Minutes 04.17.14

Minutes 04.17.14

CC Minutes 04.17.14

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Curriculum Committee
Minutes – 04/17/14

Pediatric Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.

Present (underlined) were: Gretchen Arnold, Stephen Borowitz, Elizabeth Bradley, Megan Bray, Donna Chen,  Peter Ham, Donald Innes (Chair),  Sean JacksonKeith Littlewood, Nancy McDanielBart NathanSabrina Nunez,  Theresa Schlager, Neeral Shah, Amita SudhirLinda Waggoner-Fountain, Bill Wilson,  Mary Kate Worden,  Mary Grace Baker,  Lee Eschenroeder, Dierdre Good, Jon Pomeraniec, Debra Reed,  (secretary)

  1. Social Issues In Medicine (SIM) Review.  Elizabeth Bradley outlined the recent annual review of SIM.

    Recommendations:

    Rework Content Lectures:
    Based on student comments and the SIM Core System Liaison (CSL), the students value the content talks in SIM, especially the variety of topics addressed and the expertise and passion of the speakers. Areas for improvement include more balanced content talks, perhaps offering more than one perspective. In general students would like more engagement, e.g. assigning pre-work to cover the basic concepts; then use class time for discussions or other application exercises.
    Maintain the tremendous support provided to students by Dela Alexander and Mo Nadkarni: Much work is done behind the scenes to administer the SIM course. Students see very little of this, however they recognize and praise that it is a well run and meaningful program, and that Dela and Mo care very much about the students and the program.
    Clarify Learning Objectives and Link to Assessment Methodologies: Though students recognize SIM is a unique and vital course in the curriculum, they comment that linking learning objectives to assessment activities (ex. MCQs, reflections, “future notes”) for the content talks and service activities could increase participation in content talk and CPD discussions.   The learning objectives should be updated for clarity.  Assessment methodologies linked to learning objectives need to be developed for this course, i.e. multiple choice exam questions, a poster session, a graded narrative paper with a rubric for grading.
    Continue to refine expectations by site: The students praised the organization of SIM and the stellar support provided throughout the experience. While there is some variation in responsibility, activity, and hours at the service learning sites the nature of this program necessitates variety in order to offer the students options for service learning experience. Communication of the expectations at individual sites at the start would increase student understanding about the variety. The assessment process with sharing of their experiences through poster sessions or small group presentations would also contribute to everyone seeing their roles though different as part of a whole community contribution.

    Kudos were given to the SIM leaders, (Mo Nadkarni and Dela) for constant monitoring of sites and preceptors, the organization and ultimately the success of this course. They constantly strive to develop and implement interactive sessions (i.e. one lecture in MBB has now morphed into an interactive session well received by the students).
    Dela Alexander and Dr. Nadkarni monitor the preceptors to make sure the SIM learning experience is comparable for all students.


     
  2. Guidelines for the Student /Teacher Relationship.  Donna Chen incorporated suggestions from the Curriculum Committee into the Guidelines document.  The Committee approved adoption of these guidelines pending review by University Counsel (Lynn Flemming).  Guidelines will be published on the web for students and faculty when the University Counsel has approved.


  3. Learning Objective Review.  The clerkship subcommittees completed their review the learning objectives. The suggested revisions will be forwarded to the Clerkship Directors for incorporation into their learning objectives.    It was noted that Clerkship Directors may need guidance in refining their learning objectives.   Michele Yoon is an excellent resource.  Megan Bray who has developed excellent learning objectives for both the Endo/OBGYN system and the OBGYN Clerkship is a valuable resource regarding content issues for other clerkship directors.


  4. Grade Distribution Histogram.  The committee reviewed a histogram that is created when grades are uploaded to Oasis.  The histogram allows students to see where their grade falls in relation to the rest of the students in their class.  The Committee agreed that this histogram is valuable to the students and should be consistently provided to students with their formative and summative grades in the pre-clerkship courses and systems.  Aniseh Burtner, who uploads all student grades into Oasis, will be asked to make sure the histogram is created for each formative and summative grade.

    Histogram


  5. Clerkship Grades.  A final review of all clerkship grade submission dates for SMD15 showed that all were submitted on time with only one exception in Perioperative Care; however, within the 6-weeks mandated by the LCME.   UVA SOM requires that students receive grades within 5 weeks.


  6. PostClerkship Retreat Report.  Nancy McDaniel and Linda Waggoner-Fountain briefed the Committee on progress made at the 4/14/14 Post Clerkship Retreat.  The group is made up of faculty from many disciplines, i.e. humanities, basic science, and clerkships as well as students.  The group is looking at how to assure that skills students will need in various disciplines are offered.  Maintaining the “elective” nature of the fourth year is believed to be paramount.  The group has developed a list of items to work on and will meet again on 5/19.  The group will present recommendations to the Curriculum Committee when their work is complete.  Nancy McDaniel will be distributing minutes of the 4/14/14. Don Innes emphasized the continuum of clinical experiences from the first year to graduation and asked the group to focus on integration between the clerkships and the post-clerkship period – commonalities, threads, paths of divergence, remediation, career development, e.g. leadership.


  7. Clinical Skills Exam Scores for SMD14.  The Committee was apprised of the scores for the first 81 students who have taken the Step 2 CS exam.  Of the first 81 reported grades, three students did not pass the exam – all three have retaken the exam - one has now passed the exam and two are pending.  The Committee discussed whether the failures might have to do with students taking the exam who have been out of the clinical arena for some time.

  8. Neurology Subject Exam Compared to Neurology Final Grade.  A graph comparing the neurology subject exam to the final neurology clerkship grade was reviewed.   Students who had to retake the subject examination and have not received a grade were excluded until a final grade is obtained for their shelf exams.  There appears to be a strong correlation between these two grades.

    Neurology VS Shelf Exam

 

Donald J. Innes, Jr., M.D.    
Debra Reed