Minutes 01_11_12

Minutes 01_11_12

System Leader Minutes 01.11.12

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Systems Leadership Community
January 11, 2012

Medical Education Building, Learning Studio, 4:00 p.m.



Present (underlined) were:  Dela Alexander, Brian Behm, Alan Binder, Robert Bloodgood, Elizabeth Bradley, Megan Bray, Mary Bryant, Chris Burns, Addeane Caelleigh, Randy Canterbury, Eva Casola, Anne Chapin, Bobby Chhabra, Pamela Clark, Bruce Cohen,  Eugene Corbett, Alan Dalkin, John Dent, Marcel Durieux, Terri Ellison, Elizabeth Gay, Melissa Hirst, Allison Innes,  Don Innes, John Jackson, Kim Joyce, Kambiz Kalantarinia, Karen Knight, Darci Lieb, Stuart Lowson, Jen Marks, Jim Martindale, Melanie McCollum, Veronica Michaelsen, Mo Nadkarni, Bart Nathan, Selina Noramly, Sabrina Nuñez, Dick Pearson, Chris Peterson, Sue Pollart, Ellen Ramsey, Barbara Rogers, Mitch Rosner, Paula Roy, Mark Russell, Neeral Shah, Allan Simpson, Nassima Ait-Daoud Tiouririne, Melanie Tomlin, Jonathan Truwit, Keith Underwood, Linda Wagoner-Fountain, Casey White, Mary Kate Worden, Elizabeth Wright, Zhen Yan.  Student Representatives:  Richard Rueb (2012), Kaitlyn Snyder (2013), Michael Hrdy (2014 ) 

Conveners:  Bart Nathan and Chris Burns

  1. Findings from recent evaluations.  Elizabeth Bradley report on student comments and requests that have appeared repeatedly in recent evaluations:  (1) that on slides the normal structure be shows alongside the abnormal; (2) the TBL with two experts and two facilitators are very successful, (3) the application cases in HEME went very well, (4) it would be helpful to have review of prior material built into current sessions, (5) to boost attendance at SIM and Patient Interview sessions, they should be held after a TBL.  Chris Burns noted that they have also suggested that these sessions be held later in the week when the students have more mastery of the week’s material. 

  2. Educational technology.  John Jackson reported that changes have been made in XCredit:  key words are now to be linked to each learning objective, with the terms selected from a drop-down menu.  He also reported that the microphones upstairs are installed and working in the auditorium.  Randy Canterbury urged session leaders to require students to use them because it is so difficult to hear from the rear of the room.      

  3. Policies and procedures for Instructional Support purchase orders and reimbursements Kim Joyce reported on new guidelines developed for purchase orders and reimbursements and the procedures for holding CSLs (Core Student Liaison) meetings.  Note:  The revised, approved guidelines are attached.  She noted that each system has a budget (starting at $1500, with the amount depending on the length of the system).  In reply to a question, it was noted that these guidelines do not apply to CPD.  It was decided that library expenses should also be captured as part of the Instructional Support budget; Karen Knight will provide that information.

  4. Academic Standards and Achievement Committee (“Promotions Committee”).  Bart Nathan reported on the recent ASA Committee meeting about SMD2014 and SMD2015 performance.  In SMD 2015, no students have failed MCM or MIS.  In SMD2014, four students failed one system, and one student failed two systems. Because the current policy for promotion was written for the former curriculum (and therefore focused on passing and/or remediation for courses), there was ambiguity about how current applies to students in SMD2014.  The policy is that a student who fails a course must repeat it.  The new curriculum, however, has only four courses—MCM, Preclerkship (Systems), SIM, and CPD.  Therefore there was disagreement about applying this policy to performance in systems, and the committee concluded that no remediation would be required for the five SMD2014 students who failed one or more systems. 

    The policy has been changed for SMD2015 and following classes:  Each student must pass all summative exams; a student who fails a summative must re-take and pass that exam.  The exams will be taken in the summer or in the winter, depending on when the System is done.

    In discussion that followed, it was noted that the ASA Committee must meet at the end of the first year of the curriculum to begin identifying students who must repeat exams.  John Jackson emphasized the new policy must be revised on several web pages and show clearly state “effective as of [date].”

  5. Collaborative teaching and faculty evaluation and credit for teaching.  Bart Nathan that in situations of collaborative design and/or teaching, it is hard for students to evaluate faculty because they do not know who to evaluation and even that they should be evaluating them.  In discussion of the difficulties of faculty evaluation in the new curriculum, it was emphasized that ways must be devised to assure that faculty involved in design, TBL facilitation, and recorded lectures receive credit (that can be noted in P&T documentation) and payment.  It was noted that Elizabeth Bradley can provide TBL evaluation data for TBL facilitators.  Randy Canterbury emphasized that it is important to work out how to create faculty evaluation and program evaluation that reflects the team design and team delivery that is at the core of the curriculum structure.

    Next meeting.  The next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, February 8, 2012, at 4:00, in the Learning Studio of the Medical Education Building.