University of Virginia School of Medicine
Systems Leadership Community
October 13, 2010

Minutes

 
Present (underlined) were:  Brian Behm, Alan Binder, Robert Bloodgood, Megan Bray, Chris Burns, Heather Burns, Mary Bryant, Troy Buer, Bobby Chhabra, Pam Clark, Bruce Cohen,  Eugene Corbett, Alan Dalkin, John Dent, Allison Innes, Don Innes, Kambiz Kalantarinia, Stuart Lowson, Jen Marks, Melanie McCollum, Mo Nadkarni, Bart Nathan, Selina Noramly,  Chris Peterson, Mitch Rosner, Mark Russell, Neeral Shah, Allan Simpson, Jonathan Truwit, Linda Wagoner-Fountain, Mary Kate Worden, Zhen Yan, Elizabeth Bradley, Addeane Caelleigh,  Terri Ellison, John Jackson, Karen Knight, Darci Lieb, Jim Martindale, Veronica Michaelsen, Sue Pollart, Lisa Herrman, Brad Bradenham, Andrew Pfeffer, Jason Woods, Long Vinh, Tom Jenkins
Convenors:  Don Innes and Chris Burns

1. Classroom access to the Learning Studio and Lecture Hall.  The rooms are now being reserved solely for medical school use.  Other groups’ meetings that are already on the calendar will be allowed to hold those meetings, but future meetings will not be scheduled. Overall, 7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. has been blocked off for the morning curriculum and 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. has been blocked off for faculty development.  This policy will be re-examined next year and adjusted as needed.
   
   
2. Equipment problems.  John Jackson gave a report on the continuing equipment problems.  He emphasized that the vendor has put a full crew to work full time to resolve continuing problems.  Also problems have been identified with all control systems in the Med Ed Building, MR4 and MR5, and the manufacturer has acknowledged responsibility and is making replacements, etc., as needed.  There are still problems with the podium because of conflicting software of the podium system and the wireless remote.  The document camera is working.  The curtains are working and can be controlled from the touch panel.
   
   
3. Honor System.  The medical school representatives to the Honor Committee spoke briefly about suggestions for helping the new first-year students understand what is permissible under the honor code.  They suggested that the faculty put specific instructions about what was permitted on each syllabus.  The group held considerable discussion of what the students see online and in system materials about the honor code and expectations.
   
   
4. Exams.  There was considerable discussion about how and whether to offer open book exams, about the policy about what areas students may use when taking an exam online.
   
   
5. Student representatives from SMAC.  Long Vinh and Tom Jenkins attended as representatives from the Student Medical Advisory Committee.  Don Innes requested that they ask SMAC to also appoint 2^nd-year and 4^th-year students to sit on the committee, commenting that 3^rd-year students are never able to attend.  He noted that because this Systems Leaders group is the successor to the Principles of Medicine Committee, it should have the same student representation.
   
   
6. MCM.  Linda Waggoner-Fountain reported on the status of MCM, now in week 9 of its 17 weeks.  The students have had two summative assessments (online) and two formative assessments (one online and the other a paper). 
   
   

   a.	In her view the Learning Studio is an excellent space for some activities but not as good for others.  The MCM experience is that group activities work best for groups of three or ½ a table; the students especially like sessions with many preceptors available to assist or guide.  Activities for whole tables, two tables together, or lectures have not worked as well.  Some students don’t like the faculty to walk around; others are not bothered.
   b.	They like being able to take exams over the whole weekend; there have been very few technical problems.
   c.	The smart board and the document camera have not been used much even though they seem to be very good tools.
   d.	The students are good about using the table microphones—the faculty is not as good about asking them questions.
   e.	CPD organizers have had difficulty getting the clinicians who do the patient presentations to also do the patient wrap up; clinical schedules often conflict with the wrap up sessions.
   f.	The biggest challenges have been getting materials from faculty—learning objectives, presentation materials, questions for exams and the explanations for right and wrong answers.  Leaders of later sessions will need to take special, tough action to get the materials by the time needed.
   g.	The “Discussion Boards” are not as flexible as needed and can’t be sorted easily as the previous program allowed.
   h.	Students are posting about everything on the Listening Posts.  Because it was originally intended to be used for reporting abuse, a decision needs to be made in the future about how to handle this outcome.
   i.	Class attendance was virtually the whole class during the first few weeks but is now lower for some lectures; the pattern seems similar to previous years.
   j.	On the first summative assessment, five students failed; on the second, two or three failed (the leaders are waiting for some feedback from faculty about a few of these students’ answers).

7. Curriculum evaluation.  Veronica Michaelsen reported on the evaluation program for the Next Generation curriculum.   [more will be added from VM]
   
   
8. Next scheduled meeting:  Wednesday, November 10, at 4:00 p.m. in the Learning Studio.