Minutes 03.26.09

Minutes 03.26.09

Curriculum Evaluation Community
Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2009

In attendance: Anne Chapin, Carl Creutz, Bob Bloodgood, Elizabeth Bradley, Howard Kutchai, Jim Martindale, Melanie McCollum, Veronica Michaelsen, Chris Peterson, Ellen Ramsey, Jerry Short. Unable to attend: Troy Buer, Keith Littlewood, Eve Bargmann, Jenny Hettema

Major Discussion Points:

  1. Goals of curriculum reform: Elizabeth will follow-up with Don regarding the clarification of language and word choice in the goals. She will provide the group's agreed upon recommendations. This process is critical to assure that the goals are clearly articulated and the intended meaning understood by stakeholders. Additionally, it is the foundational first step in planning the evaluation activities. The recommended wording changes to three of the goals are:

    a.  Assure (?) all graduates demonstrate mastery of the 12 UVA School of Medicine Competencies Required of the Contemporary Physician. 
    b. Integrate clinical and basic science content across the four years and within courses/blocks. (Removed parenthetical comment regarding vertical and horizontal integration and primarily in the preclerkship and clerkship periods).
    c. Provide robust opportunities for clinical skills development.

  2. What does "better" mean? We continued our lively discussion about the million-dollar question of an implicit reason for the curriculum reform, namely to produce "better" doctors. What does "better" mean? As we work through the evaluation planning process, perhaps we will make progress on operationalizing what "better" means for our institution.

  3. LCME data: The committee discussed reviewing the most recent LCME report to determine where/how the 12 UVA SOM competencies are specifically measured.

  4. Review of evaluation instruments: Jim Martindale has agreed to review the curriculum evaluation instruments that are currently used. He will consider their purpose, psychometric properties, and utility. This is an important activity that will help determine which of the tools should continue to be used in the new curriculum, potentially providing longitudinal measurement opportunities.

  5. Impact of new Perioperative Clerkship on clinical skill development in current curriculum: A suggestion was made to survey the classes of 2009 and 2010 (who did not take the new clerkship) about their self-reported ability on the skills taught in the new clerkship and compare findings with scores of students in the current curriculum who will take the new clerkship. Elizabeth will communicate with the new Perioperative Clerkship directors about the clerkship content and to inquire if they have a measurement tool already planned.

  6. Stakeholder interview questions: The stakeholder interview discussion was lengthy and fruitful. The group decided first to interview a select group of stakeholders about a few questions regarding the curriculum reform and the evaluation process. It was suggested that a survey be administered to a broader audience, based on the themes discovered in the initial interviews. The suggested interview questions are:

    a. Are you aware that the curriculum is changing?
    b. What are your hopes/expectations of the new curriculum?
    c. What improvements in medical education would you like to see?
    d. What evaluation questions/information would be useful to you?
    e. How will you know if we have educated better residents or doctors?
  7. Identification of stakeholders to interview:
    a.  Students: Chris will inquire about using the spring Student Affairs sponsored Town Hall meeting as a group interview opportunity 
    b. Faculty: 
        i. Basic Science Course Directors/others: Bob will use the next Principles of Medicine meeting as an opportunity to get feedback from the course directors. In order to reach the broader teaching faculty, Bob will ask each course director to suggest one faculty member to interview.
       ii. Clinical faculty:
      iii. Clerkship Directors: Jerry will attend the next Clinical Medicine Committee meeting.
    c. Administration: 
        i. Admissions: Specifics TBD
       ii. Financial Aid: Specifics TBD
      iii.  Research Administration: Specifics TBD
    d. Curriculum Committee
    e. System Leaders
    f. Staff
    g. Standardized Patients: Anne made this suggestion to Elizabeth in an e-mail. It would be an opportunity to speak to the general public (which was on our original list), but these individuals have knowledge of Medical Education thus their perspective could be quite useful.
    h. MSTP Directors
    i. Residency Directors
Action Items (Person(s) responsible):

  1. Review goals of the curriculum reform with Don Innes (Elizabeth Bradley and Veronica Michaelsen)
  2. Create Collab site (Elizabeth Bradley and Veronica Michaelsen)
  3. Review current evaluation instruments (Jim Martindale)
  4. Review the stakeholder interview questions and provide feedback and approval/disapproval via e-mail by April 2nd. (ALL)
  5. Determine how many interviews are necessary to get a representative sample of information, providing confidence to the group that we are including the concerns of stakeholders in our evaluation planning. (ALL via e-mail)
  6. Determine interview assignments and deadlines. (ALL via e-mail)
  7. Communicate with Perioperative Clerkship directors (Elizabeth Bradley)
  8. Review 2007 LCME report for curriculum evaluation and student assessment information (Elizabeth Bradley, others?)

Next Meeting:  TBA