faculty development minutes october 1997
WV RHEP Faculty Development Committee
Subcommittee on Application of Technology to Faculty Development
Minutes
October 29, 1997, Lakeview Conference Center, 12:20 - 1:40 p. m.
Participants: Helen Baker, Chair; Rex Adamson, *Dan Brody, Jill Cochran, *Chuck Conner,
*Dan Doyle, *Rosie Cannarella, *LaRue DeBastiani, *Norm Ferrari, *Darryl Hale, *Hilda
Heady, *Bill Shires
Also distribute to: Greg Doyle, Jeannette Flanagen, *Bob Foster (R.Ph.), *Arnie Hassen,
*Mike McCarthy, *Rusty Russell, Ron Seaton, Ron Stollings, *Amy Reasinger, Tom Steele,
*April Vestal, *Don Weston
* = distribution of minutes electronically
Action:
Dr. Baker presented the background for the Subcommittee, and noted that it included
representation from the Faculty Development Committee, the Learning Resources Committee,
field faculty, and other faculty/staff involved with application of distance technology. The
charge to the subcommittee was reviewed:
To develop specific goals, strategies, and timelines for use of distance-learning technology in
support of RHEP's faculty development efforts: that is, to help rural practitioners be better
teachers within the RHEP program. To be considered are electronic mail; development
of an RHEP Faculty Development "web page"; faculty development programs using of
Mountaineer Doctor TeleVision; and other similar use of distance-learning technology.
Participants introduced themselves and described their backgrounds regarding both RHEP and
use of distance technology. Participants were invited to review the current version of the RHEP
Website (http://ruralnet.marshall.edu/wvrhep), provide in the meeting room by Darryl Hale.
Participants discussed potential uses of distance technology and obstacles to its use within the
RHEP program. Dr. Baker was authorized to summarize these findings for presentation to the
full RHEP Faculty Development Committee, which would be meeting the next day, October 30,
1997. (Note: if any item was inadvertently omitted or if readers have other suggestions for
consideration, please send suggestions to Helen Baker, with copies to Dr. Cannarella and Ms.
Heady, for future consideration.)
There was AGREEMENT that the subcommittee would meet again only if further meeting
seemed necessary. Meeting ADJOURNED at 1:40 p.m., with thanks to all participants.
enc.
WV RHEP Faculty Development Committee
Subcommittee on Application of Technology to Faculty Development
October 29, 1997, Lakeview Conference Center
POSSIBLE GOALS FOR TECHNOLOGY:
- Reduction in paper: goal of having RHEP Advisory Board materials available "on line"
rather than distributed as reams of paper.
- Current committee information: goal of having information such as committee member
lists, committee meeting minutes, and policies available "on line", not just to save paper but
to better inform all involved with the program.
- Current site information: having information, such as that previously updated only yearly
in the "site directory", be current and correct, and include information which would be of
interest to potential students as well as to administrators and/or other field faculty. It was
noted that sites vary in the degree to which the information in the RHEP Website is current.
It was not clear to subcommittee Participants who is responsible for updating information.
- Current School information: participants reported attempting to access a campus web-page
for directory information and receiving the message that they "did not have access" to what
appeared to be non-confidential information (such as, a dental faculty member's e-mail
address).
- Electronic phone books: to have current "e-mail" addresses of all field faculty/campus
faculty/administration, to facilitate communication. If there is a current/correct directory,
participants did not have information on how to find or access it.
- Assistance in access to the "web" from home: Participants reported mixed results in
gaining "web" access for their home computers. Some sites pay for "WVNET" access for
home computers by field faculty: others neither pay the monthly line charges nor provide
assistance in "set up" to gain access, apparently because of a question of whether this was
appropriate use of RHEP resources. Participants noted that Mike McCarthy had offered to
provide "set up" for home computers brought in when he was visiting the site. Ms. Heady
also noted that RHEP currently does not have a staff member with such set-up as a major
responsibility.
- Access to computers in the clinic, rather than only at the LRC: It was noted that to be
appropriate role models, Field Faculty need to be using computers as part of patient care
activities. When the LRC is immediately adjacent to the clinic, this is feasible; however, if
the faculty member must drive to another site to reach the LRC, the Field Faculty use of
computers for both patient care and student education is substantially decreased. The
recommendation was made that clinic-based computers be provided, as possible, for field
faculty. Field faculty noted that they often do not have time to use computers during standard
office hours, and that they sometimes do not have access to either the computers or
knowledgeable staff after standard work hours. There was agreement that more information
is needed regarding computer access and use by field faculty: the survey that the Faculty
Development Committee plans to mail in November may assist with this information need.
- Students as teachers regarding information technology: It was noted that some campus
programs are requiring students to be proficient in computer skills, and that selected students
could assist their Field Faculty in development of these skills. There was agreement that
Schools should suggest this to their students. There was also agreement that students who
providing such assistance should be credited for "community service" for this activity, with
prior approval by the appropriate site coordinator..
- Internet access for LRC computers. Some participants stated that their LRC computers
were "too old" to be able to provide Internet access. Darryl Hale pointed out that the old 386
computer he is using is probably as old as any in the LRC system, and that (with proper
software) it has Internet access, so the access problem is probably not hardware, but
programming, technical assistance, or staff development. Mr. Hale noted that sites differ in
the extent to which LRC computers are fully operational.
- MARS communication as a teaching tool: Dr. Doyle described one way he has used the
"MARS" consultation assistance, having a student present the case using a speakerphone.
The value of this mechanism was noted, and the suggestion made that more field faculty
should learn of this strategy. The possibility was discussed of using e-mail for similar
consultation. Some participants said they would like the option of "leaving a message" for
the consultant, rather than knowing that he/she would be interrupted to answer a call.
- Need for computers to be "user friendly": Participants gave "horror stories" of multiple
attempts to "get on-line" or otherwise use information technology. They asked if technical
assistance could be provided to make the programs more "user-friendly": "All I want to have
to do is click on the right button, not struggle for over an hour to make it work." There was
agreement that field faculty need more information regarding how to get the technical support
which is already available, and that there may be need for allocation of more resources for
technical support.
- Standardization/CD-ROM technology: Participants wondered the degree to which CD-
ROM technology were available at the RHEP LRCs. One participant stated that using CD-
ROM resources "are a lot more reliable and less frustrating" than attempting to get on
Internet. Participants at this meeting knew that there is a "minimum standard" for RHEP
LRC computers, but did not know what that standard is or the degree to which LRCs have
CD-ROM technology. *The LRC Committee is herewith asked to provide the Faculty
Development Committee with this information, to the extent possible.
- Use of "WVRTC-L: Dr. Doyle reported on use of this "discussion list," which has about 30
to 40 members. Subsequent discussion led to the recommendation that each site be asked to
name at least one faculty member in each discipline at each site to become members of the
list, and that more campus-based faculty also be recruited.
- Use of Mountaineer Doctor TeleVision for IDS, perhaps quarterly: The suggestion was
made that MDTV be used to conduct some statewide "IDS" sessions. Dr. Ferrari suggested
that it might be possible to use one of the slots now categorized as a "grand rounds" (as,
"pediatric grand rounds") and therefore involve a broader base of campus-based faculty. Ms.
Heady indicated that the RHEP budget would be able to support IDS via MDTV, at least on a
trial basis. Several participants indicated that they felt that some of the sites "would be ready
now" to conduct such sessions.
- Use of information technology for statewide cooperative research: The suggestion was
made that information technology could be used to identify a set of Field Faculty with similar
research interests, who could collaborate on community-based research. If the research were
conducted at multiple sites, students could work on the project at more than one site, making
their participation more meaningful. The suggestion was made that the WVRTC-L, if more
broadly used, might be a mechanism for initiating such contacts.
Recommended Action involving only the Faculty Development Committee:
1. Seek a volunteer to conduct the first statewide IDS, perhaps during a time slot on MDTV
now held by "grand rounds". (Target date for identification and announcement of faculty
member: January 15, 1998. Target date for having conducted IDS: April 30, 1998) Note:
Chuck Conner has agreed to coordinate this activity.
2. Conduct a Survey of field faculty regarding their current use of e-mail or other computer
resources (draft survey will be considered at the Faculty Development Committee's meeting
on 10/31/97). Target date for having mailed survey: January 15, 1998. Target date for
report from survey: March 30, 1998. Note: this survey is drafted, and we expect to mail it in
November.
3. Include with the Survey a separate page with information about the "WVRTC-L", and an
invitation to subscribe. Also, ask Site Coordinators to provide a list of at least one Field
Faculty member in each discipline from each site who uses computers to participate in this
discussion list. (Implement by April 30, 1998.) If such Field Faculty cannot be identified,
consider other strategies as necessary to recruit/train Field Faculty to participate. (By
December 15, 1998.)
Request for information, to be sent to LRC Committees:
- Request for information about LRC computer capabilities, to LRC Committee (see detail in
above report, at *).
Recommendations for implementing Application of Technology for Faculty Development:
a. All RHEP meeting minutes should be posted electronically, within two weeks of the meeting,
and that a mechanism be developed by the Executive Director to clarify who is responsible
for such postings (as, the Committee Secretary or the central office staff).
b. Each consortium's "Webpage" should be updated electronically, at least once each month, by
the Site Coordinator or designee. Changes in Field Faculty listings should be simultaneously
forwarded to School Representatives in the appropriate Disciplines (either automatically, if
possible, or by some other mechanism). The possibility of a "what's changed" section, which
would highlight all additions or changes, should also be explored. Site Webpages should
include the location of computers which are available to students and Field Faculty for access
to Internet and other RHEP resources, and the hours of their availability.
c. The "schools" Webpage section should be revised, to immediately designate the RHEP
contacts for each School (as now listed in the printed Site Directory), in addition to having
links to a) each School's Homepage (if the School has a Homepage) and b) each school's
computerized "phone book" or faculty/staff directory, if the school has such a directory. The
"RHEP School contact" section if the RHEP Webpage should be updated monthly, by a
person to be designated by each school's' Dean. The Schools are encouraged to include in
their RHEP "School Information" listing the name of a contact person regarding the school's
Homepage and Directory, it any, in case problems are encountered with access.
d. A new section should be added to the RHEP Webpage, regarding "Faculty Development." A
"Editor" or multi-disciplinary "editorial team" for this section should be recruited from RHEP
faculty or staff. This Webpage would provide links to resources for faculty development.
(Note: volunteers were solicited at the RHEP meeting on October 31, and at least three
names were received by Dr. Cannarella.)
e. If a student is well prepared regarding information technology, teaching his/her preceptor or
other Field Faculty to use this technology can appropriately be categorized as "community
service" activity, with prior agreement of the appropriate Site Coordinator. Similarly, if
interested students assist with surveys of Provider knowledge/use of computer resources, this
may be categorized as either Community Service or Research, with prior agreement by the
appropriate Site Coordinator. Students approved to assist with set up of computers should be
advised that their setup must conform with set-ups used for RHEP LRCs. It is recommended
that these parameters be placed on the RHEP "Webpage" for easy access.
f. By December 31, 1998, an instructional guide should place on or beside every RHEP
computer, regarding that computer's capabilities and any exceptional characteristics (as, any
non-standard programs or special instructions for Internet access). These instructional guides
are the responsibility of the Site Coordinator, in cooperation with technical assistance
provided by the campuses. Such Guides should be updated as necessary but at least by
August 1 of each year.
g. Vacancies within West Virginia for rural practitioners should be listed in or linked to the
RHEP Website. Assistance may be possible from the RHEP "Recruitment and Retention"
Committee.
h. Program participants should be advised that, at the discretion of the local Consortium board,
RHEP resources may legitimately be used to upgrade the clinic or home computers of Field
Faculty to give them Internet access for these machines. To insure compatibility, all
computer set-ups should conform to standards used for RHEP LRC computers.
i. Sites which have not already done so are asked to arrange a local Faculty Development
Program in Spring, 1998, to assist Field Faculty with computer use. It is also recommended
that sites which have not already done so host "bring in your computer" session, for field
faculty to obtain access to the Internet from their home computers.
###
RHEP-FD, 10-29-97.min
6