Minutes 10.16.08

Minutes 10.16.08

University of Virginia School of  Medicine
Curriculum Committee
Minutes
10.16.08

Pediatric Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.                       

Present (underlined) were: Gretchen Arnold, Dan Becker, Robert Bloodgood, Megan Bray, Eugene Corbett, Thomas Gampper, Wendy Golden, Donald Innes (Chair), Keith Littlewood, Veronica Michaelsen, Mohan Nadkarni, Chris Peterson, Jerry Short, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Bill Wilson, Mary Kate Worden, Jason Franasiak, Kira Mayo, Animesh Jain,   Debra Reed (secretary)

  1. Competency Based Curriculum.  The system developed by John Jackson and company has been expanded and refined since last demonstrated to the Curriculum Committee (12.13.07).  We will arrange a demonstration of the latest version for possible use in developing the new curriculum.

  2. Yearly Review of Data 2007-08.  Jerry Short presented the latest statistical data including incoming GPAs, USMLE/MCAT scores and exit questionnaires.

    Input data included
    MCAT Verbal
    MCAT Physical Science
    MCAT Biological Science/
    GPA

    Output data included:
    USMLE Step 1 Basic Science
    USMLE Step 2CK Clinical Knowledge
    USMLE Step 2CS Clinical Skills
    AAMC Graduation Questionnaire
    Student Evaluations of Courses

    Summary
    Strengths
    - Faculty
    - Academic preparation
    - Residents
    - Students
    - Support Staff

    Weaknesses
    - Clinical experience
    - Clinical relevance of some basic science courses. 

    The Committee discussed the data presented and what might be inferred from the data.

    Dr. Short noted that follow up data from matriculated students is difficult to get and even though residency programs have been surveyed only about 25% of those querried for information responded.  Confidentiality issues may be partially to blame for the low response rate.

  3. Continuation of Next Generation Medical Education Discussion.    Don Innes presented information from SMEC on the development of the new curriculum.

    SMEC:  Thoughts on a new curriculum

    Based on SMEC Executive committee meeting, 10/15/08. 

    Caution - make sure changes are well thought out and planned

    Commitment - need a commitment to getting teachers, including clinicians
    o This must come from "top-down" and be backed by appropriate financial support.

    Curriculum design
    o Not a strong desire for one particular system. An organ-system like approach (e.g, UNC curriculum) was favored by most students. We also feel that this is really just an extension of what is being already attempted in the 2nd year course.
    o Opposed to radical changes, as in proposals B or anonymous proposal

    Learning styles - need a mix of lecture and case based learning

    Time/Burden - make sure not too place too much of the learning burden of the new curriculum on students or attendings

    Mentorship - beneficial overall, need faculty support
    o Issues with mentoring - individual students will utilize the mentors to differing degrees. Also, finding 1:1 mentors is exceptionally difficult.
    o Strong support for a college system. This allows for a supportive community early on. Colleges could have several faculty members with students from all 4 years. This would provide mentoring from upperclass students as well as several faculty members. Students would have a variety of mentors to work with. 

    Clinical teaching - need to teach more clinical material early on if you will be testing with clinical vignettes on exams and on USMLE Gateway.

  4. A model for an integrated (systems based) curriculum matrix and an example of one representative system was put forth for discussion. The varying degree of undergraduate preparation for medical students was discussed and how this will impact a new integrated curriculum. More clinical skills should be taught and evaluated in the first two years of medical school - it was suggested that the use of a passport-like form might be useful. Coordination between the various disciplines in a system as well as coordination at a higher level between the systems is deemed very important and development plan will need to include both. Each system would be tested individually with one exam covering the various disciplines covered. Veronica Michaelsen has been provided a copy of the "Content in Color" developed a few years ago.  She will actively monitor the new curriculum to make sure pertinent topics do not fall through the cracks.
               

Donald Innes

dmr