Skip to main content

Table 1 Critical elements: implementation activities and outputs for increasing faculty positions

From: The critical elements of effective academic-practice partnerships: a framework derived from the Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academy

Critical element

Indicators of success

Indicators of challenge

Activities

Define scope of faculty roles

Responsibilities of faculty positions were commensurate with FTE allotted to each position

Responsibilities of new positions were not feasible within the allotted FTEs

Candidates were selected based on clinical expertise and previous teaching experience

New faculty had little or no prior clinical or didactic teaching experience

New hires were willingly assigned to teach in some didactic courses, in addition to clinical instruction, in some cases, despite lack of previous experience

No clear reporting structure delineated for VANA faculty

VANA faculty were generally well known to VA nursing staff before VANA launch

 

Protected time from teaching was offered to new hires to engage in other activities (e.g., faculty meetings, committee work)

Initiate training for faculty role/faculty development

Ongoing mentoring was offered to new faculty, who appreciated its benefits

No mentoring was offered to new faculty, particularly for those with little to no previous teaching experience

Learning opportunities with pedagogical focus provided that met different levels of skills and experiences of new hires

Brief or no faculty orientation was offered

[Indicator of partial success] One-time faculty orientation session provided that did or did not include content on teaching methods

New faculty were required to use teaching software (e.g., Blackboard) without sufficient training or support

VA-based faculty were not provided teaching materials (e.g., textbooks) in a timely manner

Plan to integrate faculty into partnering environment

Each partnering organization welcomes involvement of VANA faculty in participating in department concerns

VANA faculty are not considered as resources in addressing problems or developing new programs in nursing departments

Adjust faculty workloads as needed

New faculty coped with teaching assignments with ease and enthusiasm

Clinical groups had over 10 students

Clinical group size (i.e., typically 8–10 students or less) allowed for adequate student interactions with faculty

New faculty had no access to information on teaching tips (e.g., grading care plans efficiently) that would have prevented them from feeling overwhelmed with workload

Faculty were paid for all hours worked or received “comp time” for grading at home

Support was provided for faculty who needed more assistance in coping with workload during Launch Year

VA-based faculty were re-assigned to old clinical, administrative, or educational responsibilities in VA when classes were not in session

During breaks, VA-based faculty worked on ancillary programs such as curriculum development, both at the VA and nursing school

VA-based faculty, who held full-time VA positions, had no vacation breaks at the end of terms as did the school-based faculty

Integrate faculty into partnering environment

VANA faculty group was very cohesive and supportive of each other, regardless of where they were based (i.e., VA or school)

Among partnership members, there existed a lack of awareness of each other’s responsibilities and contributions

VA-based faculty become involved in nursing school committees where their clinical expertise is welcomed (e.g., in curriculum development)

Clinical Expertise of VA-based faculty is not recognized or utilized by the members of the partnering institution

Nursing school-based faculty become involved in VA committees, particularly EBP

Faculty felt that they had two masters (i.e., were beholden to the demands of both the nursing school and the VAMC)

VA-based faculty were engaged in university activities depending on interests and role requirements

VA-based faculty perceived that their contributions were highly valued by nursing school colleagues

Faculty felt like ‘outsiders’ when in partnering institution

VANA faculty had a high sense of collegiality with VA and nursing school colleagues

Give APRN faculty protected time for patient care

Partnership leaders were aware of the value of having VA APRNs as clinical faculty

APRN faculty worked as care providers outside of full time position, often outside the VA, to maintain licensure or certification

Release time provided for APRN faculty to provide direct care to meet licensure or certification requirements

Outputs

Faculty hiring quota met by end of Launch Year

Hiring quotas for VANA faculty positions met by at least the end of the first academic year, if not before

Full hiring quota was not met by end of the first year, often due to scarcity of qualified (e.g., masters-prepared) applicants in local area

[Partial success] Faculty hiring quotas were met but new hires retained some or all of old responsibilities related to their previous positions

Faculty assignments were made according to experience, expertise, interests, and programmatic needs

Faculty satisfied with new roles

Minimal turnover of faculty

Some faculty left (or were asked to leave) positions by end of first year

If there was turnover in faculty, it was usually associated with personal circumstances

High levels of faculty satisfaction were measured in VNEP surveys (e.g., with mentorship, leadership support, availability of teaching resources)

Turnover often due to discontent resulting from unrealistic expectations about the role and its associated workload

High levels of faculty dissatisfaction measured in VNEP surveys