Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Quality Assurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Goodwin University ABSN corrective action plan; DPH visit and LPN quarterly report note mixed student feedback but substantial faculty supports
Summary
The board approved Goodwin University’s corrective action plan for its accelerated BSN program and reviewed a Department of Public Health classroom and clinical visit noting mostly positive student and instructor feedback; the board also accepted an LPN quarterly report showing active mentoring and simulation plans.
The Connecticut Board of Examiners for Nursing voted Aug. 20 to approve Goodwin University’s corrective action plan for its accelerated bachelor of science in nursing (ABSN) program after administrators presented a plan based on the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) framework.
Doctor Friday (Goodwin University) told the board that the plan identifies deficiencies the school attributes to faculty turnover and other factors, and proposes measures including a collaborative teaching model, faculty mentoring, salary reviews, and expanded simulation. Cindy moved to approve the action plan; Lisa seconded. The board recorded a roll-call vote in which members present voted to approve.
Department of Public Health site-visit staff member Suzanne presented observations from a June 25 clinical visit to Bristol Hospital’s med-surgical unit and a July 3 classroom visit to the same cohort. Suzanne reported students were generally “well prepared” in clinical settings, could identify patient history and plan of care, and communicated appropriately with staff. She cited one instance in which a student and instructor prepared to administer a PRN acetaminophen for pain rated 10/10 even though the order specified dosing for pain levels 1–4; she said she intervened and the medication was not administered.
Suzanne summarized classroom observations: students sat apart and followed testing protocols, the instructor used PowerPoint and interactive discussion, and the class used a Kahoot post-assessment. Nine students were interviewed; eight said clinical and staff support were adequate and eight said they felt prepared to take the NCLEX. A minority reported the first med-surgical instructor’s classroom teaching produced poor first-exam performance; the school assigned a co-teacher and students said the semester improved thereafter.
Goodwin also presented its LPN quarterly report. Karen Therian, LPN program director, told the board the report had been streamlined and included retention/attrition tables and course grade summaries (these are preliminary pending final grades at the end of the session). The school reported no formal grievances, described tutoring and mentoring programs, and said it is developing a simulation center on campus to increase controlled acute-care exposure.
Ending: The board asked Goodwin to continue reporting on remediation efforts, faculty development, and student outcomes; the board recorded approval of the ABSN action plan and noted the DPH observations and LPN quarterly report in its files.
