Minutes 02.08.12

Minutes 02.08.12

University of Virginia School of Medicine 
Systems Leadership Community
February 8, 2012

Medical Education Building, Simulation Center Conference Room, 4:00 p.m. 

Present (underlined) were:  Dela Alexander, Brian Behm, Alan Binder, Alex Bitzer, Robert Bloodgood, Elizabeth Bradley, Megan Bray, Mary Bryant, Chris Burns, Addeane Caelleigh, Randy Canterbury, Eva Casola, Anne Chapin, Bobby Chhabra, Pam Clark, Bruce Cohen,  Eugene Corbett, Alan Dalkin, John Dent, Marcel Durieux, Terri Ellison, Allison InnesDon Innes, John Jackson, Kim Joyce, Kambiz Kalantarinia, Karen Knight, Darci Lieb, Keith Littlewood, Stuart Lowson, Jen Marks, Jim Martindale, Melanie McCollum, Veronica Michaelsen, Mo Nadkarni, Bart Nathan, Selina Noramly, Sabrina Nuñez, Dick Pearson, Chris Peterson, Sue Pollart, Bart Ragon, 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, Mary Kate Worden, Elizabeth Wright, Zhen Yan 

Student Representatives:  Richard Rueb (2012), Kaitlyn Snyder (2013), Michael Hrdy (2014 ) 

Convener:  Bart Nathan & Chris Burns

  1. Improving the System Leaders (SL) Committee.  Randy Canterbury commented on ways that the System Leaders group can be more effective and productive:

    a.  assure that all  System Leaders attend meetings (only 8 of 20 were present)

    b.  determine how best to work together to oversee the preclerkship, since the System Leaders as a group are responsible for this preclerkship, not merely members’ individual system,

    c.  assure that the curriculum is more coherent overall (the LCME requires a coherent curriculum from matriculation to graduation)

    d.   assure that clerkship directors review Systems content and give feedback to Systems Leaders

    e.  set systematic and consistent policies for the preclerkship curriculum

    f.  create new approaches and practices for the group’s work

    g.  meet more often and with a different focus to accomplish the group’s work

    h.  conduct peer evaluation of System Leaders’ work on curriculum

    He added that the LCME expects a great deal of UVa, given its status among medical schools, and the School must be ready.  Because 2013 will be the database year for the upcoming accreditation review, the LCME will base its re-accreditation decisions on what is in place in August 2012.

    Bart Nathan commented that he and Chris had felt the need for many of these changes for some time.  He reminded the group that clinicians are paid 10% of their salary all year for their work as System Leaders plus additional salary during their individual Systems.  In terms of attendance, it is important for clinician System Leaders to block out these meetings and related activities on their schedules.

  2.  Expand scope of System Leader Committee.  The Committee needs to determine how best to meet its responsibilities, deciding on the frequency and focus of meeting, the usefulness of retreats, and approaches to communication and decision making.

    Among participants’ comments were (a) for the detailed work of the Committee, only System Leaders should be present; (b) a process must be developed for System Leaders to know what all Systems are designing into the curriculum, (c) a system must be developed for early preparation and review of all classroom sessions, (d) because MCM and MIS are foundational, everything must read forward and backward from them, (e) varying meeting times should be used so that clinicians can attend, and (f) records must be kept so that the group can track what is said and decided.

  3. New student awards.  Don Innes reported on students awards, which are now aligned with the new curriculum.  For SMD2014, there will be 10 awards to 7 different students.  He added that there is still discussion that most of these awards recognize individual achievement rather than collaborative learning.  Two other awards now recognize other qualities—the new Collaborative Learning Award and the existing John Jones Award.

  4. Exam feedback in MSI.  Melanie McCollum reported on aspects of assessment in MSI, which led to a wide-ranging discussion of the honor code and students’ access to exam questions.  At the end of the discussion, it was reconfirmed that (a) students may not discuss questions with anyone while the exam is open, (b) once the exam is closed, they may discuss the questions, and (c) the students may not copy any questions at any time.  In terms of reviewing formative and summative examinations, it was reconfirmed that the students may review formatives until the next summative exam, and they may not review summatives at all.  It was agreed that these issues and the rules need to be covered effectively in Orientation.

  5. System Leaders’ comments due to Randy Canterbury.  System Leaders were reminded that their comments the future of their systems were soon due.  The comments have budget implications.

  6. Information on the agenda handout.  The agenda contained two information items:  (a) the need to schedule CPD Patient Interviews late in the week, preferably on Thursday mornings and (2) the upcoming May 18-20 workshop in Chicago on “Designing Courses for Greater Student Engagement & Better Learning” offered by Dee Fink & Associates.


The next regularly scheduled monthly meeting would normally be March 14, 2012.  Important:  Because the format, frequency, and schedule for System Leaders meeting are being discussed in a special meeting, this date may be changed.