Page 73 - Radiography Flipbook

program. In semester I, students get the opportunity to work in small groups. This group project is a clinical simulation in
which each team member communicates to the group their thought process on positioning the patient. The rubric is used
by instructors with one part specifically pertaining to their communication skills. The students this year showed great
communication skills, all receiving an 8 out of 10 or higher.

Action Plan based on Analysis: We will reiterate in our clinical meetings the importance of great patient
communication and reintroduce the AIDET principle. We will also explain to them that our expectation for their ability
to give great patient communication will also need to improve as they progress in the program. With the 4 students that
did not receive an “above average” or “excellent” rating we will have a one-on-one meeting with them to help to help
them identify how to improve their patient communication skills. We will continue to use the simulation lab to evaluate
the students’ communication skills as it is a new lab that has only been in use for 2 years.

Results/Improvement(s) noted based on the action plans that were implemented: In 2017, we implemented the
AIDET principle into our curriculum at the suggestion of a couple of our clinic sites. Since then we have seen a big
increase in our student’s confidence when interacting with patients. The simulation lab has really added insight and
increased the students’ ability to communicate with each other and patients.

Re-evaluation Date: 2021 – Do we want to keep using the Clinical Preceptor Clinical evaluation tool to assess our
student’s communication skills?

Student Learning Outcome 1.2
Analysis: The pathology and patient history paper continues to be one of the biggest challenges for the students
throughout the entire program. The overall average for the class was an 84.1, but 5 out of 18 students did not score an 85
or higher; although, only 1 student did not receive an overall passing score (77 or higher). We continue to see an upward
trend in scores over the last 5 years. Later in the semester the students complete the case study and scores are generally
better. This year the mean was 88.4, with only 2 students not receiving a score of 85 or higher. All students achieved a
passing score.

Results/Improvement(s) noted based on the action plans that were implemented: Two years ago, we revised the
rubric for the research paper, provided an example paper, and provided more instructions on how to conduct research for
their paper. This seemed to help students in their expectations of the assignment and their ability to gather quality
research articles. The case management project has undergone little change in the last 5 years.

Re-evaluation Date: We have decided that the pathology and patient history paper will continue to be assessed because
we believe it is an attainable goal.If we continue to foster the student’s ability to write patient histories based on a
pathology, they will be more prepared if they decide to work towards a degree later on. We also believe it is the reason
the students do so much better on the case study.. Although we will continue to have the assignment, we are going to
look for a different tool that might provide more insight into the ability of the students to use written communication
effectively in the healthcare environment.