I’m glad you’re joining me once more. Today, we’ll wind up my recommendations on avoiding citations to Standard A2.09d. Let’s begin with what assessment leadership should be ready to convey on an SSR or in a site visit interview.

Articulating the Process

As discussed in our last blog, the PA program’s assessment leadership team must “speak the language” of critical analysis, ideally using the same terms used in the Standards. 

Be sure that the assessment leadership team can:

1. Articulate how the conclusions were made that resulted in an action plan.

2. Reverse engineer the action plans/strengths. For example, “The data was below our benchmark. We analyzed the trends, and this met our threshold for an area needing improvement.” and “In the assessment committee, we analyzed the data and then drew conclusions that resulted in the plan of action.”

3. Reference relationships such as cause and effect/correlation between variables.

4. Portray a culture of  “data-driven decision-making.” Now, what does that mean? The committee is looking for this train of thought. “Was there a tangible event that occurred upon which they drew conclusions and made plans of action?”

Remember to speak ARC-PA’s language. The team must articulate, “We analyzed the data,” “We drew conclusions based upon the benchmark,” or “The data demonstrated that it met our threshold for areas in need of improvement, and the decision was made to investigate or modify.” Doing so shows that a consistent process was followed and that everyone on the assessment committee understands that process.

5. Be able to reference relationships, like triangulation. When you identify a strength or an area needing improvement, always include triangulation of data whenever possible. Having a single data source is viewed as insufficient. The next step is looking at other related data, having a cause-effect or correlation relationship, and then reiterating this to support a culture of data-driven decision-making. 

The whole truth and nothing but

The demands of the SSR and site visits can seem excessive at times. Collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and explaining voluminous amounts of data is a complex burden. I hope this blog series on common citations has emphasized to you how important it is to provide all the information that ARC-PA wants. However, I should add that there is at least one way to reduce the complications.

When a person gives sworn testimony for a legal matter, they are usually coached beforehand. The attorney will remind them, “Only answer the question asked.” Providing more information than is required can get people into trouble. Opposing counsel is aware of this and will often ask questions and remain quiet, hoping the witness will start elaborating to fill the silence.

Obviously, the ARC-PA commission is not a hostile attorney looking to trip you up in your testimony. However, think of your responses to their questions in a similar way.

A PA program director makes hundreds of decisions, many of which are based on knowledge, experience, and intuition. Many decisions on the program level, operational, strategic, or otherwise, are not based on numbers. Leaders do this, but the ARC-PA Committee does not need or want to hear about it. 

Remember that the SSR is not necessarily real life. It is an assembly of the action plans made based on a data process. 

The key is to keep your practical decisions out of your SSR. Do not include operational items. If you list operational items and decisions, the committee will look for the data that supports them and the data-driven process behind them, and there simply may be none.

Make sure that what you do include is all about data-driven decision-making. Use quantitative and qualitative data and data triangulation, responding specifically and thoroughly to what is asked. It’s a mouthful but key to navigating a successful site visit and an SSR.

It may help to remind yourself that certain standards also limit the site visit committee. The standards are complex, and the committee has extremely specific things on which to base its assessment. It cannot submit a report saying, “We could tell they were a smart bunch with good students, and they had everything under control,” even if that was true. The committee must point to exact data, just as their subjects must. 

Provide the data they want to make their assessment in the required format. Be able to explain how you drew those data-based decisions. 

A2.09d summary and conclusions

The increased emphasis on institutional support in the 5th edition Standards has resulted in increased citations, often with adverse results.

The program director must be able to speak to the program’s assessment process. This does not mean that the program director needs to micromanage but rather be the architect of the ongoing programmatic self-assessment process.

The program's assessment leadership team should do the heavy lifting during the site visit. The program director should be the committee chair of the assessment leadership team.

Mentoring and support of the program director and assessment leadership team are paramount. This includes institutional oversight and support, as well as funding of assessment training. 

In our upcoming blogs:

We have one more frequently cited Standard to tackle. We’ll look soon at Standard B3.06 (specifically substandard B3.06a), which sets preceptor requirements. Who must supervise clinical practice experiences? ARC-PA is cracking down hard on that one, so we have plenty to discuss! Join me then.