From:                              Dee Fuller []

Sent:                               Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:30 PM

To:                                   Dave Laton; Linda Cater

Cc:                                   Tanya Hunnicutt

Subject:                          Curriculum recomendations


Mr. Laton,


I attended the meeting last week on the nursing curriculum revisions.

I am relatively new to the system- started FT when the new curriculum started- that fall I downloaded the POI for my course, developed course materials and began class. Subsequently, I have developed and taught 6 of the courses. I had limited communication  or orientation to the curriculum as a new faculty person, but was at least as skilled as my colleagues with the new curriculum. Since that time, I have identified areas of weaknesses, along with my co-workers. I often wondered at the process and thought of how this curriculum was developed- figuring I could at least understand it a little better if I understood its background.

This week I have gained access to a dissertation written on the development of this standardized curriculum and found it to be enlightening to say the least.

Oddly, the weaknesses I identified as a totally new faculty person- having taught the curriculum without any prior biases related to its development  are many of the same as those that were addressed in the meeting last week AND the same as those concerns from the initial development committee.


Since the system is no longer under the constraints of the curriculum as indicated by Mr. Johnson- would it be plausible to consider those topics of “prerequisites” and/or extended semesters?


Interesting also, is the target of HS students for entry into our programs. The development of the curriculum, with emphasis on targeting these students has had a detrimental affect on our nontraditional students, a large portion of which community college systems were created for. Maybe we could look at aligning the HS programs, and academic  dual-enrollment programs to prepare these students (early identification of)  for entry while also making revisions that would help our nontraditional students to become more successful.  I think this would address many of the concerns with the curriculum without making a lot of changes to its structure.


  As requested, I am providing recommendations/concerns from my co-workers/program as requested. They are many of the same as previously identified.


1)     the 2 true lab skills which have been identified in NUR 105 are trach care and IV therapy- if we move trach care to NUR 102 and IV therapy to NUR 104 – we would lighten the content of NUR 105 (heavy when taught with NUR 106) and eliminate those labs. Scheduling class and labs for NUR 105, and class for NUR 106 AND clinical time for both it very difficult for instructors and demanding on students.

2)     Break out some lab time for NUR 103 and NUR 104- NUR 104 is basically a math class (teaching decimals and fractions) when time is needed in smaller groups for the mechanics of drug administration. NUR 103 – Health assessment could also benefit from more individualized instruction. Mastering the content for both NUR 103 and 104 is vital to becoming a successful nurse and improving patient outcomes. These are foundational courses that need optimal understanding by students.   

3)     Focus the content of NUR 106 more on nursing care of the pediatric patient and less on disease processes.

4)     Increase theory time in NUR 202

5)     Do not teach NUR 106 & 106 together.

6)     NUR 200 needs to be restructured and not just a review of the material from NUR 102-NUR 106. Should focus on role change identification/realization and assessment of current knowledge.

7)     Address Exit exams

8)      Address standardized clinical evaluation tools

9)     Address standardized needs for charting (information management). A lot of valuable clinical time is spent orienting students to individual facility computer systems when students need to know the language, legal aspects, and how-tos, and what-tos of charting.  


Additional Concerns:

1)     we are loosing true LPN students –forever- and the LPNs we graduate are RNs who dropped down to the LPN program and plan on readmitting in the mobility program.     


Concerning New Admission Criteria:

1)     Returning PN students are not eligible for admission due to GPA < 2.5 on last 24 credit hours (NUR 105, 105, 107, 108, 109)

2)     (final) HS transcripts- do schools consider file incomplete if not submitted?

3)     In the ADN program – a “c” made in each class (BIO 201, 202, MTH 100) is passing, however this = 2.0 GPA. Will this be calculated on admissions in addition to the 2.5 on last 24 hrs?

4)     If applicants have college classes in BIO & MTH, but not NUR 201, 202, or 220, do you count college classes/high school- whichever gives the student the best score?



Thank you for your hard work and the willingness to work with nursing faculty to revise the curriculum for the betterment of our programs.



Dee Fuller, RN, DNP, CRNP


Faculty of Central Alabama Community College

Coosa Valley School of Nursing


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.