Curriculum Committee Minutes 3/5/18

March 15, 2018 by blm8e@virginia.edu

University of Virginia School of Medicine

Curriculum Committee

Minutes – 3.05.18

MCBR, #2700 -4:00 p.m.

Present (underlined) were:

Chair (votes only to break a tie): Megan Bray

Voting: Juliana Bueno, Donna Chen, Aaron Freilich, Barry Hinton, Rachel Kon, Robin LeGallo, Keith Littlewood, Vishal Madaan, Juan Olazagasti, Margaret Plews-Ogan, Steven Powell, Theresa Schlager, Neeral Shah, Ryan Smith, Carlos Tache-Leon, Stephen Wolf

Students: John Hickman, Elizabeth Hoang, Ory Streeter, Rick Vavolizza

Non-voting: Gretchen Arnold, Elizabeth Bradley, Maryellen Gusic, Mark Moody, Selina Noramly, Bill Wilson

Staff: Bobbi May

Guests: None

Minutes Reviewed/Accepted. The Committee unanimously approved the minutes from the February 19, 2018 meeting.

Co-System Leader Nomination: Foundations of Medicine – Dr. Rebecca Scharf. Dr. James Nataro, Chair, Department of Pediatrics, submitted his nomination for Dr. Rebecca Scharf as Co-System Leader for Foundations of Medicine (FOM). Dr. Scharf has worked with learners at various levels of medical education over many years and he feels that her skills as a teacher, clinician, mentor, and researcher will all serve her well in this position. The current Co-System Leaders of FOM have met with Dr. Scharf and enthusiastically support her nomination to this position. The Committee discussed the nomination.

Vote: The Committee voted unanimously to approve Dr. Rebecca Scharf as the Co-System Leader for Foundations of Medicine.

 

Clerkship Reviews.

Neurosurgery.

Reviewers: Juliana Bueno, MD, and Mark Moody

Clerkship Director: Ashok Asthagiri, MD

A formal report on the Neurosurgery portion of the Surgical Subspecialty Clerkship was submitted to the Curriculum Committee. The highlights are listed below.

Strengths of the Clerkship.

  • Organization of the elective and detailed schedule provided to students.
  • The orientation process is organized and complete.
  • Diverse patient load with broad learning experiences. Students have generally appreciated the breadth of clinical activity and exposure in both the operating room and clinic. Almost all students highly praised the OR experience. Some students specifically applauded the call experience.
  • Responsiveness to feedback. Many students mentioned being worried coming into the rotation due to negative reviews from prior students but were pleasantly surprised and impressed with the rotation.

Unique Challenges.

  • During ACE rotation periods, 4th year students can detract from the 3rd year student experience.
  • Occasional comments from students regarding unprofessional behavior persist; however, the number of instances has been reduced significantly under Dr. Asthagiri’s leadership.
  • There is a limited number of Neurosurgery Faculty involved in the education of medical students.

Update on Actions Required from Prior Year (2016).

  • Continued work on EPAs (This work continues. Dr. Asthagiri is engaged with the forthcoming EPA work coming from Dr. Maryellen Gusic.)
  • Monitoring of resident teaching (Complete, yet ongoing effort. Residents act as teachers according to availability.)
  • Implement iPads as a student learning resource (Grant received and equipment purchased. An intern is leading the program.)
  • Web-based format for L.O.s, EPAs, passport (Passports/checklists complete, EPAs continue to be a work in progress.)

In years prior to Dr. Asthagiri’s stewardship, the lack of organization, unprofessional behavior of clinical staff, and teaching by residents were cited as deficiencies. Dr. Asthagiri has made significant progress in each of these areas.

Actions Required for the Upcoming Year.

  • Review, coalesce and update the different lists of learning objectives. Work with Medical Education Technology to update the course web pages accordingly:
    • 52 learning objectives from old neurosurgery selective need to be removed
    • 11 learning objectives for the combined surgical subspecialty clerkship need to be replaced.
  • Resident involvement in medical education (Work in Progress.)

 

Internal Medicine.

Reviewers: Maryellen Gusic, MD, and Stephen Powell, MD

Clerkship Director: Molly Hughes, MD

Assistant Director: Alex Millard, MD

A formal report on the Internal Medicine Clerkship was submitted to the Curriculum Committee. The highlights are listed below.

Strengths of the Clerkship.

  • The high quality of teaching on the clerkship is a strength of this rotation. Faculty are selected to be attendings on the General Medicine ward based on their evaluation for teaching.
  • In addition, the clerkship/department leadership make significant efforts for timely communication with faculty. Every two weeks on attending switch day, faculty are oriented to any new initiatives within student education via email.
  • Residents participate in a 6-part Teaching the Teacher to Teach workshop series.

Unique Challenges.

  • None noted

Update on Actions Required from Prior Year (2016).

The following recommendations were noted as needing to still be addressed in last year’s review (combined Internal Medicine and AIM review):

  • Continue to improve LOs, providing more specificity, and ensuring they are appropriately linked to resources, learning experiences, and assessments. New System leadership that began midyear- to continue to address.
  • We recommended meeting with Vera Chen, PhD to review and improve the format and make sure in Bloom’s taxonomy. This will be addressed by new system leadership going forward.
  • Please review the volume of learners at one time on the teams. Teaching teams were redistributed to better match teacher-learner ratios.

Actions Required for the Upcoming Year.

The items noted above remain as needed for the upcoming year. A discrete website and clear identification of the Internal Medicine vs AIM specific goals/objectives, logistics, resources, grading and evaluation criteria, etc. would help to ensure that students and teachers understand this discrete component of the clerkship as well as how it integrates with the Internal Medicine clerkship overall.  It is important that all content provided and posted is internally consistent and consistent with the website.

 

AIM:

Reviewers: Maryellen Gusic, MD, and Stephen Powell, MD

Clerkship Director: Evan Heald, MD

A formal report on the Ambulatory Internal Medicine Clerkship was submitted to the Curriculum Committee. The highlights are listed below.

Strengths of the Clerkship.

  • Relative to other clerkships, students gain a greater degree of autonomy and are able to experience continuity. Student’s comments highlighted the degree of autonomy, the relationship/experience of working one on one with a preceptor and the ability to participate in patient care procedures as strengths of the clerkship.

Unique Challenges.

  • Only ~5% of faculty participate in annual faculty development. Other communication is via email or one on one with preceptors.

Update on Actions Required from Prior Year (2016).

  • Improve AIM website so it can be informational AND for educational for students. Due to different sites students see different types of patients; the website could help with educating a core of key patient learning objectives for all students, and for dispersed faculty development.
  • Continue to improve LOs, providing more specificity, and ensuring they are appropriately linked to resources, learning experiences, and assessments.
  • We recommended meeting with Vera Chen, PhD to review and improve the format and make sure in appropriate Bloom’s taxonomy.

Actions Required for the Upcoming Year.

  • The items noted above remain as needs for the upcoming year. A discrete website and clear identification of the AIM specific goals/objectives, logistics, resources, grading and evaluation criteria, etc. as well as resources for educators would help to ensure that students and teachers understand this discrete component of the clerkship as well as how it integrates with the internal medicine clerkship overall.
  • Consider a schedule review cycle of 70+ AIM sites either in person or virtually. Ensure timely review of any site where concerns from students have been raised.
  • Work to post rotation assignments as far in advance as possible so that students can prepare for their experience. Consider providing information on the location of rotation –including things such as maps, stores, must see sites, etc.

 

Note: The next Curriculum Committee meeting will be held on Monday, March 12, 2018, in MCBR, #2700.

Filed Under: 2018, Curriculum Committee Minutes