Minutes 03.07.13

Minutes 03.07.13

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Curriculum Committee
Minutes – 03/07/13

Pediatric Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.

Present (underlined) were:  Gretchen Arnold, Robert Bloodgood, Stephen Borowitz, Megan Bray, Donna Chen,  Peter Ham, Donald Innes (Chair), John Jackson, Keith Littlewood, Nancy McDaniel, Bart Nathan,  Selina Noramly,  Theresa Schlager,  Amita Sudhir, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Casey White,  Bill Wilson,  Mary Kate Worden, Courtney Chou, Jean-Baptiste Maitre,   Elizabeth Bradley,  Debra Reed (secretary),

  1. Cardiovascular (CV) System Review. The Curriculum Committee discussed the 2012 CV review compiled by Elizabeth Bradley.

    CV-System Specific Conclusions 2012

    1. System Leadership: The students praised the Cardiovascular System Leadership. They commented repeatedly on the responsiveness of Drs. Dent and Nunez to student comments and concerns. Students appreciated their kind and caring demeanor, and their passion for and skill in teaching.

    2. Clinical Relevance: The students praised the clinical relevance of the CV System. From content to process, the material was provided in a clinical context that both reinforced student learning, and continually reminded them of how it is a prelude to their future as physicians.

    3. Content Delivery: Student praised the short pathology pre-recorded video lectures that Dr. LeGallo created. Some suggested that they be used for Histology content as well.

    4. Physiology Content: The strongest concern voiced by the students focused on the Physiology content. Students commented that the learning objectives, assessment questions, delivery, and level of difficulty of the Physiology can all be reworked, in an effort to improve student learning and comprehension.



  2. Renal System Review. The Curriculum Committee discussed the 2012 Renal review compiled by Elizabeth Bradley.

    Renal-System Specific Conclusions 2012

    1. System Leadership: The students spoke highly of the System Leaders. Specifically, they found them to be approachable, helpful, and understanding. Students also appreciated their visibility in the classroom, as well their stellar teaching.

    2. Learning Objectives: The students felt the learning objectives in Renal could be refined. They commented that they were too vague, and didn’t link well to lectures or assessments. This made it difficult for student to know what to focus on learning.

    3. Frequent quizzing: The students appreciated how the frequent quizzing in the Renal System helped them stay on top of the material. However, due to vague learning objecitves, it was difficult to know how to prepare for assessments.

    4. Clinical Relevance: Again this year, students praised Renal for it’s clinical relevance. The course content integrated the basic science and clinical content well, supporting student learning of the material.

    5. PRL’s: Students commented that they found the PRL’s to be of high quality, and useful to their learning. The students appreciated applying the material in class. They did not however seem to support the use of even more PRLs in Renal, in an effort to free up class time for active learning sessions.

  3. Pulmonary System Review. The Curriculum Committee discussed the 2012 Renal review compiled by Elizabeth Bradley.

    Pulmonary Specific Conclusions 2012

    1.  Organization of Content: The students’ biggest concern appears to be that of the overall organization of the content in the Pulmonary System. They felt that it was choppy, and jumped around too much. They felt that a stronger foundation of Physiology needs to be established early in the System.

    2.  Clinical Relevance: The students praised the clinical relevance of the Pulmonary System. From content to process, the material was provided in a clinical context that both reinforced student learning, and continually reminded them of how it is a prelude to their future as physicians.

    3.  System Leadership: The students spoke highly of the Pulmonary System Leadership even as they provided constructive feedback about the System. They commented on the responsiveness of Dr. Gay to student feedback. The students found her dedicated and patient throughout the System.

    4. Content Delivery: As in Cardiovascular, the students praised the short pathology pre-recorded video lectures that Dr. LeGallo created, and the pathology thread throughout the Pulmonary System.

    5.  Learning Objectives: The learning objectives need refinement and they need a stronger and more direct link to assessment questions. 

    The Committee agreed that Cardiovascular, Renal and Pulmonary had shown improvement over their initial offerings in 2011.  It was noted that Cardiovascular and Pulmonary did experience a change in leadership in 2012.  Concerns that arise during the first year of course leadership are often resolved in subsequent years.

    It was noted that Cardiovascular physical examination skills will be taught earlier in the Renal/CV/Pulmonary System schedule in 2013.    Due to the recent reordering of the three systems, CV basic science material will also be presented more prominently in the earlier  renal system in 2013 as well.

    Learning objectives and their ties to the published learning resources in all three systems should be reviewed and modified as needed. A list of recommendations or actions will be developed and provided to the System Leaders.

  4. Perioperative Medicine Clerkship.  Due to the changing nature of the Perioperative Medicine Clerkship, clerkship, ( i.e. changing from one to two weeks and no longer affiliated with the Acute Care clerkship) directors in this system have proposed that the course be renamed the “Anesthesia” clerkship.  The Committee agreed that this nomenclature would be less confusing to faculty, staff and students and will recommend this change.

Nancy L. McDaniel
dmr