Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

University-based clinical laboratory science programs: strategies for survival.
Clin Lab Sci 1995 Mar-Apr; 8(2):90-3CL

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current status of clinical laboratory science (CLS)/medical technology (MT) programs regarding the impact of budgetary cutbacks and to identify successful strategies for program survival.

DESIGN

Mail survey.

SETTING

University-based CLS/MT programs accredited by the Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation (CAHEA).

PARTICIPANTS

All CAHEA-accredited, university-based CLS/MT programs in Ohio and bordering states and all "big-ten" programs as listed in the Allied Health Education Directory 21st edition (n = 19).

INTERVENTION

None.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Program directors' perceptions of: the potential threat of program closure, the impact of budget cutbacks, and successful strategies to enhance program viability.

RESULTS

A total of 13 programs responded, for a response rate of 68%. The majority of the respondents (66%) indicated that they were experiencing budget cutbacks that affected either their operating budgets or their staffing configurations, or both. Although program closure had been discussed in many programs, directors felt that their programs would not be threatened with closure in the next three years. Only one program had intentionally decreased student enrollment. Strategies implemented by program directors fall into one of four categories: curriculum restructure, use of nontraditional instructional staff, revenue generation, and use of innovative teaching strategies.

CONCLUSION

CLS/MT programs are experiencing budget cutbacks consistent with the overall trend in institutions of higher education. In light of the trend toward program closures and decreasing entering practitioners, educators must address issues that relate to program viability. CLS/MT program directors are seeking and instituting changes to enhance the status of their programs in their respective institutions. These strategies are similar to those reported by other higher-education administrators. Further research and evaluation are necessary to determine the outcomes of such measures.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Medical Technology Division, Ohio State University School of Allied Medical Professions, Columbus 43210-1234, USA.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

10150470

Citation

Rudmann, S V.. "University-based Clinical Laboratory Science Programs: Strategies for Survival." Clinical Laboratory Science : Journal of the American Society for Medical Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, 1995, pp. 90-3.
Rudmann SV. University-based clinical laboratory science programs: strategies for survival. Clin Lab Sci. 1995;8(2):90-3.
Rudmann, S. V. (1995). University-based clinical laboratory science programs: strategies for survival. Clinical Laboratory Science : Journal of the American Society for Medical Technology, 8(2), pp. 90-3.
Rudmann SV. University-based Clinical Laboratory Science Programs: Strategies for Survival. Clin Lab Sci. 1995;8(2):90-3. PubMed PMID: 10150470.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - University-based clinical laboratory science programs: strategies for survival. A1 - Rudmann,S V, PY - 1995/2/7/pubmed PY - 1995/2/7/medline PY - 1995/2/7/entrez SP - 90 EP - 3 JF - Clinical laboratory science : journal of the American Society for Medical Technology JO - Clin Lab Sci VL - 8 IS - 2 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of clinical laboratory science (CLS)/medical technology (MT) programs regarding the impact of budgetary cutbacks and to identify successful strategies for program survival. DESIGN: Mail survey. SETTING: University-based CLS/MT programs accredited by the Committee on Allied Health Education and Accreditation (CAHEA). PARTICIPANTS: All CAHEA-accredited, university-based CLS/MT programs in Ohio and bordering states and all "big-ten" programs as listed in the Allied Health Education Directory 21st edition (n = 19). INTERVENTION: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Program directors' perceptions of: the potential threat of program closure, the impact of budget cutbacks, and successful strategies to enhance program viability. RESULTS: A total of 13 programs responded, for a response rate of 68%. The majority of the respondents (66%) indicated that they were experiencing budget cutbacks that affected either their operating budgets or their staffing configurations, or both. Although program closure had been discussed in many programs, directors felt that their programs would not be threatened with closure in the next three years. Only one program had intentionally decreased student enrollment. Strategies implemented by program directors fall into one of four categories: curriculum restructure, use of nontraditional instructional staff, revenue generation, and use of innovative teaching strategies. CONCLUSION: CLS/MT programs are experiencing budget cutbacks consistent with the overall trend in institutions of higher education. In light of the trend toward program closures and decreasing entering practitioners, educators must address issues that relate to program viability. CLS/MT program directors are seeking and instituting changes to enhance the status of their programs in their respective institutions. These strategies are similar to those reported by other higher-education administrators. Further research and evaluation are necessary to determine the outcomes of such measures. SN - 0894-959X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/10150470/University_based_clinical_laboratory_science_programs:_strategies_for_survival_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -