Program Goal #1        Program Goal #3
Program Goal #2        Program Goal #4
Program Goal #5

Program Goal #1
Faculty will demonstrate current knowledge, skills, qualifications and professional development in the content areas they teach.

Standard/Outcome

1. Director/faculty must have current HIM credentials when teaching HIM specific courses and should possess a Baccalaureate degree or higher.

Evaluation Method

1. The HIM Program Director will maintain faculty files with a current resume and copy of AHIMA membership card.

Results:

• All HIM credentialed faculty have current active membership with AHIMA.  All fulltime faculty are Masters Degree prepared or higher and all other faculty who teach in the HIM program have a Baccalaureate degree or higher.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

2. Director/faculty must demonstrate a variety of teaching strategies.

Evaluation Method

1. Faculty will be evaluated by students on course evaluations in the average to excellent range for techniques that enhance learning.

Results:

• Average of all mean scores from student course evaluations is 4.1 (on a 5 point scale or above average), indicating that students agree that teaching techniques in the course enhanced their learning.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

3. 100% of HIM courses will incorporate technology for instructional delivery.

Evaluation Method

1. Assignments are reviewed annually by HIT faculty to assure that technology is appropriately being applied to course activities.

Follow-up from 05-06 report:
Assignments using the web-enabled software have been added to the following courses: HIM 2000, 2200, 2300, 2320 and 2330.
Results:

• The program faculty has continued to develop assignments that utilize the Soft-Med and 3M Coding and Abstracting function.  This year we added assignments in HIM 2500 Healthcare Database Management and Security on file maintenance, chart abstracting, terminology mapping and report querying.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• Continue to add assignments as appropriate to courses using web-enabled access to software.  Faculty has developed voice over video capture demonstrations on the use of this software to further enhance student learning.

Follow-up:

• Program Director will verify that additional assignments and use of the web-enabled software programs is working for both students and faculty.

4. Director/faculty teaching HIM specific courses will attend relevant professional development activities to keep knowledge and skill current.

Evaluation Method

1. Documentation of appropriate professional development to include attendance at least one State or National HIM professional association meeting (CE certificate, travel documents, etc.)

Results:

• Program Director and all faculty have attended appropriate professional development meetings to include:  2006 National Convention, Denver, CO: 2006 AHIMA Assembly on Education Summer Symposium, Chicago, IL; Utah Health Information Management Association’s Fall and Spring Meetings, Salt Lake City, UT.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

5. Provide faculty with up-to-date instructional resources and computer software in areas that have frequent changes and updates.

Evaluation Method

1. Faculty computers are updated every four years as recommended by WSU policy.

Results:

• One new faculty member (Michelle Snow) was supplied with a new laptop computer.
• Three departmental faculty members (Heather Merkley, Lloyd Burton, Richard Dahlkemper) computers were replaced in the academic year 05-06.
• One department faculty member's (Pat Shaw) computer was replaced in the 04-05 academic year.
• HIT Clinical Coordinators (Darcy Carter) computer was replaced March 2006.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• Pat Shaw’s computer will need to be replaced this next year.

Follow-up:

• Program Director will verify that a new computer is ordered for this faculty.

2. Annually assess additional computer software requirements.

Results:

• Continue to maintain web-enabled software using the Citrix server so all students will have access to Softmed Applications and 3M Coding and Abstracting. This has been incorporated into assignments for classroom and online students in HIM 2500 in addition to previous courses: HIM 2000, 2200, 2300, 2320 and 2330.  We purchased Microsoft Access software and make available on the web-enabled server for students to develop data dictionary assignments in HIM 2500.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• Conduct a survey of students to evaluate that the web-enabled assignments and use of the web-enabled software programs are working for students.

Follow-up:

• Program Director will conduct survey of all students using web-enabled software programs.

6. 90% of HIM Course Evaluation forms will indicate HIM faculty performance is good to excellent.

Evaluation Method

1. Course evaluations are reviewed annually by the Program Director.

Results:

• Average of all mean scores from student course evaluation in 4.1 (on a scale of 5 or above average), indicating that students believe that department faculty are performing above average.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

Program Goal #2
Program graduates will demonstrate the HIM entry-level competencies.

Standard/Outcome

1. 80% of all HIT graduates taking the RHIT certification examination will pass on the first writing.

Evaluation Method

1. Annual review of the RHIT certification examination will pass on the first writing.

Follow-up from 05-06 report:

We were below the national average in the following domain areas: 3A Healthcare Delivery Systems, 3B Legal Issues and 5 Organization & Supervision.  Content was added to both HIM 2000 and HIM 3300 to address the 3A Healthcare Delivery Systems concerns.  In HIM 2200, faculty added more lecture emphasis, class time, assignments and activities on HIPAA privacy practices to improve the 3B Legal Issues concerns.  And in HIM 3300, faculty added emphasis and testing of team concepts and QI tools and techniques to improve this domain area.  Our 06-07 score reports indicate an upward trend in the 3A and 5 domain areas and domain 3B is no longer below the national average.

Results:

• 4 of 5 first-time students passed the RHIT certification examination, or 80%.
• Students scored higher than the national average in all but 3 of the 14 areas; these areas are 1D Reimbursement Methodologies, 4A Information and Communication Technologies, and 4C Data Security.  In domain areas 1D and 4A our students scores were only 1% below the national average on this new test form.  We feel that too few students from our program have taken this new test form for us to make significant curriculum changes in these domain areas.  The program director will monitor these domain areas closely to see if this trend continues.  In domain area 4C Data Security, our students scored 6% below the national average.  This appears to be a curriculum issue that we have addressed in our program.  We have added a security audit assignment, assessment, and case study to HIM 3000 and analysis of security audit trail data and assessments in HIM 2500.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• Continue to monitor RHIT exam results to see if curriculum changes have had any impact.

Follow-Up:

• Program Director will continue to monitor these results and make adjustments to curriculum if needed.

2. 80% or more of the HIT areas of practice in exit survey will show that the program was average to high quality.

Evaluation Method

1. Detailed exit surveys are conducted annually and the results are analyzed and shared with the Program Advisory Committee.

Results:

• Students ranked there overall satisfaction with the curriculum 3.4 (on a 4 point scale) and overall satisfaction with the program 3.5 (on a 4 point scale) on exit surveys, or above average.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time. Scores are above average.

3. 80% or more of the subject areas of the graduate surveys will show adequate instruction.

Evaluation Method

1. Detailed graduate surveys are conducted annually and the results are analyzed and shared with the Program Advisory Committee.

Results:

• Students ranked there overall satisfaction with the curriculum 3.5 (on a 4 point scale) and overall satisfaction with the program 3.7 (on a 4 point scale) on graduate surveys, or above average.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

4. 95% of all HIM courses will reflect critical thinking/problem solving projects, activities or other types of assessment.

Evaluation Method

1. Assignments, exams and other types of assessment are reviewed annually by HIM faculty to assure that practice and evaluation of critical thinking skills are available to students.

Follow-up from 05-06 report:

All curriculum changes and appropriate content changes were made during the 05-06 academic year.

Results:

• HIM faculty continue to evaluate curriculum content for critical thinking and analysis activities.  Case studies and assignments requiring student analysis have been added to HIM 2000, 2200, 2330, 2500, 3000 and 3300.  We have also added voice over video capture demonstrations to further enhance student learning of discipline-specific software in HIM 2500 followed by student assignments.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• Evaluate curriculum on an annual basis to determine where critical thinking/problem solving activities may be added with input from the program advisory committee.

Follow-up:

• Program Director to schedule curriculum evaluation meeting each                           fall semester.

2. Faculty will be evaluated by students on course evaluations in the average to excellent range for problem-solving and thinking analytically.

Results:

• Students ranking of problem-solving and analytical thinking on surveys averaged 4.1 (on a 5 point scale), or above average.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

5. Employers will express adequate to excellent competence or unimportant regarding HIT skills expected of entry-level health information technicians.

Evaluation Method

1. Employee surveys are completed by HIM Program Director annually and the results are shared with the Program Advisory Committee.

Results:

• Employers ranking of our students competence averaged 3.0 (on a 4-point scale) and overall satisfaction with entry-level performance 3.2 (on a 4 point scale), or above average.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

Program Goal #3
The HIM curriculum will include, at minimum, the required knowledge clusters with content and experiences to enable students to meet current entry-level competencies.

Standard/Outcome

1. 80% of all HIT graduates taking the RHIT certification examination will pass on the first writing.

Evaluation Method

1. AHIMA Domains, subdomains and tasks and knowledge cluster content assessments are reviewed annually by the HIT faculty and Program Advisory Committee.

Follow-up from 05-06 report:

We were below the national average in the following domain areas: 3A Healthcare Delivery Systems, 3B Legal Issues and 5 Organization & Supervision.  Content was added to both HIM 2000 and HIM 3300 to address the 3A Healthcare Delivery Systems concerns.  In HIM 2200, faculty added more lecture emphasis, class time, assignments and activities on HIPAA privacy practices to improve the 3B Legal Issues concerns.  And in HIM 3300, faculty added emphasis and testing of team concepts and QI tools and techniques to improve this domain area.  Our 06-07 score reports indicate an upward trend in the 3A and 5 domain areas and domain 3B is no longer below the national average. PPE activities have been updated as recommended by the Program Advisory Committee to reflect use of the Electronic Health Record.

Results:

• Students scored higher than the national average in all but 3 of the 14 areas; these areas are 1D Reimbursement Methodologies, 4A Information and communication Technologies, and 4C Data Security.  In domain areas 1D and 4A our students scores were only 1% below the national average on this new test form.  We feel that too few students from our program have taken this new test form for us to make significant curriculum changes in these domain areas.  The program director will monitor these domain area scores closely to see if this trend continues.  In domain area 4C Data Security, our students scored 6% below the national average.  This appears to be a curriculum issue that we have addressed in our program.  We have added a security audit assignment, assessment, and case study to HIM 3000 and analysis of security audit trail data and assessments in HIM 2500.
• Faculty met in August and assessed our curriculum in relationship to the Knowledge Clusters.  From this assessment, faculty will add more emphasis on documentation standards and health information practices in non-acute care settings; continue to add more application and analysis assignments in privacy and security issues, add an assignment for students to train physicians on the Medical Staff Rules/Regulations for documentation requirements; add content to validate reimbursement, LMRP, NCCI issues; add application assignment for tracking user use of PHI, duplicate number reports in MPI and data quality of data abstracting and administrative functions of HDM software.
• The Program Advisory Committee recommended the addition of the following assignments in the program:  Medication reconciliation process and medical identity issues.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• Continue to monitor RHIT exam results to see if curriculum changes have had any impact.  Verify that curriculum changes have been made.

Follow-Up:

• Program Director will verify curriculum changes have been made and continue to monitor these results and make adjustments to curriculum if needed.

2. 80% or more of the subject areas of the graduate surveys will show good to excellent preparation for their current position.

Evaluation Method

1. Detailed graduate surveys are conducted annually and the results are analyzed and shared with the Program Advisory Committee.

Results:

• Graduates rankings averaged 3.7 (on a 4 point scale) that the program prepared them for their current position.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None need at this time.

3. Employers will express adequate to excellent competence or unimportant regarding HIT skills expected of entry-level health information technicians.

Evaluation Method

1. Employee surveys are completed by HIM Program Director annually and the results are shared with the Program Advisory Committee.

Results:

• Employers ranking of our students competence averaged 3.0 (on a 4-point scale) and overall satisfaction with entry-level performance 3.2 (on a 4 point scale), or above average.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

Program Goal #4
The HIM program will demonstrate responsiveness to the needs of the community of interest.

Standard/Outcome

1. 10 or more, HIM related professionals will participate in HIM required courses.

Evaluation Method

1. Course schedules will reflect dates and identification of guest speakers or onsite visits by students.  Discussions regarding the quality of these presentations are done with students and faculty.

Results:

• HIM 2000 included two scheduled site visits and four different guest speakers (UHIMA, ambulatory, long-term care, mental health, acute care).
• PPE activities in HIM 2861 and 2862.
• HIM 2330 had one guest speaker presenting the billing process in the acute care environment to include the billing denial process; and one speaker discussing MS-DRGs and Present of Admissions rules.  These guest speakers were either video recorded or audio recorded to be included in our online courses.
• HIM 2500 had two guest speakers presenting on secondary databases (Utah Birth Defects Network and Traumatic Brain and Spinal Cord Injuries).  These guest speakers were either video recorded or audio recorded to be included in our online courses.
• HIM 3000 included two guest speakers (Decision Support and Innovations in Health IT) and a Sim-Lab presentation.  These guest speakers were either video recorded or audio recorded to be included in our online courses.
• 4 guest speakers in HAS 3000.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

2. 100% of professional practice experience sites selected will demonstrate good to excellent in instruction and adherence with instructional objectives.

 Evaluation Method

1. Evaluation forms completed by students regarding their Clinical Practice activities are reviewed by the Program Director/faculty and results shared with the Professional Practice Experience preceptor.

Results:

• According to the graduate and exit surveys completed by students the average was 3.8 (on a 4 point scale).  This would rank the PPE as excellent.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

3. 15 or more different community sites will be used for HIM professional practice experience annually.

Evaluation Method

1. Program Director or HIT clinical coordinator will contact via onsite visit, telephone, or email all professional practice sites to evaluate the site, discuss professional practice goals, and to receive verbal evaluations of the students and the program from the supervisors.

Results:

• 7 long-term care sites and 2 ambulatory clinics were used for the alternate care PPE sites.
• 8 acute care hospital sites were used for the acute care PPE sites.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time. We have adequate sites available.

2. Preceptors will be oriented to professional practice experience activities annually.

Results:

• Darcy Carter met with each of these individuals and oriented them to our PPE needs in September, 2007.  In addition, Darcy personally met with each PPE site supervisor to answer their questions and make sure they were aware of PPE requirements.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

4. 50% or more of the Program Advisory Committee members will be present at all meetings.

Evaluation Method

1. Advisory committee minutes will be monitored annually for attendance.

Results:

• HIT/HIM Program Advisory Committee met October 19, 2007. Nine of the eleven member were in attendance or 82%.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

5. The HIT program will attain affiliation agreements with a sufficient number and a variety of health care facilities to meet the needs of the clinical practice.

Evaluation Method

1. Validate that all PPE sites have a current and up-to-date clinical affiliation or mentor agreement on file prior to assigning a student to the site.

Results:

• All sites in which students were assigned to for their Professional Practice Experience had current clinical affiliation or mentor agreements in 2006-2007.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

Follow-up:

• Program Director/Clinical Coordinator to monitor this annually.

Program Goal #5
To recruit and retain qualified students in the HIT program.

Standard/Outcome

1. HIM faculty will participate in recruitment activities on and off campus and undergraduate advisement activities.

Evaluation Method

1. Participate in documented college recruitment activities and others, which includes, Program Advisory Committee referrals, the distribution of recruitment materials mailed, inquiries answered via Internet, response to telephone messages, walk-ins, etc.

Results:

• Program Director and all faculty participated in WSU Major Fest in Nov. 2007.
• HIM Faculty attended the pre-application meeting offered by College Admissions distributing information on the program.
• HIM Faculty attended the post-application meetings offered by College Admissions distributing information on the program to individuals not accepted into their first choice programs.
• A direct mail letter was sent to all acute care hospitals and long-term care facilities in the State of Utah and surrounding region in an effort to increase enrollments.
• Program packets were mailed out to all interested students.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

2. Program selection process will be applied when sufficient numbers of student applications are received (over 20).

Evaluation Method

1. Program selection process is documented in the student file upon acceptance into the HIM program.

Results:

• The HIT program had less than 20 campus students apply in 2007-2008 so the selection criteria was not required.
• The HIT program currently does not restrict the number of distance education students in the program.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

Follow-up:

• Program Director/Clinical Coordinator to monitor this annually.

3. To remain in the HIM Program, students must maintain a GPA of a 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 and must attain a minimum of a “C” (2.0) or better in each professional course in the HIM curriculum.

Evaluation Method

1. Each semester, review the WSU probationary report and grade reports of each student in the HIM program and appropriately advise students who fall below the minimum requirement.

Results:

• Two HIT students were placed on academic probation this year.  The program director counseled each of these students on what they would need to do to improve their standing.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• Monitor these two students progress in the program.

Follow-up:

• Program Director to monitor this annually.

2. Annually review each student’s progress toward graduation.

Results:

• The Program Director and faculty counsel each student during the fall semester each year to assess their progress toward graduation.

Responsive/Corrective Action:

• None needed at this time.

Mission Statement / Student Learning Outcomes / Curriculum Grid / Assessment Plan / Contact Person