Minutes 12.02.10

Minutes 12.02.10

Curriculum Committee Minutes 12.02.10

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Curriculum Committee
Minutes – 12.02.10

Pediatric Conference Room, 4:00 p.m.

Present (underlined) were: Gretchen Arnold, Robert Bloodgood, Megan Bray, Troy Buer, Chris Burns, Donna Chen, Eugene Corbett, Thomas Gampper, Wendy Golden, Donald Innes (Chair), Keith Littlewood, Jim Martindale, Veronica Michaelsen, Mohan Nadkarni, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Bill Wilson, Mary Kate WordenJohn Hemler,  Christina Portal,  Nicole White, Guests:  Elizabeth BradleyDebra Reed (secretary)  

  1. LCME Review Group.  A committee has been created begin work on the LCME review scheduled for 2014.  The Committee is scheduled to meet once each month. Members include:   Donald  Innes, John Densmore,  Richard Pearson,  Troy Buer, Addeane Caelleigh, Susan Pollart,
    John Jackson, Anne Kromkowski, and Randolph Canterbury. 

    Don Innes outlined information obtained at the AAMC meeting regarding the most common noncompliance citations from LCME surveys, 10/05 – 6/10 (n=89).

    List taken from the presentation "Medical School Preparation for LCME Accreditation," by Dan HHunt, M.D., M.B.A., LCME Co-Secretary, Novembers, 2010. Additional descriptors and footnotes

       added for this memo

    1. ED-30 — course and clerkship evaluation
    2. ED-2  —central oversight of clinical objectives
    3. ER-9 — affiliation agreements (at minimum, define responsibilities of each part in educational program for medical students)
    4. ED-33— integrated institutional responsibility ("design, management, and evaluation of a coherent and coordinated curriculum")
    5. *ED-8 — comparability of educational experiences and evaluation across sites (by implication, also across time during a single clerkship year)
    6. MS-19— system to assist students' career and electives choice and residency applications
    7. ** ED-24 — non-faculty teachers (residents; graduate students; postdoctoral fellows)
    8. ED-35 — curriculum subject to periodic faculty review and revision
    9. ED-31 — mid-course and mid-clerkship feedback
    10. (tied)
      ED-1   — program objectives (objectives as guide for curriculum content and basis for program evaluation
      *** MS-24 — indebtedness (minimize impact of direct education expenses)
      ER-4  — facilities (appropriate to achieve school's educational and other goals)
      _________________________________________

    *      In the 2006 review, the LCME Committee found the School to be noncompliant in terms of one clerkship; this was primarily a problem of appropriate documentation.

    **   In the 2006 review, the LCME Committee considered the School to be noncompliant with ED-24 for residents in various specialties at Carilion Clinic.

    *** In the 2006 review, the LCME Committee found the School to be in transition (rather than in compliance) because of significant and rapid increases in tuition and fees.

  2. UVA NxGen Curriculum Interim Evaluation Report (Weeks 2-12).    Veronica Michaelsen and Elizabeth Bradley met with the Curriculum Committee to discuss the interim report.  Data for this report comes primarily from classroom observation by the trained observers and student weekly evaluations.   

    Conclusions.  While it is still too soon in the NxGen Curriculum for any major curricular recommendations, some limited conclusions can be drawn based on the qualitative and quantitative data collected and analyzed to date. 

    1.Student Feedback: Students should be encouraged to participate in formal evaluation channels to facilitate interpretation of their comments.

    2.Efficiency: Student comments reflect that a significant source of concern for them is inefficiency in receiving materials. Adequate support for System and Thread leaders as well as System Administration needs to be maintained in order to address this concern.

    3.Learning Objectives: The students are very sensitive to variations in the quality of the learning objectives. Faculty support for the development of learning objectives has been offered in the past with only limited success.

    4. Reporting: Evaluation data needs to be re-analyzed at regular intervals so that appropriate sampling and comparisons are possible. To facilitate this, a structured reporting schedule should be developed that includes who will receive what kinds of data analysis, at what intervals and in what formats. Reports will include evaluation of integration and CPD as this data becomes available later in the academic year and clerkship data as it becomes available later in the NxGen Curriculum.

    5. Observation issues: Variation in the observations needs to be addressed. In the near-term this includes observer calibration and de-briefing to facilitate the use of a common vocabulary. Inter-rater reliability is a long-term solution and will require significant numbers of observations with multiple observers

    6. Technology: The faculty continues to use a limited subset of the technology available to them in the new Learning Studio. Faculty development, either technology-specific instructional design, would be one way to address this issue if it is deemed appropriate to address.

    7. Instructional guidelines: The amount of lecture continues to vary significantly as does the percentage of time that is considered active learning. Additionally, the students report variation in the amount of active learning found in activities that are labeled “engagement” activities. Clear guidelines to the faculty detailing what is expected would help give System leaders leverage and individual instructors clarity as to the specific goals of the NxGen Curriculum.

    The group evaluating the Next Generation Curriculum asked the Curriculum Committee to let them know what information the Committee needs.  Evaluation data is first shared (weekly) with the System Leader(s) of the current course and a summation report is planned for the end of each system.  The Committee will review the summation reports after the System Leader has had time to respond to the issues raised in the report.

    Questions regarding material left out whether intentionally or due to circumstance were discussed.  Some omissions in this report are necessary due to lack of observation and have been noted as such.  Other data will be accumulated/compiled at the end of the system.

    The availability of X-Credit material for system and thread leaders to use to ensure proper coverage of material was discussed. Clear and concise learning objectives are absolutely necessary to enable this system to provide information on subject matter being taught to the system and thread leaders.  This system should be populated with learning objectives from MCM in early January 2011.  The question of whether searches would be possible across platforms (pdf, learning objectives, handouts, powerpoint presentations) was raised and will be looked into.

    Using the evaluation data to highlight areas where repetition is occurring the curriculum and then putting the faculty together to discuss this would be a valuable use of the reports.

    The Committee asks that a final report for MCM be completed by late January in time for distribution prior to the February 4 meeting

    The Evaluation Group believes that some evaluation issues are specific to MCM since it is the longest system and has multiple facets.  Evaluation procedures will also be reevaluated after the MCM evaluation is complete.

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