Minutes 02.12 - Medical Education and Medical Research · Claude Moore Medical Education Building, Room G165 ... create a framework in which to introduce these ... Elizabeth Bradley

Minutes 02.12.14 University of Virginia School of Medicine

Pre-Clerkship Meeting

Minutes – 02/12/14

Claude Moore Medical Education Building, Room G165, 4:00 p.m.

Present: Pamela Clark, Darci Lieb, Don Innes, Bart Nathan, Janet Lewis, Melanie McCollum,

Robin LeGallo, Randy Canterbury, Neeral Shah, Sabrina Nunez, Ulrike Lorenz, Paula Roy, Dick

Pearson, Elizabeth Graham, Eva Casola, Dela Alexander, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Anne

Tuskey

1. Sabrina Nunez opened the meeting by stating that we would be discussing Microbes and

the Immune System (MIS) and the Hematology System (HEME) today, and that Social

Issues in Medicine (SIM) would be presenting next week. They would like to get Clinical

Performance Development (CPD) to present at some point as well.

2. Ulrike Lorenz Presents on MIS Dr. Lorenz gave an overview of the system including the

schedule and a breakdown of the activity types and assessments. Afterwards, she

talked about the successes and challenges.

Successes:

A. Before the system began, the system leaders (Ulrike Lorenz, Dick Pearson, Linda Waggoner-Fountain)

met with the faculty who would be teaching in MIS. There were six meetings: one for each week of the system. The purpose of the meetings were to ensure that everybody knew what had already been taught and what was coming up so there was as little overlap and confusion as possible.

B. Students had early access to all course materials, including PPTs. C. The system leaders sent an email to students before each week of class with a preview of the content for

the following week. D. Students liked the consistent integration of basic science and clinical relevance. On some days the

sessions were co-taught and on other days basic science sessions and clinical sessions were taught back-to-back.

E. Patient presentations were well received because students were given the opportunity to take the patients’ histories.

F. The exams went well. The system leaders believe this is due to the fact that they spent a lot of time on the exam questions.

G. Students loved the “You’re the Doc” sessions. Dr. Pearson explained that all the sessions used the think-pair-share method to add value and then students were “cold called” to share their thoughts/diagnoses. If you wish to review materials from one of these sessions they can be accessed at http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/CourseSites/display.cfm?keyID=5027

Challenges:

A. Epidemiology. Was not well received. Need to find ways to better integrate into the curriculum B. Many students did not attend large group discussions, choosing to watch them at home instead, essentially

turning the discussions into lectures. C. The SMEC reps did not attend many of the class sessions, suggesting that the comments they shared in

Friday Forums were not representative of the class. D. The first week involved a vast of amount of material making it difficult for students to see the big picture. E. The system leaders are still figuring out the best way to introduce the Bug Drug List. The issue of how to

create a framework in which to introduce these lists in MIS, that can then be carried through the systems was brought up,

F. The CSL group stated that they wanted more low stakes assessments. System leaders are not sure if this is representative of the whole class or just those in the CSL group.

3. Don Innes Presents on HEME Dr. Innes gave an overview of the system, including

communication, the schedule, and a breakdown of the activity types and assessments.

Dr. Nunez showed a sample of the graded surveys they use to deliver problem sets. A

sample survey can be accessed athttps://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SampleHemeCase

Communication:

A. About three weeks before the system began, Drs. Innes, Clark & Nunez sent the students an email describing the system and informing of the resources they would need.

B. One week before the system began, Drs. Innes, Clark & Nunez sent an email to students describing: a. the specific content covered in each week, b. the grading rubric, c. the attendance/dress requirements for patient presentations.

C. Before each week of the system, Drs. Innes, Clark & Nunez sent an email to students that supplied the PPT schedule, the week-at-a-glance, and information about the coming week.

Dr. Innes shared various positive student comments from course evaluations.

4. Poblem Sets were an overall success in the Hematology System. All problem sets were

done in small groups using Survey Monkey, though students submitted their answers to

Survey Monkey individually. The problem sets were graded and had nearly 100%

attendance.

· The average attendance at lectures was about 60 students, though one lecture may have had as few as 30

students. · In order to stress the importance of addressing the issue of professionalism with students, Dr. Innes shared

an anecdote about a student who did not attend class, and performed poorly. When he addressed the issues of attendance/responsibility/professionalism with the student, the student responded with gratitude and an apology.


Pre-Clerkship Meeting Minutes – 3/12/14


Present: James Moak, Mo Nadkarni, Randy Canterbury, Pam Clark, Megan Bray, Laurie

Archbald-Pannone, Anne Tuskey, Richard Pearson, Neeral Shah, Bart Nathan, Linda

Wagonner-Fountain, Janet Lewis, Sabrina Nunez, Mary Kate Worden, Robin LeGallo, Don

Innes, Darci Lieb, Melanie Tomlin, Barb Rogers, Eva Casola, Dela Alexander, Matt Dickerson,

1. Report from SIM System: Mo Nadkarni, Darci Lieb and Dela Alexander

A. History of SIM: Began in 2005 with students going to community service sites, expanded in 2008 to include content talks during the morning NxGen curriculum, modified in 2010 to include more content talks (currently have 14 total, 7 per semester). There are over 50 community service sites.

B. Basic structure of SIM includes 1) Content talks, 2) CPD small group discussions of topics raised in content talks, 3) Service learning of 30 hrs/semester, 4) Debrief of community service in CPD groups, and 5) written reflections written by students twice/semester (read by Mo and Dela)

C. Feedback includes 1) site visits by Dela, 2) mentoring by CPD group leaders

D. Outcomes include 1) LCME goals for service learning are exceeded, 2) promotes professionalism & ethic of service, 3) town/gown relations improved, 4) advancement of SOM mission, 5) hands-‐on and direct contact with people in need, 6) making connections (self reflection) and 7) CPD synergy.

E. Improvements discussed for 2014-‐2015 academic year: integrating discussion of content talks into the scheduled class time. This would require adding 15-‐30 minutes to each talk or recording the lecture portion of the session to allow discussion to occur in the allotted 50 min sessions. In-‐class discussion would replace the CPD discussions. SIM and CPD directors would work together to find other ways to integrate content (i.e. in the CPD cases). The proposed format for group discussion includes the assignment of pre-‐class reading (mainly in the form of lay articles) to spur discussion and opportunities for students to discuss the materials and share their experiences.

2. Report from CPD: James Moak

A.

Structure of CPD: Small groups meet for 2 hours every week to discuss a case which is usually related to

the morning content. This is followed by learning a skill for 2 hours (i.e., patient interview, physical exam,

procedures).

B. Dr. Moak then opened up the floor for a general discussion of areas where CPD could be improved. Some suggestions include 1) shorten the time delay between morning content and afternoon case for the Wed. Thur. CPD groups, 2) improve the consistency between the experience of students in different groups (variability between group leaders), 3) improve communication with System Leaders regarding where materials for CPD can be accessed and reviewed, 4) developing a

more pointed physical exam for systems which occur later in the curriculum (i.e. Hematology), 5) standardize teaching of interviewing skills, 6) add cost of testing and medicine to CPD curriculum.

C. CPD Goals for 2014 are 1) Standardize teaching, 2) Improve teaching of physical exam skills, and 3) Improve student case presentation techniques.

D. Strategies for improvement include 1) faculty development to improve and standardize teaching including weekly syllabi to give CPD leaders more structure, 2) rotating mentors/co-‐mentors through different groups to give students more variety, and 3) teaching students a case presentation “poem” to standardize and improve their presenting skills when they get to the wards.

Submitted by Barbara Rogers

Attachments:

System Sign-out Foundations of Medicine 2017 See Appendix A

Guidelines for the Morning Patient Interview See Appendix B




Present: Mark Moody, Randy Canterbury, Laurie Archbald-Pannone, Richard Pearson, Neeral

Shah, Bart Nathan, Linda Wagonner-Fountain, Sabrina Nunez, Robin LeGallo, Ulrike Lorenz,

Elizabeth Graham, Elizabeth Bradley, Casey White, Melanie McCollum, Bart Nathan, Kambiz

Kalantari, Don Innes, Darci Lieb, Melanie Tomlin, Barb Rogers

General Announcements – Keywords for x-credit are being finalized. If any system leader

wants to request any changes, they should contact John Jackson and/or John Voss

immediately.

Introduction of Mark Moody – Mark introduced himself to the group; he has replaced John

Jackson as Director of Educational Technology.

Schedule of Instructional Support for 2014-15 – The schedule of Instructional Support

Coordinators was presented to the group. Discussion ensued regarding the recent hiring of

Francis Nelson, who is replacing Paula Roy and is scheduled to arrive at the end of May. As

his wife is a member of the incoming class of SMD18, concerns were expressed regarding 1)

confidentiality of course materials and meetings/conversations not open to students, 2)

continuity disruption as the hire’s special circumstances have made it difficult to keep the

same ISC with the same system as in previous years, and 3) lack of System Leader inclusion

in the hiring process (System Leaders were intimately involved in the hiring process for the

last 2 ISCs). The ISCs noted that when creating the schedule of instructional support, an

attempt was made to limit Francis’s involvement in courses his wife will take in 2014-2015; he

will be assigned mostly to 2nd year systems. The schedule will then be revised again for 2015-

16 so Francis will then assist with 1styear courses during the time when his wife is a second

year student. While this plan will disrupt continuity, it will provide an opportunity for System

Leaders to work with and get to know all the

ISCs.

Casey White reassured the group that both Randy Canterbury and Jane Davis in HR had

approved the decision to hire this candidate and that Francis would be instructed to abide by

the University’s honor code.

Proposed change in Evaluation Process - Elizabeth Bradley distributed a brief proposal

regarding changing the evaluation process. Currently ¼ of the class evaluates individual

activities and/or faculty members as requested by the system leaders. In the new system,

students would randomly assigned to groups of 10 and assigned to evaluate a 3-4 week period

of the pre-clerkship curriculum. In order to maximize the quality of feedback, the students

would be trained by Elizabeth to provide effective, transparent and actionable feedback on

faculty, content and process. Students would also be charged with talking to a cohort of

students to maximize the quantity of feedback. There was discussion concerning whether this

new evaluation process should be done in addition to or in lieu of the current CSLs & Friday

Forums. Dr. Canterbury reminded the group that the LCME requires that evaluations be

standardized.

Student Concerns re: Responsiveness – Dr. Canterbury reported that students had reported

they felt the faculty was unresponsive to their concerns. Dr. Canterbury consulted members

of the Mulholland Society and was informed that the majority of students feel their concerns

and issues are dealt with quickly and professionally. He noted that a monthly

digest/newsletter was being considered as a way to complete the input-feedback loop.



Minutes – 6/11/14


Present: John Dent, Mary Kate Worden, Randy Canterbury, Laurie Archbald-Pannone, Neeral

Shah, Bart Nathan, Eva Casola, Sabrina Nunez, Robin LeGallo, Elizabeth Graham, Melanie

McCollum, Bart Nathan, Kambiz Kalantari, Don Innes, Melanie Tomlin, Barb Rogers, Francis

Nelson, Michelle Yoon, Dela Alexander, Laurie Shaffer

General Announcements – There will be no Pre-Clerkship meeting in July and August;

meetings will restart in early September.

Introduction of Francis Nelson – Francis introduced himself to the group; he has replaced

Paula Roy as Instructional & Research Support Manager.

Farewell to Sabrina Nunez - Sabrina is leaving at the end of July to take a position as

Assistant Dean of Curriculum at Washington University in St Louis.

Laurie Shaffer discussed Deaf Services – Kate O’Varanese and Christopher Read have left the

Deaf Services department, but Robert McGee has taken over for Christopher as a temporary

(and hopefully permanent) replacement. She reported that the deaf student has stated he is

“able to just be a student” without worrying about access to resources. He has sign language

interpreters with him in the classroom, and most activities are being captioned in real time

and uploaded to his iPad via Skype. In order to coordinate interpreters/transcriptionists, Deaf

Services needs to be made aware of any changes to the course schedule. Also, it was decided

that we will be using the captioned videos/PRLs for SMD18, but newly recorded videos/PRLs

will NOT be captioned. The students in SMD18 need to be aware of this to avoid confusion on

their part. Our emphasis on being a paperless curriculum is good but means that all videos,

pre-recorded lectures, etc. need to be closed captioned and should be sent to Deaf Services

for captioning at least 2 weeks in advance. Sabrina pointed out that, in the Cardiovascular

System, the students listen to heart sounds on a website and also visit the Harvey Lab where

they listen to heart sounds of a simulated patient. Laurie stressed to the group that she needs

to communicate with system leaders regarding these and similar activities that require

auditorily accessed components so that a solution can be reached to ensure all students have

a comparable experience.

Best Practices in the GI System – Neeral Shah reported on the GI system which ran for 4 ½

weeks in February and March of 2014. The system leaders were Neeral Shah, Anne Tuskey,

and Sabrina Nunez.

Week 1: The system gained 3 days this year (with the Curriculum Committee’s blessing) and

consisted of Anatomy Labs, Luminal Pathology Part 1 and GI Physiology Part 1 – this avoided

overwhelming the students with that subject matter later on in the system. There were also

some overview sessions and some afternoon labs as CPD was not in session that week.

Week 2: Sessions on Luminal Physiology and Histology, Histopathology (lower GI), lots of

case discussions and problem sets which were modeled after the MIS “You Are The Doc”

sessions to synthesize what was learned that week.

Week 3: Some Infectious Disease followed by lower GI sessions. The TBL on Luminal Disease

and Malignancy had a pathology focus which worked well, the Pediatric Disease session was

too high level and will be modified for next year. The Pharmacology unit was good but

students were not prepared. The small groups on Friday used 12 faculty and senior fellows –

Neeral and Anne are already in contact with the Division Chair to get faculty excused from

clinic duties so they can participate next year.

Week 4: Pathology session on Monday will be moved to end of the week next year to

reinforce this material before the summative at the end of the following week. This week

introduces Liver pathology, GI surgery, and Susanna Keller’s Problem Sets which cover Liver

and Pancreatic Histology and Physiology. There is also a Problem Set on liver disease which

included a quiz in the online testing system – Neeral monitors it in real time and adjusts his

presentation to address areas in which the students are having trouble. The week ends with

small groups on Abdominal Surgery using Surgery Dept. faculty and chief residents, and GI

Radiology Cases team taught by Neeral, a Radiology resident, and the instructor who

introduced normal radiology at the beginning of the system.

Week 5: This week covers the Pancreas and Biliary systems. The GI POT cases were very

popular – Robin LeGallo and residents observe and instruct the students as they look at gross

organs in the Anatomy Lab. The Case Review TBL incorporates Luminal and

Hepatology. There is also a Review Panel Discussion that went well as culminating activities

for the system.

Areas of Improvement – 1) Physiology first year with new instructor, 2) Will need to develop

balance of basic science with clinical application, 3) Front loaded system seems overwhelming,

4) There were 3 snow days during the 4.5 weeks – it may be necessary to have a back up

plan to avoid last minute scrambling for next year.

LCME Mock Site Visit – Dr. Canterbury reported many positive outcomes from the site visit,

including 1) high quality of both faculty and students who participated in the event, 2)

Members of junior faculty, basic science faculty, clinical chairs and research faculty were

overwhelmingly positive about UVA and the NxGen curriculum, 3) Curriculum, Health Science

Library, pay for teaching model, promotion and tenure, emphasis on teaching and faculty

development also received positive reviews.

Concerns include 1) Database did not explain where Anatomy is taught in a clear manner, 2)

Clerkship curriculum not integrated with pre-clerkship NxGen curriculum, 3) Lack of

transparency in grading during clerkships, 4) Lack of narrative evaluations of small group

activities, 5) How we assure ourselves that our students have met the graduation

competencies – what are the elements of competencies and how do we measure them? Sean

Jackson will address this issue.

Secret ballot for new Co-Pre-Clerkship Meeting Leader – The meeting ended with a ballot to

elect Sabrina’s replacement. Results will be communicated via email.




Present: Neeral Shah, Robin LeGallo, Dela Alexander, Laurie Archbald-Pannone, Randy

Canterbury, Eva Casola, John Dent, Elizabeth Graham, Don Innes, Kambiz Kalantari, Janet

Lewis, Ulrike Lorenz, Marty Mayo, Francis Nelson, Richard Pearson, Melanie Tomlin, Anne

Tuskey, Linda Waggoner-Fountain

Introductions– Dr. Shah introduced the new roles taken on by faculty members: Dr. Robin

LeGallo has been elected the new co-chair of the Pre-Clerkship Curriculum Committee, Dr.

Mayo will now serve as co-System Leader of CTMD, and Dr. Manoj Patel has been named the

Physiology Thread Leader.

Search committee updates- Updates were given on plans for replacing staff:

• Melanie McCollum replacement: in the process of offering position to candidate. The

initial timeline was to have someone in place prior to the LCME visit and MSI. The

individual hired will take on the role of MSI System Leader and Anatomy Thread Leader

with an emphasis on extending anatomy throughout the 4 years of med school.

• Sabrina Nunez replacement: Per Dr. Canterbury, this position has not yet been

posted. He mentioned the possibility of creating a hybrid position between curriculum

designer and instructional designer (hybrid of roles formerly held by Sabrina Nunez and

Michelle Yoon). It was expressed that System Leaders would like to be involved in the

creation of this job description. Dr. Dent stated he felt there were 2 fundamental roles:

leader and manager. In order to avoid burn out, clinicians need a manager to help with

the details of a system so that the clinicians/System Leaders are able to lead and

continue to improve the systems. Dr. Nunez acted as Assistant System Leader for CV

as well as GI, Heme & CTMD and it was stated that there is an immediate need for this

type of project manager.

• Don Innes replacement: Dr. Innes plans to retire the end of February 2015. A search

for his replacement will begin in October with the hope of having someone in place prior

to Dr. Innes’ retirement; System leaders will be involved in this process.

NexGen Procedures and Policies Manual update- Revisions have been made to the NexGen

Procedures and Policies manual. Dr. Shah will send out a link to the latest version, V10.0.

MIS System Prep- The MIS System Leaders meet with all instructors who will teach in a

curricular week to discuss what content has been covered and what has not. The instructors

see where they fit into the curriculum and have an understanding of what has already

occurred so they can refer back to the content and/or can let students know that additional

material on a subject will be covered in an upcoming session. Students respond well to this as

they feel the curriculum is more cohesive and can more readily comprehend the connections

between the sessions and materials provided.

Histology renovation- Dr. Innes spoke briefly concerning the proposed renovations to the

Jordan front labs. The space will be used for multiple purposes including: small group teaching

rooms, offices, a conference room, and a teaching lab.

Other announcements-

• Dr. Canterbury reminded all about the LCME site visit scheduled to occur October 19-

22. Many of the participants of the Pre-clerkship meetings have been assigned to

groups to meet with the LCME representatives during the visit.

• A proposal has been submitted to create a Department of Medical Education. Some

faculty have appointments in the “Office of Medical Education” although appointments

are generally departmental appointments.

• A Medical Education Masters degree program is being created in collaboration with the

Currie School. The program is planned to be offered beginning in 2015.



Minutes – 10/8/14

Claude Moore Medical Education Building, Room B114, 4:00 p.m.

Present: Neeral Shah, Robin LeGallo, Laurie Archbald-Pannone, Elizabeth Bradley, Aniseh

Burtner, Randy Canterbury, Eva Casola, Elizabeth Graham, Don Innes, Karen Knight, Janet

Lewis, Ulrike Lorenz, Jim Martindale, Marty Mayo, Mark Moody, Bart Nathan, Francis Nelson,

Barb Rogers, Melanie Tomlin, Anne Tuskey, Linda Waggoner-Fountain, Casey White, Mary

Kate Worden

LCME site visit– It is important for faculty members assigned to groups to meet with LCME to

report at the time stated in the email they received from Leslie Thomas. Participants will check

in and be briefed about what has come up in prior meetings before they go in to meet with

LCME representatives.

Mind, Brain & Behavior System best practices and challenges-

Best Practices:

• Lots of active learning of many types. Students enjoyed this.

• Neuro or Pysch consult and Stroke CPC. In both cases students get a head start

working through the cases, which are unknown to faculty. Students match wits with

faculty. These exercises depend on someone (Dr. Nathan) choosing good cases. Also,

we have to switch cases every year if we are keeping the same faculty in these

sessions.

• Spinal Cord Problem Set and Brainstem Problem Set. In both cases students work in

groups annotate assigned ppt slides to answer questions about structure function of

images (e.g., sections through spinal cord). The slides are reviewed by staff and the

best examples are selected to create a wiki which is then posted as a resource (e.g.,

annotated slides set covering the length of the spinal cord). This type of exercise could

be used in other systems; In FoM, it could be used with images of biochemistry concept

maps with questions about which products are produced or what disorders result from

blocks in the pathway.

• Psychiatry LOs reviewed and revised. We convened a panel to review psychiatry Los;

members included the Psychiatry clerkship director, 2 other psychiatrists, System

Leaders and a physician with a broader view about what a generalist might need to

know. Revisions eliminated some residency levels issues, and identified gaps that we

subsequently addressed. The revisions were very popular with students. We plan to do

the same with neuroscience/neurology this year.

• Multiple Psychiatry PRLs recorded. Dr. Bruce Cohen recorded PRLs instead of only

teaching large group discussions that he does not record for podcast. The inclusion of

the PRLs did not depress attendance (interestingly) and was very popular with

students. His PRLs can now be resources for students on clerkships or residencies. We

did not alter the time devoted to psychiatry in the curriculum, so putting more didactics

as PRLs allowed more active learning in class.

• Deliberate inclusion of review questions (10-15%) on every summative.

• Classification of exam questions on weekend assessments according to Bloom’s

taxonomy. This can be done in advance of exam review and confirmed during exam

reviews. This helps measure whether we are meeting goals for including questions at

increasingly higher levels as the curriculum proceeds.

Challenges:

• Scheduling issue occurred where an OSCE was administered in the same week as a

practical exam and a Summative assessment. This caused much stress for the

students. In order to avoid this situation in the future, creating a master calendar of all

assessments is being discussed. It was suggested that this master document should be

posted online for both faculty and students.

• Dr. Canterbury noted that Neurology shelf exam results were recently reviewed and in

the content domains in which students receive their initial basis during the MBB System,

student performance was excellent (80% and above). Also of note is there appeared to

be no difference in how students performed whether their General Medicine clerkship

came before or after the Neurology clerkship.

Job postings

• Update on Assistant System Leader position- Elizabeth Graham provided hard copies of

the proposed job description for an Assistant Professor of Medical Education,

Instructional Faculty (title tentative-may change) created with input from administration

and System Leaders

• Anatomy position- The position has been offered—awaiting formal acceptance from

candidate. The new hire will start in February 2015.

• Instructional Designer- Vera Chen has accepted the position of Instructional Designer.

System grades- Elizabeth Bradley described a group that has been convened to help work on

issues surrounding grades. The group was created after LEAN training where Med Ed staff

looked for opportunities to make work processes more efficient. Three main challenges have

been identified:

• The lack of standardization of assessments (provided in varying formats)

• The sheer volume of assessments

• The resources available for the process

Aniseh Burtner, Instructional Support Coordinator, provided a snapshot of the number and

types of grades given during the first 6 weeks of the 2014-2015 school year. A total of 61

grades were recorded, but only 21 of the 61 required no manipulation of the data.

Examples of the types of items received to use to enter grade data:

• 52 posters with names of 2-4 students (not alphabetical) who received the points

handwritten in red on each poster.

• Graded individual worksheets (not alphabetical).

• 18 emails sent to Aniseh with PowerPoint attachments containing the names of 5-8

students (not alphabetical) who received points for credit. The names were not listed in

a standard location so each document had to be searched for the names of students

who were to receive credit.

• Survey Monkey spreadsheet with items highlighted in different colors with instructions

to use for grades such as “pink= -30%, orange = -20%, yellow = -10%”. Also, student

names are not submitted in a uniform way, especially when students are given an open-

ended response field in which to enter their full name.

• Turning Point slides set up with no correct answer marked so spreadsheet received for

grading does not indicate a grade. When this occurs, Aniseh procures a copy of the

slides in order to determine the correct answers (often given on the slides that follow

the TP question) and then hand grades the quiz and enters the info into a separate

spreadsheet.

All of the above examples are given to help provide a full picture of the time and effort it takes

to produce accurate student grades. To help improve grading processes in the future, updated

grading software options are being considered. Below are several things that instructors

can do now to help make the current grading processes more efficient (please share

this information with faculty who teach in your system):

When giving clicker quizzes, make sure the Turning Point grading key is attached to

PPTs. Check with Matt Dickerson for help with this.

When using Survey Monkey:

• Create separate fields for last name, first name and UVaID.

• When possible, have each member of a team submit their own survey response

In general, please deliver grades to Aniseh in a more final form:

• All that is needed is a list with students’ names, IDs and scores. Aniseh is happy to

provide a clean roster file to help with this.

• If grading an assignment, insert a grade (percent is preferred, but points are okay)

instead of color-coding.

Consider timelines:

• Provide all pieces/files of a grade at the same time.

• Please do not hold grades for multiple activities and then submit them all at once at the

end of a system. Please remember that Aniseh has a short turnaround time to get

grade information to the College Deans who then meet with low performing students.

Dr. Bradley called for a System Leader volunteer to work with the team on grades. Please

contact her if interested. Dr. Nathan also suggested discussing grading related issues as part

of the Assessment Committee meetings.

TBLEG announcements- Dr. Worden provided a TBLEG Report to the Curriculum Committee

that details the efforts of TBLEG members and suggested plans for the future. A “Be Safe”

initiative TBL is under discussion for inclusion in the early part of the curriculum (or possibly

during the Transitions course?). Anyone interested in this initiative or in being a part of the

TBLEG is encouraged to join in as the TBLEG recently lost several group members due to

recent departures.

Other announcements-

• Review of Formative Make Up Policy- Currently, the attendance policy states “There is

no make-up for weekend formative assessments that comprise less than 8% of a final

grade. There also is no make-up for other formative scores, e.g., quizzes, laboratories,

readiness assurance tests, on-line cases, etc. However, the formative grade is adjusted

by a factor of 1.10 to offset absences or other life activities, not to exceed the

maximum allowable formative points.” It was expressed that this policy has not been

consistently followed and that this policy may need further revision as it does not allow

an exception for students who miss a formative grade due to their involvement in

another activity that benefits/is sanctioned by the university (e.g., NIH program). The

policy can be revisited at a future Curriculum Committee meeting.

• Concern Cards for absences from patient interviews- Attendance to patient

presentations is mandatory. Students will receive a concern card if 1 patient

presentation is missed. If a student accumulates 3 concern cards, the information is

sent to the Chair of the ASAC to review and determine further action.



Minutes – 11/12/14


Present: Neeral Shah, Robin LeGallo, Laurie Archbald-Pannone, Elizabeth Gay, Alan Dalkin,

John Dent, Elizabeth Graham, Dela Alexander, Don Innes, Karen Knight, Janet Lewis, Ulrike

Lorenz, Marty Mayo, Mark Moody, Bart Nathan, Francis Nelson, Barb Rogers, Melanie Tomlin,

Linda Waggoner-Fountain

Update on Instructional Designer position – Elizabeth Graham continues to work with Human

Resources and expects Vera Chen to begin in mid-December or early January.

Curriculum Dean & Assistant System Leader – The two positions have been posted. Currently,

there are 6-8 applicants for the Asst. System Leader position which is no longer classified as

an Assistant Professor position. Applicants with a PhD or MD will be considered.

USMLE Board Scores – Scores for UVA student stayed above the national mean. To view UVA

student USMLE data, go to the Student Source website, click on the “Student Handbook” tab,

then “USMLE” and click on the “USMLE Summary Results for UVA Students”.

Foundations of Medicine System

Best Practices:

· Tried to even out the difficulty of material covered this year to help identify students who were struggling when they took the first formative assessment.

· A brief preparation for week 2 in-class session helped students grasp how the weeks fit together. For the rest of the system, weekly emails were sent to the class to let them know what to expect and to reinforce how the contents fit together.

· More pharmacology was included via problem sets which gave faculty more time to go over questions like the ones used in the assessments.

· Dr. Noramly offered review sessions of Biochemistry which were well attended (70-100 students) and well received. Previous year these were extra sessions outside of class, but seemed to work better as part of the morning schedule.

· The Culture TBL was much more successful this year. Resources included a “facts only” handout and readings from national societies. Also, a preface from the Associate Dean of Diversity reinforced the significance of the content and set a nice tone which the students appreciated.

· Classification of exam questions on weekend assessments according to Bloom’s taxonomy. This can be done in advance of exam review and confirmed during exam reviews. This helps measure whether we are meeting goals for including questions at increasingly higher levels as the curriculum proceeds.

Challenge: · Karen Knight reported that students wished to receive their genetics letters from FoM back with

comments and she has discussed this with Wendy Golden. Dr. Archbald-Pannone noted that it

would be good to have the students receive feedback on the letters. Karen Knight offered to have students pick up letters from the library staff when they have been graded since there are no longer print mailboxes.

Pulmonary System best practices and challenges · This year an introductory PRL was used and student feedback indicated they would prefer

an in-class lecture as an introduction to the system, even a short 15-20 minute session would suffice.

· Physiology (normal and review of cardiology) was included in the first week of the system via lecture format which was not interactive for the students. This was a holdover from previous years and will be modified for next year.

· COPD (Dr. Shim) included multiple patients for students to interview. Attendance was not required as students complained about this activity last year (attendance was required due to patient interviews and then patients cancelled due to illness).

· Review problem sets using the On-line testing center (similar to those done in Cardiology) were added this year and were very popular.

· Dr. Rosner’s Acid-Base activity in the third week was a nice lead in to the Renal System which followed Pulmonary in the NxGen curriculum this year.

· O2 Delivery was scheduled on the last Friday (the same day as the summative) and was therefore not well attended. Thought will be given to moving this to another day in the schedule as it is one of the most useful topics covered and will help the students when they go to the wards. There was discussion about having enough equipment for the entire class to participate at once, and this was more of a cost issue. Could potentially look into working this into the Pulmonary budget for the system as it was agreed that this is an important session for the student’s prior to clerkships.

Unless there are pressing matters, the System Leader meeting will not be held in December due to the holidays. Meetings will resume on January 14th.

Documents

Minutes 02.12 - Medical Education and Medical Research · Claude Moore Medical Education Building, Room G165 ... create a framework in which to introduce these ... Elizabeth Bradley