Minutes 10.25.12

Minutes 10.25.12

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Curriculum Committee Executive Management Group
Minutes – 10/25/12

Pediatric Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.

 

Present (underlined) were: Peter Ham, Donald Innes (Chair), Keith Littlewood, Nancy McDaniel, Bart Nathan, Casey White, Mary Kate Worden

  1. Announcements:

    Interim USMLE Step 1 Scores for Examinees taking the test for the first time in 2012 with Scores reported through October 3, 2012 were distributed.  UVA mean score is 232 and the US and Canadian mean score is 227. Ninety-six percent of UVA students passed the exam on their first attempt.  A final report will be received in February 2013.  Six students failed the examination – some have retaken and passed – others have not retaken the exam and/or not passed it on the second attempt.
    Jim Martindale compared student performance in the systems versus performance on Step 1 and there was a high correlation between the two grades. Students will be made aware of this correlation.

    Step 2 CS Scores for students taking the test for the first time – July 2011 to May 2012 were also reviewed.  UVA SOM scored above the national mean in all areas tested.    More OSCE’s have been introduced currently and it is thought that this will improve scores on this exam next year.  The Curriculum Committee recommends that all the clerkships develop and use OSCEs to help students become familiar with this type of examination and assess student clinical skill performance that needs remediation earlier.

    Designation of a “lead” instructor will be available to system leaders in Oasis beginning with MIS in 2012.   This effects how much faculty are paid for teaching.  When a lead instructor is designated, that faculty member will be paid for preparation time and the other faculty teaching in the event will not be paid for preparation time.  Not all team taught sessions should have a lead instructor designated and if no designation is made, all members of the faculty will receive compensation for preparation time.  The System Leader will make the designation of “lead” faculty when appropriate.   

  2. Art in Medicine - Art in Medicine is program being considered by the UVA SOM to enhance student observational skills.  The program is already used by other medical schools, FBI, NYPD, Secret Service, Homeland security and others and attempts to enhance student perception skills through the observation of art.  Information on the program may be found on the following websites:

    Welcome to the Art of Perception
    http://aop.artfulperception.com/

    Class Helping Future Doctors Learn the Art of Observation
    http://news.yale.edu/2009/04/10/class-helping-future-doctors-learn-art-observation

    By Observing Art, Med Students Learn Art of Observation
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/02/health/by-observing-art-med-students-learn-art-of-observation.html?scp=1&sq=%22art%20of%20observation%22%20medical%20students&st=cse

  3. Renal/CV/Pulmonary Schedule for 2014.   Much e-mail discussion has been involved in rearranging the Renal/CV/Pulmonary schedule for 2014.    The leaders and other interested parties for each of these systems will meet on November 6, 2012 to settle on details for this realignment of the schedule.  The group will be asked to notify CPD leaders as soon as possible after this meeting to confirm the schedule.  The Executive Management Group supports this redesign and will ask that once this redesign has been implemented it should continue for subsequent years as well.

  4. Clerkship Grading Policy.  The Committee reviewed a proposed grading policy for all clerkships.  A consistent clerkship grading policy is important to meet LCME standards and will be implemented in the clerkships for 2013. Clerkship grades should include in-house exams/quizzes with questions linked directly to clerkship learning objectives.  The Clerkship Directors have been offered the services of Michele Yoon and Jim Martindale to help them develop well-designed exam/quiz questions.   Minimum passing scores must be consistent across clerkships (e.g. 70%). The clerkship directors discussed at length the grading proposal. Some felt it was too restrictive, that assessment would detract from reading about patients, or decrease performance on the shelf exam. The Curriculum Committee recommends approval.

    Clerkship Grading Policy beginning 2013-2014:
    25% NBME
    20% assessment (generally knowledge assessment linking to the learning objectives, e.g. weekly quizzes, but could be short essay, etc)
    5% professionalism
    50% clinical (should include 10% OSCE* + 40% clinical evaluation)

    *The OSCE component could be increased as we gain experience.

  5. Formation of student groups for TBLs, problem sets, CPD and SIM. Casey White spoke to the group about randomizing student small groups in particular for problem sets.   “Many of the systems use problem sets to engage our medical students in their learning.  Educationally, randomizing students into groups working on pedagogical approaches such as problem sets enhances their learning — randomization helps to assure that students in a group will represent different levels of understanding, and that the students with the highest level of understanding will help students at lower levels to master the material.  Also, recently, several of us have conducted a qualitative study in which we  interviewed ~15 students from SMD-14 and another 15 from SMD-15.  We used a semi-structured protocol to try to understand more deeply their learning experiences in the Learning Studio.  Information we got from the students was candid and outstanding.  Many of the students choose the table they sit at based on their circle of friends; while this is certainly understandable, it is not random.  We (and several of the students who said they learn much better when they are in randomized groups like the TBL groups) believe learning is enhanced when students are either challenged or in a position to help their peers learn or both.” 

    The Executive Management group discussed the pros and cons of randomization and suggested that during the next eight problem sets, students be randomized for four of the sessions and allowed to self-select groups for four.  At the conclusion of these eight problem sets, data (i.e. evaluation data, grades, etc.) should be evaluated and a decision made at that time on whether to require random groups in subsequent problem sets.  Casey White will facilitate this study.

  6. Clinical Performance Development (CPD) Recommendations. CPD recommendations developed after last week’s CPD review will be circulated to the Executive Management Group by e-mail.  The group is asked to review these recommendations and offer suggestions/comments. The recommendations will be presented to CPD leaders when the review is complete.

Donald J. Innes, Jr., M.D.
dmr