Present: Rooks, Burchfield, Davidson, Goldfeder, Koroly, Moore,Pauly, Small, Desai, Hurt, Madani, Berns, Bottom, Butson, Duerson, Harris, Karle, Moseley, Rarey, Rathe, Romrell, Wright
Absent: Cheong, Lind, Lowenthal, Normann, Jones, Dwyer, Harman, Hill, McElroy, Rowe, Schmidt, Suter, Watson
Dr. Rooks opened the meeting by doing his famous "egg trick." Everyone was amazed that he managed to get all three eggs (hard boiled) in their respective cups. This will go down in his magician notebook as a perfect demonstration of what you can do if you persevere. He vowed to do it again with raw eggs.
Dr. Romrell gave updates on the renovation projects on the ground floor which are to be ready for increased class size for next year. The computer testing room is ready with a 60-seat capacity to test all current first-year students all at once. Next year, testing will allow for all 120 medical students and will also be used for classroom activities. They have begun renovating MDL's 1 and 4, making a common room same size as MDL 7. Renovations are expected be completed by August 2001. The gross anatomy lab is being enlarged and should be completed by May 2001. We are moving forward with renovations to the Maren Reading Room, which will be in a few months, and expected completion will be in early 2001. The Harrell Center expansion project will be a year away. The testing space in the Communicore is in addition to the testing space on campus, where seating is limited to15.
Dr. Rarey reported that the course and clerkship directors finished their student evaluation retreats. All course and clerkship directors created a standard student evaluation form. There is still some ongoing communication on how they are utilizing the evaluation form, and most feel there will be better formative evaluations than in the past. The next meeting we will talk about grades and 4th year elective summative evaluation forms. Dr. Rarey again announced Dr. Mary Jo Koroly as the new chair of the course directors. The next agenda item the Evaluation Subcommittee will review is to see that all course directors are using a competency based evaluation form.
Dr. Small asked if there will be more joint-faculty student retreats. Dr. Rarey responded by telling everyone that on September 27, from 5-7 p.m. to review the EPC course. Dr. Rarey to name students to ask to retreat. These retreats are productive.
Dr. Rooks had the students sitting on the Curriculum Committee introduce themselves: Shireen Madani (4th yr), Ankit Desai &2nd yr), and Chris Hurt (2nd yr). Some time in the fall Dr. Rooks announced that several students will be invited to have their own agenda at a curriculum meeting and he will offer his assistance when that is to be scheduled.
Dr. Rooks presented an overview:
Emphasis on independent learning:
Changed course structure years 1 and 2
Experimentation with new learning formats in classroom
Continuing development of other materials: computer based education, etc.
Competency based education:
Development of the competencies
Rewriting course objectives to address competencies
The evaluation subcommittee
The evaluation plan
Standardization of student evaluation system based on competencies
Competency tracking (independent of grades) (cross courses)
Coordination of PBEs with the competencies
Emphasis on multidisciplinary education:
Interdisciplinary generalist clerkship
The essentials of patient care
New curriculum:
Conceptual framework for determining content of medical school courses and integrating basic and clinical science (agenda for today)Rehabilitation medicine (acquisition of VISTA)
Evidence-based medicine
Geriatrics
Emergency medicine (added as required course in 4th year)
Relation centered care course (1 wk course, introduction to preceptorship-deals with issues of professionalism)
Clinical Presentation List
Assignment of clinical presentations to clerkship
Integration of clinical presentations into teaching physical diagnosis
The clinical presentation task force
Dr. Harris noted that there was no concrete way to integrate it into the curriculum but offered some ideas. He suggested that his group should get together with course directors and come up with a plan.
The approach would be to develop fictitious patient problems and cases that would be introduced into the curriculum and that could be dealt with on an ongoing basis for all four years, if necessary. The task force tried to follow the Calgary model of dyspnea in an attempt to make it a medical student level, not a houseofficer level or practicing physician level. He also indicated that it should be reviewed by a group of experts to create a uniform way of doing it. The proposal was to create some cases that students might deal with over several years. How many would we have? At least 20 or 30 most common clinical presentations would be needed. These would enhance the curriculum and provide relevance to basic science issues. Another idea would to actually do these on CD-ROM. This was an idea that came out of the task force. Then the course directors would decide how they would use it in their individual course. Students could get ideas from doing it; get a continuous view of a number of patients, and realize this issue of dealing with patients over a longer period of time and what happens and what doesn't happen: the difficulties, the joys of doing it, as well as the problems.
Dr. Rooks asked what do you see as next step? Dr. Harris responded that he intends to complete his prototype. A group of basic science course directors, however, need to review and discuss this to see if this is a model that can be used. Dr. Rathe indicated that it may make sense to do it on the Web. Dr. Harris stated that starting with a real case would be a good idea. It could unfold at each level of training.
Patti Moore stated that that's reality and a wonderful idea to use a real case.
Dr. Harris states that the purpose of doing it was to put things in the context you are going to use it. Dr. Davidson responded by saying that this is more important than the content. Dr.Harris indicates that it's a way of organizing information and integrating information. How do you want to incorporate it into the curriculum? It can be a tool for basic science courses; a way of linking a lot of things together.
Dr. Romrell states that it emphasize why students have to know basic anatomy; and Dr. Harris suggests that if you wanted to use this, you could create a medical record, a chart, a cover, give it a number, like a real patient's history with different entries into chart as you go along.
Dr. Burchfield asked if there was a format to go through this patient's case? Dr. Harris said the students would work with these cases through medical school, and in the 3rd or 4th year the student would have time to discuss in greater detail and re-emphasize.
Dr. Pauly also stated an ideal time would be in clinical diagnosis. Dr. Burchfield responded by saying it could be at end of internal medicine
Shireen suggested that each student keep their own record of Jack Malcour, that it would be an interesting 4th year elective to take some of these cases to pick through them again after you've been through them and have a broader medical base.
Patti Moore remarked thatit would be great to follow Jack Malcour; learn all the nuances, and follow this patient through his life experiences.
Dr. Koroly thanked Dr. Harris and his group for the work they did on this project and added that it gives the basic scientists a way to integrate, and a real beginning by having clinical with basic scientists.
Dr. Rooks sensed a strong concensus that we pursue the development of this model.
Dr. Berns commmented on the fact that the AAMC has become concerned that the medical school side should be ready to address two major themes which are: genetics and bioinformatics.
Dr. Rooks closed the meeting with an announcement that the September 26 meeting would be cancelled. The next meeting will be October 10 in M112 and the agenda will be a report from the professionalism task force.
Meeting adjourned 8:57 a.m.