Minutes 06.19.14

Minutes 06.19.14

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Curriculum Committee
Minutes – 06/19/14

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), Keith Littlewood, Nancy McDaniel, Mark Moody, Bart Nathan, Sabrina Nunez,  Theresa Schlager, Neeral Shah, Amita SudhirLinda Waggoner-Fountain, Bill Wilson,  Mary Kate Worden, Jonathan Pomeraniec,  Brandon Hunter, Debra Reed (secretary)

  1. Endocrine/Reproductive System Review.    Recommendations/Conclusions from the Endo/Repro System Review were reviewed and endorsed by the Curriculum Committee.
    Megan Bray, System Leader, noted that further integration and  suggested reorganization will take place for 2014.  Resources have also been streamlined for 2014.

    Recommendations/Conclusions 2013:

    1.  The System Leaders and Faculty: The students spoke very highly of the System Leaders, Drs. Bray and Dalkin, commenting specifically on their responsiveness to student feedback, and their approachability. Student comments and numeric ratings supported the strength of the System Leaders and the other teaching faculty in Endo/Repro. The students felt they were very knowledgeable about the content, and did an excellent job of conveying the subject matter to the students.
    2.  Resources and Learning Objectives: Similarly to last year, the students voiced concerns about the resources provided for learning content. They commented that the resources were too advanced/dense for their current level of knowledge, and they felt that the provided resources didn’t link well to the learning objectives. Finally, delays in posting the materials appeared to be a frustration to the students. Continued review of LO’s and learning objectives for appropriateness, and timeliness of postings is recommended.
    3.  Clinical relevance and application of material: The students praised the clinical cases that were infused throughout the System, citing the degree to which it helped students solidify the material. Additionally, the Female Gynecological Teaching Associates (FGTA) and Male Urological Teaching Associates (MUTA) clinical skills exercises were extremely useful to the students.
    4. Content integration and organization: Many students indicated that they felt the organization and flow of the Endocrinology weeks of the system worked well and supported their learning. They also felt that this System integrated material from prior Systems quite well. Some students did however express concern about what they perceived as a deficiency in some reproduction content areas (normal pregnancy, labor, delivery), and other topics that the students felt would be emphasized on boards. A review of this content is recommended to determine appropriateness of coverage toward the achievement of System goals.

    It was noted that some of the comments obtained from student evaluations were unprofessional and offered no constructive criticism.  Comments with unprofessional language will not be considered when making improvements to the systems/courses/clerkships.  Addressing professionalism in student reviews will be included in the Orientation as well as reiterated in theTransition Course.

    Mary Kate Worden suggested that all systems should note in their reviews the percentage of review questions as well as the percentages of questions rated as high level and low level in Blooms taxonomy. It was agreed that this should be done as questions are constructed and reviewed. Nancy McDaniel will convey this to the Clerkship Committee.

    Selina Noramly will be working with System Leaders Megan Bray and Alan Dalkin again in 2014.

    The Committee discussed student comments regarding the percentage of “active learning” in this system.   Some students complain of too much active learning and other not enough.   More extensive introduction outlining the advantages of active learning will be incorporated into orientation.    Casey White may have data on grade performance for those students who attend and do not attend active learning sessions to encourage students to attend these sessions.


  2. Clerkship Grades.  All clerkships are asked to keep their grades in an Excel spreadsheet with clearly delineated percentages for each graded activity in the final grade.  This information will be used in the Data Warehouse for comparison purposes by Medical Education faculty. It is also helpful for completing AAMC questionnaires.


  3. Clerkship Learning Objective Project.  Clerkships will be asked to assign XCREDiT keywords for the learning objectives for their course.  This project must be completed by August 30, 2014. Linda Waggoner-Fountain has almost completed this for Pediatrics and will share her system as well as offer other methods to the Clerkship Directors at the Clerkship/PostClerkship meeting on Monday 6/23/2014.   All clerkship learning objectives are already in XCREDiT.  This will enable clerkship directors to input the coding via XCREDiT or have support staff enter the codes after they are selected by the clerkship directors.


  4. Life Saving Techniques Workshop.   The first two Life Saving Techniques Workshops of the 2014-15 Clerkship year have been cancelled due to staff shortages in the Simulation Center.  All three simulation specialists left the University within a short period of time.  Keith Littlewood reports that they are replacing the specialists and should be back up to full staffing by the end of July.  Since approximately 40 students will have to make up this activity, Keith Littlewood will work on a plan to accomplish this and present this to Don Innes within two weeks.  The two days at the end of the DX/RX course were proposed as alternative dates and/or having the students schedule the workshop makeup individually during their fourth year.   The alternative to cancel the workshops for the entire year was not well received  by anyone on the Curriculum Committee.    This is a requirement for graduation but is not necessarily required in the clerkship year.

  5. Follow-up on the Student Transplant Surgery Pager Program A note was received from Dr. Kenneth Brayman – “Thanks, we will regroup on the idea and the revised proposal.”


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