Present
-Rooks, Burchfield, Cohen, Davidson, Goldfeder, Koroly, Ledbetter, Lind, Pauly, Small, Hall, Jones, Berns, Bottom, Butson, Duerson, Genuardi, Rarey, Rathe, Romrell, WatsonAbsent
-Cheong, Dwyer, Lowenthal, Moore, Moseley, Normann, Desai, Madani, Socarras, Harman, Harris, Hill, Hurt, McElroy, Rowe, Schmidt, Suter, WrightGuest
-Sandy Anasauvice - ConsultantLooking at the educational program today with Dr. Rarey and a followup evaluation subcommittee.
Dr. Watson and Dr. Romrell were at the AAMC talking about mission-based budgeting.
Dr. Romrell announced that the NBME people are here; David Swanson, Peter Scoles, and David Cotton.
Dr. Genuardi: We are in the planning stages of annual clerkship retreat. On June 1 clerkship directors will be coming to Gainesville. He thanked Dr. Rarey for coming to Jacksonville yesterday.
Dr. Goldfeder asked if there is a mentoring program to mentor the mentor. Beverly Wright has had workshops in the past for mentors.
Dr. Rarey mentioned that the LCME will be asking what we have in place for mentoring.
He went over the LCME standards for curriculum design and management of the educational program. (Overhead)
Each member was given a notebook with what was sent to course and clerkship directors for
Proposed standards last October at the AAMC meeting was used for student evaluations. This was the tool used in the evaluation of the courses and clerkships. Exhibit D is the guide for the course and clerkship directors. Exhibit D showed what the clerkship director had to submit for the clerkship material to the LCME. Exhibit F was the summative evaluation identifying scores for courses and clerkships. This was done by primary and secondary reviewers and courses and clerkships were given a score. A year ago the committee met and did most of the second year courses and clerkships but didn't quantitate it. Exhibit G: shows all the competencies across the board, how many are used, and which ones are not yet addressed. Part of the role of Curriculum Committee is to be made aware of the competencies being used by the students.
Dr. Rooks reported that we have not done a qualitative analysis. Dr. Berns said there is a need for a more central view of all of these courses to decide which areas are being touched upon.
Dr. Rarey used Anatomy by Diagnostic Imaging as an example of how the course was reviewed; the evaluation and the proposed letter send to Dr. Watson from Dr. Rooks.
Dr. Burchfield: This is an impressive notebook. The big thing we have to assess is did the student come in and learn something? USMLE doesn't necessarily tell us he/she is a smart person. Are we assessing knowledge? Are the courses teaching something? Did the student walk away with knowledge?
Dr. Berns agreed completely. The best predictor of how people will do on USMLE is how they did on the MCATS and before that the USMLE. Look at performance on Step 1 relative to performance on MCAT.
Dr. Rarey asked doesn't the subject exam tell us what they are learning?
Dr. Watson: This is a model in terms of evaluation. Is there any way to prove what you do in medicine to help someone become a better doctor? How do we know we've really helped someone to be more caring?
Dr. Small: If they've learned it and can't use it, then it's no good. If we build into our OSCE the interstation exams that measure: do they know what they use and what they learn. We are fortunate to have Margaret to do it.
Task: The evaluation committee is hoping to have this approved by the Curriculum Committee. Dr. Burchfield asked if there is a way to tell that the course met their objectives? Dr. Rarey replied that the next step at the evaluation subcommittee is to align student exams with objectives, see page 7 and 8.
Dr. Pauly: What do you envision from feedback? Will the course director be able to revamp what's missing?
Dr. Rarey: We will call for new reports this coming summer. Our office is always available if you see a change is necessary.
Dr. Rooks: The quality of the report is important when you submit it. In general, scores are on the low side. We are learning how to do this. Dr. Sandy Anusavice has studied our system extensively and can tell you how to do it and work with you on it.
Dr. Rooks told the committee that we would go to a bi-annual report. The clerkships will be evaluated at the end of 3rd semester. The basic science courses will be evaluated at end of 1st semester; the second semester basic science courses at end of 2nd semester.
Dr. Romrell announced there will be a mid-year debriefing of clerkships is Wednesday at 5:00 in R5-265.
Approval of this report goes to Dr. Watson's office and the evaluation subcommittee has done their job as required.
Dr. Berns: This is where we find out if we have weak spots and room for improvement. Dr. Watson uses the information to formulate advice and direction from dean Berns.
Dr. Rooks: The rule here is that the Curriculum Committee can accept this report, approve it and forward to Dr. Watson or not. Or, it can be looked at again by evaluation subcommittee and reapproved. We are not going to debate scores at this point. Does everyone agree with that rule?
Motion on floor is to accept or make another decision in reference to this report. Rathe moves we accept it. All agreed, motion carried unanimously.
Dr. Burchfield's input: The value is how a group of peers look at how a course director's course is supposed to be structured. But it doesn't say how the course is going. This may help the course instructors. There should be an independent observation of the course.
Dr. Genuardi asked about the 4th year. Dr. Rooks and Dr. Rarey said that the 4th year curriculum will be looked at also.
Dr. Cohen asked about mechanism for feedback to course/clerkship directors so they are not turned off by the report. This looks like a wake up call.
Meeting adjourned!