses. We recommend that the gross anatomy course content and teaching methodologies in allied health areas be responsive to the specific needs of each clinical specialty.

A perennial question for academic health programs has been: What is the relationship between the faculty evaluation practices of academic health programs and those of general liberal arts programs? The purpose of this study was to compare the faculty evaluation practices of a sample of occupational therapy chairpersons with those of a recent national sample of deans of public and private liberal arts colleges Major areas of inquiry focused on institutional policies and practices in evaluating faculty performance in teaching research/scholarship, and institutional/community service The relative importance of various factors as well as their extent of current usage were assessed At a general level of analysis (relative rankings), the faculty evaluation practices of OT chairpersons are significantly related to those reported by public and private liberal arts college deans for the four dimensions of performance The OT chairpersons tend to focus on five major factors to evaluate overall performance, always use one source of information to evaluate teaching performance, always use four types of information to evaluate scholarship/research performance, and consider four major factors in evaluating college service. This pattern involves more factors to evaluate overall performance and college service, with fewer sources of information used to evaluate teaching performance and scholarship/research performance as compared to public and private liberal arts colleges Significant differences were observed between the faculty evaluation considerations of OT chairpersons and public college liberal arts deans in the areas of overall performance (three factors), teaching performance (five factors), and scholarship/research performance(10 factors). While the faculty evaluation practices of OT chairpersons are fairly consistent with the other two groups, questions are raised as to the relative stability and defensibility of the evaluation practices of OT chairpersons for certain dimensions of faculty performance.

Physician's assistant educational programs have used surveys of their graduates as one method of evaluating educational objectives and curricula. A concern is the validity of physician's assistant self-ratings as measures of job performance. Ratings by supervising physicians have been suggested as more valid measures. In the present study ratings of physician's assistants and their supervising physicians were compared. Physician's assistants and their supervising physicians were interviewed using an interview instrument developed to cover the performance of the physician's assistant in the major activities of primary care practice. While the physicians and physician's assistants disagreed on several measures, in all cases the ratings of the physician's assistants were more conservative. Thus, the physician's assistants did not show any tendency to inflate ratings of their own performance.

A national survey of specialists in blood bank technology educational programs was performed to describe current admissions procedures. Programs generally were AABB approved for and accepted either two or four students annually from 10 to 14 complete applications which result from 25 to 50 inquiries. The program selection criteria usually included an evaluation of overall GPA, science GPA, prior blood bank experience, three professional references, and a non-standardized interview with the medical director, educational coordinator, and other faculty or staff. Admissions procedures were characterized by an admissions committee of four members differentially weighting the various selection criteria that often were not quantified through the use of a point value system. Programs reported that their admissions procedures were not quantified through the use of a point value system. Programs reported to their admissions procedures were objective enough and resulted in students of adequate quality, even though their procedures could be improved, possibly with more specific AABB guidelines.