Poster Presentation
Water's Edge Ballroom (Hilton Waikoloa Village)
Friday, July 15, 2005
10:30 AM - 11:00 AM
Water's Edge Ballroom (Hilton Waikoloa Village)
Friday, July 15, 2005
4:00 PM - 4:30 PM
This presentation is part of : Poster Presentations II
Identifying Red Flags in Distance Learning Clinical Experiences
Elaine Souder, PhD, RN1, Patricia S. O'Sullivan, EdD2, Angela M. Staab, MSN, RN, GNP1, and William N. Dobbins, MPA1. (1) College of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA, (2) Office of Educational Development, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
Learning Objective #1: Describe the results of preceptor and participant data concerning clinical experiences as part of an on-line educational program
Learning Objective #2: Identify two red flags warning of difficulties during clinical experiences in distance learning

Health care professionals increasingly are educated through distance learning. Studies have addressed the effectiveness of on-line teaching of theoretical content; however, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of clinical experiences have been relatively neglected. In this presentation we discuss methods and results related to efforts to ensure a high-quality, preceptored clinical experience for 20 nursing faculty members in 9 states who enrolled in a long-term continuing education program.

Methods: Participants spent 15 preceptored hours monthly engaged in gerontological clinical experiences designed to meet personal and curricular expectations. To guide preceptors we developed a 5-minute orientation videotape that addressed overall goals of the experience, their preceptoring role, and the evaluation process. The preceptors received a copy of the videotape and rated the usefulness on a five-point scale of not helpful (1) to very helpful (5). To monitor participant progress, we contacted preceptors three times in nine months. Additionally, participants described and shared their clinical activities and learning in 15 on-line module discussion boards.

Results: Preceptors rated favorably the videotape, mean=4.2 (sd=.53). We established and maintained contact with 13 of 20 preceptors (65%), using letters, requests for evaluations, and telephone calls. 12 of 13 preceptors (92%) reported that their preceptee met clinical objectives. We could not reach 7 of 20 (35%) preceptors despite repeated attempts. Two (28%) “non-responsive” preceptors foretold of clinical problems. We identified 3 participants who did not communicate about clinical experiences in the online discussion forum. This finding was followed by eventual withdrawal from the program.

Conclusions: In this distance learning continuing education program, there was a need to vigilantly monitor both preceptor and participant involvement. Red flags included lack of our interaction with preceptors and absence of participant clinical discussion online. The on-line activities must be monitored and we recommend direct contact with preceptors, including a video orientation.