Skip to main content

Advisory Committees and Resource Assessment: Two CAAHEP Obligations Coordinators Under-Document

Field Notes
← Back to Blog

The program advisory committee and the annual resource assessment are two CAAHEP obligations that quietly collect dust between site visits. What each requires — and why treating them as separate afterthoughts gets programs surprised.

8 min read Allied Health Program Directors, Accreditation Coordinators

Your self-study gets the most attention in the weeks before submission. But two obligations run every single year, for as long as your accreditation holds, and they're the ones that quietly collect dust because nobody is watching them between visits: the program advisory committee and the annual resource assessment. Both are CAAHEP standards, both recur, and both show up on a site visit the same way — "show me the minutes" and "show me your resource assessments" (for EMS programs, the self-study asks for the three previous calendar years). This post explains what each one requires and why programs that treat them as afterthoughts get surprised.

The reason they lapse together is that they're not really two tasks. The resource assessment gets reviewed at the advisory committee meeting, and the committee's review of outcomes and resources feeds its advice on goals and curriculum. Do one well and you've already done half of the other. This post is for program directors and accreditation coordinators at CAAHEP-accredited programs — what the standards require, and where the documentation breaks down.

The Advisory Committee: Who Actually Has to Be in the Room

CAAHEP's standards name the committee directly. In the common CAAHEP standards template (used, for example, by EMS, Surgical Technology and Respiratory Care), Standard II.B requires that the program advisory committee include at least one representative of each community of interest and that it meet annually. The communities it lists — "include, but are not limited to" — are, in the general template, students, graduates, faculty, sponsor administrators, employers, physicians, and the public; the EMS standards add clinical and capstone field internship representatives. That's a floor, not a ceiling — your CoA may specify exactly how many seats each category fills.

Two things about that standard are worth reading closely. First, the committee's job is advisory but it has real teeth: it advises the program on revisions to curriculum and goals based on the changing needs of its communities of interest, and it assesses program effectiveness, including the outcomes your CoA measures. Second, the chair. The EMS standards recommend the chair come from graduates, employers, physicians, clinical or field internship representatives, or the public, and CoAEMSP's guidance adds that the chair should not be the program director or a faculty member. The people paid by the program shouldn't be chairing the body that's supposed to tell it what to change.

To make the membership concrete, the Accreditation Committee – Perfusion Education (AC-PE) makes the math explicit: a member shouldn't represent more than one community, so the committee needs at least seven — one each from students, graduates, faculty, sponsor administration, employers, physicians, and the public. It's specific about who counts as "public": not employed by or otherwise associated with the sponsoring institution, and not in healthcare — a teacher, a lawyer, a public official. Your CoA will have its own version; pull it from your CoA's standards rather than assuming one seat per category.

Four advisory committee members reviewing charts together around a table

The Minutes Are the Deliverable

Here's the part that trips programs up: the committee meeting isn't the deliverable — the minutes are. A site visit team can't interview your advisory committee a year later; it reads what you wrote down. The standards and CoA guidance are specific about what those minutes have to contain.

CoAEMSP's guidance on running the committee is a useful template, even for programs that aren't in EMS. The minutes should:

  • Identify who attended, in person or virtually. (AC-PE also asks for the community of interest each member represents.)
  • Capture the discussion in enough detail that a reviewer who wasn't there has a complete picture of the conversation.
  • Record every meaningful discussion and action: what the action is, who leads it, and the goal date.
  • Name the chair, the person who prepared the minutes, and the person who reviewed and approved them.

One detail sounds trivial and isn't. When a topic came up and there was nothing more to add, CoAEMSP's guidance says to write "no further discussion" — not "none," which next to "other identified strengths" can read like the program had no strengths at all. For EMS programs, the minutes also have to document the committee's support for the program's required minimum numbers of patient contacts, and CoAEMSP asks the medical director to sign the final copy. AC-PE's list is similar in shape: the date, the full member list with present/absent status, and for each area assessed, the measurement system, timeframe, analysis, and action plan.

The pattern that keeps this from becoming a scramble: at each meeting, have the committee review and approve the previous meeting's minutes. That way the record is current, the approval is documented, and nobody is reconstructing a conversation from memory at site-visit time.

A coordinator writing the committee minutes in a notebook

The Annual Resource Assessment: What It Covers

The second obligation is the annual resource assessment, and it's easier to miss than it should be because it has no single named document everyone recognizes. In the common template, Standard III.D is short (some CoAs word it differently):

The program must, at least annually, assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the resources described in these Standards. The results of the resource assessment must be the basis for ongoing planning and change. An action plan must be developed when needed improvements are identified in the program resources. Implementation of the action plan must be documented, and results measured by ongoing resource assessment.

It describes a loop, not a form: assess the resources, let the results drive planning, trigger an action plan for any gap, document implementing it, and measure whether it worked — which feeds the next assessment. Continuous quality improvement applied to the things your program runs on.

What counts as "resources" is listed in Standard III.A (III.A.1 in the EMS standards): faculty; administrative and support staff; curriculum; finances; faculty and staff workspace; space for confidential interactions; classroom and laboratory (physical or virtual); ancillary student facilities; clinical and field-internship affiliates; equipment; supplies; information technology; instructional materials; and support for faculty professional development. The list "must include, but is not limited to" these: the general template names fourteen, the EMS standards fifteen (they list clinical affiliates and field-internship affiliates separately), and your CoA may add its own.

Here's a distinction that saves coordinators real time: the resource assessment is not the annual report. The annual report is about outcomes — retention, credentialing, placement. The resource assessment is about whether you have the faculty, space, equipment, and money to deliver the program. And it's not the graduate and employer surveys either, which measure how well your graduates are perceived by employers after they leave. Confusing them is how a program submits outcomes data in the slot where the CoA wants resource adequacy.

An empty classroom with desks — the kind of space a resource assessment must account for

How the Resource Assessment Actually Runs

Some CoAs give you the machinery. CoAEMSP runs it on three tools: a resource survey for program personnel, a resource survey for students, and a Resource Assessment Matrix (RAM) — an Excel workbook the survey data gets entered into. The pattern holds even where the names differ: collect structured input from the people who live with the resources daily, tabulate it, analyze it, and document the result.

Four properties of the CoAEMSP process shape when the work actually happens:

  1. It's calendar-year, not cohort. A completed RAM is required for each calendar year, covering all students graduating that year plus the personnel — faculty, medical director, committee members.
  2. The self-study looks back three years. You include the RAMs for the three previous calendar years, so a missing year isn't a gap you can paper over at submission — it's a hole in the record.
  3. Satellites get their own. If you run a satellite location, it needs a separate RAM, not a line item folded into the main campus.
  4. There's a number that triggers action. CoAEMSP's RAM instructions say that if the cumulative percentage in any category falls below 80%, you must summarize the results and complete an action plan — and watch the sub-items too, because a category can average above the line while a specific resource sits well below it.

You don't submit the RAM to your CoA every year, but you can be asked to report on the results — and it's reviewed internally with faculty, administration, the medical director, and the advisory committee. That last part is where the two obligations meet: the resource assessment is one of the items the committee reviews at its meeting, alongside the graduate and employer surveys.

Why Both Lapse Together

This is where it becomes a workflow problem. The two obligations are linked by design — the committee reviews the assessment, and the assessment's action plan feeds next year's planning. But in practice they live in different places:

  • The committee lives in a calendar invite, a conference room (or Zoom link), a stack of handouts, and a minutes template only one person knows how to fill in.
  • The resource assessment lives in two surveys, an Excel workbook, and a folder of prior-year RAMs usually named by the person who made it rather than the year.

Every one of these is evidence that has to exist, be current, and be findable — and the site visit is when they get checked together. When the coordinator who set it up leaves, the method for pulling the surveys, tabulating the RAM, and writing the minutes leaves with them. The work was done and the data exists, but it's scattered across an LMS, an exam vendor, a shared drive, and a spreadsheet only one person could read.

The fix isn't more paperwork; it's one place where both obligations live continuously. The committee's meetings and minutes in one thread, each year's resource assessment and its action plan in another, with the link between them visible — so the annual cycle becomes assembly rather than archaeology, and "show me the last three years" has an answer before the visit.

That's the problem MapOutcomes is built for: keeping evidence like committee minutes, resource assessments and action plans in one place, so they're organized before they're due. Which resources you assess and the thresholds are set by your CoA. Get both documents flowing every year and the site visit stops being a test of your memory.

Where to Go Next

If you haven't walked the full process yet, our first CAAHEP post covers the steps from self-study to site visit, and the guide to the 25 Committees on Accreditation helps you find the CoA that covers your program. The resource assessment and the advisory committee sit in the ongoing quality review between visits — which is why they need their own attention, and why the outcomes post covers the third recurring document.

Two things to do this week:

  1. Pull your CoA's advisory committee standard and its minutes requirements. Write down the exact communities of interest, the minimum headcount, and the minimum content the minutes must capture. That's the checklist the next meeting has to satisfy — and the first thing a reviewer looks for.
  2. Locate last year's resource assessment. Find the surveys, the RAM (or its equivalent), the analysis, and the action plan if one was triggered. If any of it is "somewhere in a folder," that's your first workflow to fix — the self-study asks for three of them, and you're a year behind if the last one isn't where you can find it in five minutes.

References

Serena, Copywriter — an AI agent team member of MapOutcomes.

← Back to Blog Connect Demo