Minutes 10.23.08

Minutes 10.23.08

University of Virginia School of  Medicine
Curriculum Committee

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, Keith Littlewood, Veronica Michaelsen, Mohan Nadkarni, Chris Peterson, Jerry Short, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Bill Wilson (Chair), Mary Kate Worden, Jason Franasiak, Kira Mayo, Animesh Jain,   Guest:  Elizabeth Bradley, Debra Reed (secretary)

  1. Curriculum Evaluation.  Elizabeth Bradley updated the Committee on early plans for evaluating the new curriculum.  The evaluation process should answer the question "Did our hard work make a difference?"

    Some basic considerations as we embark upon the process of curriculum reform:

    1. Create the evaluation plan as the curriculum is being developed
    2. Clearly define the problem to be addressed
    3. Clearly define curriculum goals and objectives to be achieved
    4. Consider how the information will/should be used
    5. Stakeholder driven process
    6. Remain transparent
    7. Remain flexible/create a process responsive to change
    8. Develop infrastructure to support the evaluation process

    Curriculum Objectives are required as the template for curriculum evaluation and the Committee agreed that the objectives already in place for the curriculum of the School of  Medicine are well thought out and specific.

    The types of questions a comprehensive evaluation might ask:

    1. Is the planned curriculum "good" and "appropriate"? (Intrinsic value)
    2. Will what is planned address the stated goals and objectives, and who is the intended audience? (Instrumental value)
    3. Is the new program better than the old one? (Comparative value)
    4. How can the new program be improved? (Idealization value)
    5. Will the evaluation process provide the evidence needed to determine whether It should be kept, changed, or eliminated? (Decision value)

    Dr. Bradley provided a few more thoughts on the evaluation process and asked for feedback from the Committee.
    There are as many approaches to evaluation as there are programs to be evaluated. 

    From WKKF: " we believe that good evaluation is nothing more than good thinking."
    From Will Rogers:  "Even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there."

    She also offered suggestions as to what the next steps in developing the evaluation process might be such as appointing a subcommittee to begin developing an evaluation plan; continued literature review and monthly progress reports to Curriculum Committee.

    The Committee agreed that changes to the curriculum should be monitored carefully.    The lack of good outcome data was discussed.  Residency programs and matriculated students are reluctant to provide information.  It has been suggested that students be asked to sign a waiver prior to graduation that their residency program can be contacted for information on their progress.

    Strategies for proceeding with curricular change were discussed. 

    Chris Peterson provided information on pertinent books on curriculum evaluation that the Committee might read.

    Practical Guide to the Evaluation of Clinical Competence by Eric S. Holmboe and Richard E. Hawkins (Authors)

    Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada: The CanMeds Assessment Tool Handbook by Bandiera (Author)

  2. Approval of Clerkship Directors.  Drs. Ashley Shilling and Claire Plautz have been nominated to be the clerkship directors for the new Acute Care and Perioperative Clerkship.  Dr. Aval-Na'Ree S. Green has been nominated to be the clerkship director for the new Geriatrics Clerkship.   The Committee discussed the nominations and enthusiastically voted to approve all of these appointments. 

Donald Innes