Minutes 11.14.12

Minutes 11.14.12

University of Virginia School of Medicine
Systems Leadership Community
November 14, 2012

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

Minutes

Present (underlined) were:  Behm (GI), Bray (Endo-Repro), Bryant (CPD & MSI), Chen, Clark (HemOnc), Cohen (MBB), Dalkin (Endo-Repro),Dent (CV), Douvas (HemOnc), Durieux (C2S), Gay (Pul), D. Innes (HemOnc), Kalantarinia (Ren), Lorenz (M&I), Lowson (Pul), Martindale, McCollum(MSI), McDaniel (CPD), Marks (CPD), Moyer (Pul), Nadkarni (SIM), Nathan (co-chair) (MBB), Nunez, Noramly (co-chair), Pearson (M&I), Rosner (Ren), Russell (MSI), Shah (GI), Tiourirne (MBB), Waggoner-Fountain, Worden (MBB); also Alexander, Bradley, Caelleigh, Canterbury, Casola, Graham, A. Innes, Jackson, Knight, Lieb, Martindale, Rogers, Roy, Tomlin, White, Yoon.

Convener:  Bart Nathan

  1. Handout on X-CREDIT.  The handout describes the primary features and general workflow of links to X-Credit and to “How To” videos.

  2. “Lead Instructor.”  In Oasis, the name of the “lead instructor” (in contrast to those who come to circulate) can be entered for a session.  The lead instructor will be paid for preparation as well as class time.  If all have participated equally (designing and delivering), do not designate a lead instructor; each person will then be paid for prep time).  This takes effect in MIS for Class 2016 and in Endo/Repro for Class 2015.

  3. Re-arrangement of CV/Pulm/Renal for Class 2017.  The order will be Renal/CV/Pulm.

  4. Accessing data on faculty/session evaluations in Oasis.  Elizabeth Bradley and John Jackson demonstrated accessing this evaluations data and answered questions about how the system works.  There was an extensive and wide-ranging discussion of data collection and access to that data: 

    (a)    Different reasons that evaluation data is needed (system leaders to evaluation their faculty; faculty members to collect data for P&T; faculty members who want to monitor their effectiveness; broad curriculum oversight)
    (b)    Usefulness of the data.  John Jackson commented that the information is useful in identifying the 5% of faculty who are poor teachers but does not distinguish among the rest.  This is a characteristic of faculty and student evaluation at the SOM.
    (c)    Whether all sessions should be evaluated or only the ones System Leaders designate. General conclusion:  Given the many reasons that evaluations are needed, almost all sessions would be designated, so it is reasonable to have all evaluated automatically.
    (d)    Whether student burnout-out affects ratings and whether fewer but more focused evaluations would produce better results.  There were widely different opinions; no conclusions reached.

  5. Elizabeth Bradley and John Jackson asked what improvements or revisions the System Leaders wanted in the evaluation system. Because there was no consensus, the current system will continue (except that the Mind-Brain-Behavior System will experiment with selecting sessions rather than having all evaluated automatically).

  6. Next meeting.  The next meeting will be Wednesday, December 12, 2012.

 

* * * * *