University of Virginia School of Medicine
Clerkship Director Meeting
Minutes – 1.22.18
MCBR, #2700, 5:00 p.m.
Present (underlined) were: Vaia Abatzis, Ashok Asthagiri, Jonathan Black, Elizabeth Bradley, Megan Bray, Catherine Casey, Huai Cheng, Katherine Fedder, Jeff Gander, Maryellen Gusic, Evan Heald, Pam Herrington, Molly Hughes, Katherine Latimer, Eugene McGahren, John McNeil, Linda Martin, Jeremy Middleton, Alex Millard, Mark Moody, Yvonne Newberry, Anneke Schroen, Binit Shah, Ryan Smith, Guillermo Solorzano, Heather Streich, Amita Sudhir, William Wilson, David Craig, Rebecca Hensley, LeAnn Hopkins, Freda McClung, Lisa Morton, Debbie Perry, KarenMarie Smith, Jessica Tawney, Heather Trainum, Karen Ward, Kyle Williams, Nell Brooks-Harlow, Bobbi May.
Guest Speaker: Jim Martindale
Announcements: Dr. Megan Bray reminded the group of several transitions occurring in the Surgery, Pediatrics and OB/GYN Clerkships and introduced the incoming Clerkship Directors. Dr. Jeremy Middleton is stepping into the role as Pediatrics Clerkship Director and Dr. William Wilson will remain as Assistant Clerkship Director. Drs. Linda Martin and Jeff Gander will fill the Surgery Director and Assistant Director positions respectfully. Dr. Katherine Latimer will assume the role of OB/GYN Clerkship Director and Yvonne Newberry will remain as Assistant Director. Additionally, Dr. Binit Shah is transitioning into the Clerkship Director position in Neurology, with Dr. Guillermo Solorzano to remain as Assistant Director.
Update on New Competency-Based Student Evaluation – Jim Martindale. Dr. Jim Martindale presented information on a new mathematical model he is working on to electronically “grade” the newly proposed competency-based clerkship student performance evaluation. He began the discussion by informing the group of some issues that have affected the creation of this model, such as the time bias, the selection of appropriate measurement parameters such as which cohort mean, standard deviation, and weightings to use, etc. To eliminate time bias, which refers to the timing of a student’s rotation in the beginning or end of their clerkships, he offered an explanation of the process of obtaining a base metric. These metrics would ensure the standardization of grading, and that students are assessed developmentally with their peers, no matter the timing of the rotation. Faculty must consistently evaluate students on what they observe. This is vital for assessment reporting to be fair and accurate. This project will require a great deal of work before being able to be piloted. The group will be kept up-to-date about the progress.
Interim OASIS Student Evaluation. An interim uniform clerkship student performance evaluation will be instituted for one year to help standardize clerkship grading. This form will be similar in nature to the one currently being used by most clerkships.
Changes to the evaluation will include:
- Removing the amount of time spent with a student
- The addition of a question asking the evaluator to describe the setting in which they worked with the student- i.e. ambulatory, inpatient, OR, ER, chronic care facility- NH, etc. The hope is that this information will offer context to comments from evaluators for the CD.
Beginning in March 2018 MedEd Staff will be responsible for setting up each clerkship’s grade book to ensure proper titles and percentage. The data from each rotation will still be entered into gradebook by CC and CD’s.
Other changes that will begin as of March 2018:
- Clinical grades from OASIS are to be calculated mathematically. This was explained by Dr. Bray.
- All clerkships will be utilizing the same grading scale for final grades. The following scale was reviewed and accepted by the Assessment Committee and the Curriculum Committee. This is to ensure that within a clerkship and across clerkships- a specific percentage grade always equals the same letter grade.
- A+ 97-100%
- A 93-96%
- A- 90-92%
- B+ 87-89%
- B 83-86%
- B- 80-82%
- C+ 77-79%
- C 73-76%
- C- 70-72%
- Below 70% = FAIL
Dr. Bray asked that each Clerkship Director and Assistant Director consider for their rotation what a reasonable number of evaluators ( resident and faculty) should be and then consistently strive to obtain this number of evaluations to ensure that every student’s evaluation is as fair as possible. This data was asked of each of the CD’s on their recent annual clerkship reviews. She also asked that CD’s spend some time at their departmental meetings educating faculty how best to fill out the student evals. In particular- to only evaluate students on tasks they directly observed. If an evaluator does not have direct information to answer a specific question, “not applicable” or “cannot evaluate” should be chosen. Selecting “good” on a task as a default mechanism could negatively affect the student’s grade. When the new competency-based form is ready for piloting in the clerkships, there will be faculty development provided on how to utilize the form appropriately.
Note: Next meeting, Monday, February 12, 2018 in MCBR, 2700.
Filed Under: Clerkship/PostClerkship Committee Minutes