Minutes 12.13.12

Minutes 12.13.12

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Curriculum Committee Executive Management Group
Minutes – 12/13/12

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,  Debra Reed (Secretary)

  1. Announcements:

    Evan Heald, the director of the AIM portion of the Medicine clerkship has proposed that the compensation rate should remain the same for preceptors in 2013-14 even though the length of AIM rotations has been shortened from four weeks to three. Since the amount of preparation time for the AIM mentors will remain the same, the Committee agreed with this proposal. 

    Dr. Heald also noted that the leader of one of the workshops on nutrition has been historically compensated through the Brodie Foundation and is committed to continue in the immediate future.  This workshop may need funding from the School of Medicine to continue after the Brodie funds are depleted.  The group discussed whether University faculty rather than hospital staff might be recruited to conduct this workshop thus eliminating the need for auxiliary funding.

  2. Team Based Learning (TBL) Proposal.  The Committee discussed the following proposal from the TBL Committee:

    Proposal for factoring TBL grades:

    Each TBL grade will be determined as follows:
    40% of final TBL grade comes from IRAT score
    57% of final TBL grade comes from GRAT score
    3% of final TBL grade comes from "Team accountability Score (TASC)" *

    * "Team Accountability Score" is scored as either 100% or 0%.  Each team member receives full credit for the TASC if all members complete their required wrap-around team evaluation exercise.  If any team member fails to complete this evaluation then each team member receives zero credit for the TASC.

    The goal is to encourage/enforce student participation in TBLs and how the grading percentages were developed.  Whether to let members of the group know which member’s noncompliance resulted in the 3% reduction in grade was discussed.  The Committee agreed that this proposal should be implemented in 2013 with automatic e-mails sent to the group who is noncompliant in evaluations.  These e-mails for the present time would not include the name of the student(s) who were noncompliant.    This will be reexamined after the policy is in effect for one year.

  3. Academic Policy on Professionalism.  Casey White asked that the Committee review the Policy on Professionalism.  Some items in the policy need to be further clarified.

    Any breach of professionalism resulting in a recorded observation, e.g. Concern Card, letter, written report, etc. must be addressed with the student by his or her College Dean and documentation of the discussion must be recorded and placed in the student’s file by the registrar and be reviewed by the Chair of the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee (ASAC).

    The addition of the above italicized portion was approved.

    ·If concerns do not reach level of ASAC, they will be purged from the student record at graduation. 
    ·ll concerns must have some level of response by the college dean and be documented in the student’s file.  
    ·The ASAC committee may be superseded by University policy or legal action. 
    ·The ASAC will meet formally twice per year and will meet on an as needed basis (within 30 days of a report) to address immediate issues. [A mechanism for administrative action should be devised to handle immediate disposition of acute events.]

    Don Innes will revise the policy with the above changes; then vet with the Curriculum Committee, and then legal consul for the University.

  4. Clerkship Progress – Learning Objectives, Resources, Assessment.  Nancy McDaniel is working with the clerkship directors to assure that learning objectives are in place.  Progress is very good with some clerkships and lacking in others.  She will continue to work on this.  The implementation of periodic assessments linked directly to the learning objectives is also progressing in some clerkships but not so much in others.  Discussion in the Clerkship/PostClerkship Committee continues on establishing a consistent grading policy among all the clerkships.  All students are required to pass the NBME subject exam in each clerkship offering the exam. [Note that beginning March 2013 the pass point will be the most recent “Recommended Hofstee Passing Grade”. This is found on page 2 of the NBME Subject Examination Report. At the July 5, 2012 Curriculum Committee meeting the Hofstee Method was approved for the Class of 2015.] The clerkships will be required to develop a general standardized grading policy. If a student fails to pass the shelf exam, the ASAC recommends the remediation method. Suggestions will be made to standardize the clinical evaluations in Oasis for all clerkships.

    The Curriculum Committee asks that the following grading schematic be conveyed to the Clerkship directors for immediate implementation in 2013.
    ·~25% NBME (must pass)
    ·20% assessment, e.g. workshops, quizzes, web based cases, etc. (low stakes but enough to encourage reading and preparation)
    ·5% professionalism
    ·50% clinical (could include 10% OSCE + 40% clinical evaluation, e.g. Hx & PE skills, oral & written presentations, communication with team and patients, accountability, etc.)
    ·Minimum elements - Behavior, humanism, patient logs are considered necessary, need to meet these for minimum competency; must be noted in evaluation

  5. Stability of Preclerkship Phase.  The Committee discussed the need to adjust the curriculum only as necessary for the coming year.   Any major renovations for the upcoming year should be thoroughly reviewed by system leaders and the Curriculum Committee before implementation.   The Committee agreed that minor adjustments will always be necessary and the curriculum should remain actively responsive to student and faculty input.

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