RowanSOM Outcomes Assessment Plan - Rowan University

RowanSOM Outcomes Assessment Plan

Office of Assessment and Evaluation &

Program Evaluation and Student Assessment (PESA) Committee

The review is shared with the Pre-Clerkship or Clerkship Committee. Revised June 2021; Approved by PESA 6/24/2021

2

Table of Contents Introduction 3

Rowan SOMetrics Dashboard 4

Curriculum/Program Effectiveness: Courses and Clerkships 5

Student Performance Outcomes 8

Academic Performance Outcomes 11

Implementation of the Plan 12

Appendix 13

3

Introduction Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine (RowanSOM) prepares future physicians and scientists who are committed to improving health in New Jersey and throughout the nation. The school’s educational program is designed to support this mission by developing clinically skillful, compassionate and culturally competent physicians from diverse backgrounds who are grounded in our osteopathic philosophy and ready to meet future healthcare workforce needs. RowanSOM conducts ongoing program evaluation and student assessment to ensure congruence between the institution’s stated educational mission and the actual outcomes of its academic program. In 2019, RowanSOM implemented a new Tensegrity curriculum with two specific tracks: Synergistic guided learning (SGL), a single-pass system-based curriculum and Problem-based learning, a double-pass systems-based case-based learning curriculum. Both tracks are grounded in school-wide competency milestones (see appendix) and include discrete system blocks, as well as intersessions, BRIDGE weeks and year-long courses (BICs). The Outcomes Assessment Plan serves as a blueprint for the assessment of the institution’s educational mission. The plan encompasses Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation 1) reaction, 2) learning, 3) behaviors, and 4) results in the assessment of key performance indicators [KPI] in three core areas:

1) Curriculum/Program Effectiveness 2) Student Performance Outcomes and Competencies 3) School-based Trends and National Benchmarks

Each of the core areas of assessment includes a continuous quality

improvement process in which data are used to inform institutional change and curriculum reform. This process and its components are published on the Assessment and Evaluation website: http://www.rowan.edu/som/education/assess/index.html .

Multiple software systems are used to support data collection on all KPI’s and to enhance the accessibility of data to key stakeholders. Refer to the Appendix for a summary chart which outlines the assessment targets, outcomes measured, assessment level, data sources, timelines, and individuals involved in the continuous quality improvement (CQI) process for each of the three core areas.

A series of Institutional Effectiveness reports are provided to the school’s leadership by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation; the report series elucidates trends, analysis, and outcomes for each of the core areas of assessment. Reports in the series address national board trends, competency tracking, Benchmark and Capstone OSCE performance, mission-based educational trends, and post-graduate residency evaluation of RowanSOM graduates.

What is assessment?

Assessment is the

systematic collection,

interpretation and use of

information about the

effectiveness of the

institution and its

educational programs in

an effort to improve

student learning and

achieve targeted

outcomes. The

assessment cycle begins

with defining the

desired outcomes which

subsequently drives

curriculum delivery and

provides the foundation

for the assessment

process.

http://www.rowan.edu/som/education/assess/index.html

4

Rowan SOMetrics Dashboard In an effort to achieve greater transparency of information and to better support student

performance tracking, an Assessment Dashboard called SOMetrics has been created. The Assessment Dashboard streamlines the process of relaying information to key stakeholders and analyzes KPIs on students such as:

● National Benchmarks (COMAT, COMLEX, USMLE) ● Risk Factors ● Performance Measures (Grades, OSCEs, Evaluations ) ● Competency Milestones/EPAs ● Curriculum Effectiveness/Comparability ● Graduate Outcomes (Match, Residency Performance, Board Cert.)

The Rowan SOMetrics Dashboard integrates data from a variety of sources to provide a centralized online platform for reporting RowanSOM students, curricular and school outcomes. The sources of data include, but are not limited to RowanSOM's:

● Curriculum Management System (One45) ● Exam Platform (ExamSoft) ● Simulation Center Management Software (LearningSpace) ● University Registration System (Banner) ● American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine Application Service (AACOMAS) ● National Board Examiners (NBOME & NBME)

Data is refreshed on a predetermined schedule from each of the above sources via advanced

programming interfaces (APIs) & automated data downloads, which are then stored in the RowanSOM SQL data warehouse. Datasets are carefully analyzed and cleaned by the Assessment office to ensure accuracy, quality, & completeness before being utilized to compile a sequence of dashboard reports.

Several distinct dashboard modules have already been released, while other modules are still under development.

Module Data Components Evidence of Continuous Quality Improvement

The released modules include:

Student Performance

Profile

● Individual student grades ● Year-to-date course grade

tracking ● Grade averages ● Board exam and

benchmark exam scores ● Competency/EPA

performance ● Performance evaluation

breakdowns ● Internal Exam Content

Area Performance Breakdown

● Pre-medical school history and performance

● History of changes in a student’s academic status.

● Used by the Center for Teaching & Learning (CTL) and Academic/Student Affairs leadership to provide guided performance feedback to students, and identify students in need of additional support.

● Used by the Student Academic Progress Committee (SAPC) to review student overall academic performance and guide decision- making for student enrollment and/or remediation plans.

● Used by the Student Evaluation of Performance (STEP) Committee to analyze student progress in core competencies, to track their development as well-rounded physicians, and to make recommendations for improvement based on student career plans.

● Used by MSPE Advisors to help guide student career decisions.

● Disseminated to students at scheduled times to promote self-reflection and support success.

5

Module Data Components Evidence of Continuous Quality Improvement

School Performance

● Geographic, demographic and performance of entering students, grouped by year of admission

● Enrollment trends by academic year

● Used by the Office of Admissions & the Admissions Committee throughout an interview cycle to guide the admission process, and to identify potential risk among admitted students.

● Used by the RowanSOM Dean to track that we are consistently meeting the school's mission, and to better understand the geographic & demographic diversity of our student population.

National Benchmarks / Institutional

Metrics

● Comparisons of Rowan SOM vs. national averages of COMLEX, COMAT, & USMLE performance with trends by academic year.

● Used by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation to identify performance trends and any potential measures that prove predictive of future performance.

● Used by the Curriculum Committee to implement curricular policies & procedures to help further support student success.

● Used by Academic Affairs leadership & Course/Clerkship Directors to identify the need for additional resources in particular areas of the curriculum.

Modules under development include:

Curricular Analysis

● Breakdown of Curricular Mapping & Exam Item Tagging (i.e. Competencies, EPAs, Organ Systems, etc.)

● Student feedback of course/clerkship and instructor/preceptor effectiveness

● Course grade histograms and trends

● Student performance trends on written exams by tagging categories

● PESA review results ● National exam

performance trends

● Used by the Office of Curriculum & Academic Affairs leadership, in collaboration with Course/Clerkship Directors, to ensure items within each of the mapping areas are adequately taught and assessed.

● Used by Course/Clerkship Directors, under the guidance of the Offices of Assessment & Curriculum, to incorporate longitudinal student feedback & average performance on graded components for any instructional or assessment changes within the course.

Alumni

● Student match information

● Practicing information ● Alumni survey results.

● Used by the RowanSOM Dean and Academic Affairs leadership to track that we are consistently meeting the school's mission for post-graduate training/practicing in terms of geographic location, specialty, and serving underserved communities.

● Used by Academic Affairs leadership and the Curriculum Committee to assess programmatic effectiveness in supporting student success and satisfaction in the match, and ultimately in attaining certification to practice in their chosen specialty.

6

Curriculum/Program Effectiveness

New curriculum competencies were adopted by the Curriculum Committee in 2017, and were last reviewed/revised July 2020. The school has identified 37 specific competencies across six domains which are aligned with national standards established by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM). Osteopathic manipulative medicine, often separated as a 7th competency, is now integrated into each of the six core domains to elevate its importance in the curriculum and ensure integration in all the areas of instruction. Milestones have been established as expected levels of competencies while students progress through their medical school training. Each course, block and clerkship in both the synergistic guided learning (SGL) and the problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum are expected to address and provide learning opportunities linked to the established competencies in order to develop effective measures to assess student performance, and to ensure satisfactory achievement of the competencies and milestones. Following initial mapping efforts by the Curriculum Committee and Academic Affairs, the Dean for Curriculum has embarked on a comprehensive curriculum mapping project, utilizing one45 to ensure that all the required competencies and course learning objectives are addressed and assessed in the curriculum. Other assessment platforms, such as Examsoft and LearningSpace, are also tagged to make sure these competencies and milestones are adequately assessed and individual students are progressing towards each milestone.

RowanSOM’s curriculum assessment plan examines the effectiveness of its SGL and PBL academic programs in the context of the expected competencies and includes distinct strategies for 1) Pre-clerkship and 2) Clerkship education.

Outcomes that are measured as part of the overall assessment of the curriculum include reaction and performance measures as follows:

1) Course and Clerkship Evaluation – students anonymously rate each course and clerkship on learningobjectives, content, instruction/learning experiences, administration/organization, feedback, andoverall quality through an online survey administered at the end of each course/clerkship (seeAppendix for evaluation process diagram and evaluation forms). Mean course and clerkship ratingsare reported and tracked over time and compared to overall mean ratings as a component of theannual curriculum review process. In addition, at the end of MS I and MS II, both SGL and PBL students provide feedback on their overall curriculum including the overall structure and effectiveness of theblocks, case-based learning modules, intersessions, courses (Osteopathic Clinical Skills, MedicalScholarship, and Community Service Learning), as well as BRIDGE weeks. Feedback is ought on theeffectiveness of the curriculum objectives, curriculum content, learning resources, feedback,assessment, curriculum administration and general experience.

2) Instructor, Preceptor, and Facilitator Evaluation – students rate each faculty instructor and preceptoron preparation, content, teaching skills, teaching environment, student participation and feedback, aswell as overall effectiveness (see Appendix). Mean faculty performance is compared to overall meanperformance. PBL, small group facilitators, and Osteopathic Clinical Skills (OCS) lab facilitators areevaluated in a similar fashion, on a number of skills and traits related to effective facilitation oflearning.

3) Course and Clerkship Performance – mean final grade performance, pass rates, and trends in gradedistributions are analyzed to evaluate the overall effectiveness of courses and clerkships. Trends inthe Clinical and Foundational Biomedical Science (FBS) COMATs and COMLEX performance bydisciplines and content areas are compared across years and to national benchmarks. PBL studentperformance on national exams are also tracked and compared across years to both SGL students andnational benchmarks.

4) Comparability Analysis (Clinical Education only) – RowanSOM has a Comparability Analysis Policywhich provides a detailed description of the process for ensuring effective clerkship training across

7

all hub location. In brief, a detailed comparison of key student performance indicators and student feedback of clerkships and preceptors by hub locations is conducted annually to ensure all hub sites provide comparable clinical education. The specific indicators that are compared include student clinical skills performance, national exam performance (COMLEX, COMAT), departmental assessments (written exams, OSCEs), student feedback of clerkships, and preceptors. Differences in these indicators by hubs within each core clerkship are analyzed for statistical significance and summarized by clerkship.

5) AACOM Graduation Survey- the annual graduation survey results are examined for trends in satisfaction by content subject area, satisfaction with clinical training, and self-reported confidence among other indicators. School data are compared to national benchmarks to identify areas of relative strength and/or weakness, and strategies for improvement are recommended.

6) COCA Survey of Students Results – The COCA school survey is administered to students prior to a mid-cycle report and a comprehensive site visit. Academic Affairs facilitates survey completion by relying on student leadership and providing an incentive in order to achieve a significant response rate. The final survey results are then disseminated to the Academic Deans (Admission, Assessment, Clinical Education, Curriculum, and Student Affairs). Issues are addressed by formulating strategies for improvement, which are brought forward to the appropriate committees for approval and implementation.

Curriculum Review Process

RowanSOM has a Course and Clerkship Review Policy and Procedure, which provides an in-depth

explanation of the process and the forms that are used. Following is a brief summary of the components of the annual and comprehensive reviews that are completed.

An annual review of individual courses and clerkships for both the SGL and PBL curricula is conducted at the end of each academic year. The Office of Academic Affairs Curriculum Office completes a review of all courses and clerkships, as well as instructors and preceptors, based upon student survey data. The results are individually reported to the Course Directors, Department Chairs, and faculty, and are discussed at pre-clerkship and clerkship curriculum committees. In addition, pre-clerkship course review meetings are held between the Curriculum Office and the Course Director within two months following delivery of the course. Specific strategies for improvement are identified and documented on a CQI log. These strategies are included in the Office of Assessment and Evaluation’s comprehensive annual report on the curriculum based upon a focused review of survey results, grade distributions, COMLEX, and COMAT results, and PESA committee findings. The report includes recommendations to the Curriculum Committee and key stakeholders.

A comprehensive review is also conducted on all required courses and clerkships once every three (3) years by the Program Evaluation and Student Assessment (PESA) committee. The process is designed to be an in-depth holistic evaluation of course/clerkship performance based upon multiple data sources; including, course materials, student performance data, ExamSoft item category review results, competencies and milestones performance, and student, director, and/or facilitator feedback as described below. A Course Director Report is completed by Course Directors for courses scheduled for an upcoming PESA review. The report is used to capture direct feedback from Course Directors on identified areas of strength, and document planned improvements (see Appendix for PESA Review Process)

Course Materials Reviewed

1) Reviewer granted access to learning management site [Source: Curriculum or PBL office] 2) Syllabus and content present [Source: Learning Management System] 3) Learning Issues (PBL Curriculum Only) [Source: PBL office]

Student Performance Data

8

1) Final course grades [Source: Course Director] 2) Written Exam grades [Source: Course Director] 3) Composite Illumination quiz grade [Source: Course Director] 4) Number of students who Pass/Fail the course [Source: Course Director] 5) CBL; Practical/Diagnostic Exams and Procedures; SP Encounter/OSCE and Simulation with

Debriefing; or other assessments [Source: Course Director] 6) PBL Facilitator Feedback for Student (PBL Curriculum Only) [Source: PBL office]

Item Category Review

1) PESA Category Item Review Results [Source: ExamSoft/PESA Committee Reviewer] Competencies and Milestones Performance

1) Category Performance Summary from ExamSoft [Source: Course Director] Student Feedback

1) Student Course Evaluation Survey for the current year [Source: Curriculum or PBL office] 2) Student Curriculum Feedback Summary [Source: Curriculum or PBL office]

Course Director Report

1) Course Director Report Summary Results (SGL Curriculum Only) [Source: Course Director]

The PESA committee’s lead reviewer presents a summary report with recommendations to the entire committee for discussion. Based upon the results of the comprehensive review, a course receives an overall rating of: met standards, met standards in some areas, or did not meet standards; each overall rating is further distinguished with commendations, recommendations, or required actions. A rating of ‘did not meet standards’ is given if required actions from the previous PESA course review are not met, or if there is a required action in any of the six domain areas reviewed (Course Materials, Student Performance, Item Category Review, Competencies and Milestones Performance, Student Feedback, and Course Director Report). Exam Review Process

A post-hoc exam review process is an important component of the curriculum evaluation process.

Immediately following the administration of each exam, the Office of Assessment and Evaluation conducts a review for exam effectiveness. Exam reliability, item difficulty (% correct), item discrimination (point biserial), distractor analysis, overall item performance, as well as the student grade distribution are evaluated. An exam analysis meeting is conducted by the Office of Assessment with the Block Director, the Phase Director/PBL Director and the Curriculum Dean. Items requiring immediate attention are carefully reviewed and a decision is made to either a) omit the item and rescore the exam, b) accept more than one correct answer, c) identify an item as miskeyed and rescore the exam with the updated key, or d) leave the item as-is. Exam outcomes are ultimately used to assess the effectiveness of instruction and the need for curricular changes in subsequent years.

Continuous Quality Improvement Process

Evaluation findings are disseminated widely in an effort to promote transparency, which is critical to

ensuring the data supports continuous quality improvement efforts. Student survey reports are disseminated individually to Course and Clerkship Directors, Department Chairs and the preclerkship and clerkship curriculum committees. A follow-up meeting is held between the Curriculum office and Course and Clerkship Directors. The Clerkship Directors communicate information to the Hub Site Directors who then relay to Preceptors. These meetings track quality improvements that were implemented, or are

9

planned; the feedback platform allows course and clerkship directors to report proposed changes in content, format, instruction methods, and other curricular innovations.

The Annual Curriculum Review report is disseminated to the Vice Dean, all Academic Deans, Chairs, Course and Clerkship Directors, Curriculum Committee, PESA Committee. Presentations on the review findings are presented annually to the Curriculum Committee including student leadership.

The comprehensive course and clerkship reviews completed by the PESA Committee are summarized in a final report. The report is then disseminated by the PESA Committee Chair and the Associate Dean for Assessment to the Course Director, department Chair, Phase I or II Director, all Academic Deans and the appropriate Pre-Clerkship or Clerkship committees. Changes are documented to track quality improvements that enhance student training and to meet accreditation standards. The Curriculum Office provides support to the Course Director and tracks accreditation changes while the Pre-Clerkship or Clerkship committee reports all changes implemented to the PESA committee, which closes the loop on the review process.

Student Performance Outcomes

The assessment of student performance outcomes focuses primarily on measurable student and graduate outcomes linked to the school’s overall mission and the RowanSOM physician competencies/milestones. Longitudinal datasets and the SOMetrics dashboard have been established to track key performance indicators across all four years and to analyze predictors of success. Data collected on each student includes admission data (MCAT, GPA, etc.), medical school performance (grades, competency scores, COMSAE, COMAT, COMLEX, etc.), graduate medical education placement data, and residency performance measures. This outcome data is examined at the level of the student and the school. The newly established Student Evaluation of Performance (STEP) committee is charged with monitoring student performance in achieving competency milestones and core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). The committee reviews each student a minimum of five times between MS I – IV, and is responsible for offering resources and making recommendations to support students’ overall professional development, through the use of Competency Coaches. Outcomes of the committee decisions are communicated to students directly and may include any combination of: suggestions (optional tasks), requirements (compulsory tasks which require follow up with the Committee), and/or referral to the Student Academic Progress Committee for a formal review (see Appendix for STEP Process). The data included in the student performance dashboard and monitored by the Assessment office and the STEP committee are described below.

1) Competencies/Milestones and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) Performance

RowanSOM competency milestones are specifically linked to assessments across the curriculum in both courses and clerkships and include both knowledge and performance components categorized into 3 performance levels: On Target, Approaching Target and Below Target. Student competency performance is tracked across all four years of the curriculum whereas EPA assessment largely occurs during the clerkship curriculum. Competency data are included in the SOMetrics dashboard which is reviewed by the Student Evaluation of Performance (STEP) committee. Summary competency performance is also reported annually as part of the Institutional Effectiveness Series.

a. Knowledge Component – Knowledge-based competency performance is assessed through internal written exams. RowanSOM competencies are specifically linked to exam items in all courses using ExamSoft. The SOMetrics dashboard includes a breakdown of student competency-based knowledge performance, for each competency milestone, over time to an established benchmark and in comparison to peers. Individual student performance by competency domain and specific competencies is recorded throughout each academic year

10

and reported at predetermined intervals. Overall mean performance and the percentage of students performing above the cut score of 70% are reported annually.

b. Performance Component- Performance-based competency is assessed through standardized patients (SP) encounters/OSCEs across all four years. Faculty performance assessments (Case-Based Learning, Problem-Based Learning, etc.) are included for MS I/II pre-clerkship training, and clinical preceptor ratings are included in MS III/IV clerkship training. Graded SP encounters in the Osteopathic Clinical Skills and Life Span - Geriatrics courses as well as the Benchmark OSCE during Bridge Week 2 provide competency-based performance measures in MS I/II. During MS III, objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are graded requirements in most of the core clerkships. There are two summative clinical skills exams which all students are required to pass. The aforementioned Benchmark OSCE is administered at the end of the pre-clerkship curriculum during Bridge Week 2 and the Capstone OSCE during the clerkship years in MS III. The two multi-station OSCEs assess minimum competence in history taking, physical examination, interpersonal and communication skills, documentation, clinical reasoning, and OMT. Student performance and quality control analyses (e.g. item analysis, generalizability, etc.) on both summative OSCEs are reported to the Curriculum Committee and key stakeholders. The competency-based clinical preceptor evaluation form (see Appendix) provides competency-based reporting for each student by clerkship and longitudinally across all clerkships in One45. Performance data from both SPs/OSCEs and preceptor/faculty ratings are combined in the SOMetrics dashboard to reflect student performance compared to an established benchmark. Overall performance and the percentage of students performing within each performance level are also reported annually. c. Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) – EPAs are assessed during clerkship training by clinical preceptors using the Preceptor Evaluation of Student Instrument and discrete EPA formative assessment tools. EPA elements are also included in standardized patient encounters and OSCE assessments. History & Physical Exam (EPA 1), Differential diagnosis (EPA 2) and Recommend and Interpret Common Diagnostic and Screening Tests (EPA 3) are assessed on all core clerkships, driven by students when they experience clinical encounters that provide them opportunities to be formatively evaluated by their preceptors, and are also assessed through the Psychiatry Clerkship Mini-CEX. Entering and discussing orders and prescriptions (EPA 4) is assessed during the Geriatrics and Pain clerkships OSCEs; Documenting a clinical encounter (EPA 5) is assessed during the OMM clerkship. Oral presentation of a clinical case (EPA 6) is assessed during the Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, Pain, Pediatrics and Surgery clerkships.

2) National Testing Data Performance on the COMAT FBS Comprehensive exam, national osteopathic licensure written examinations (COMLEX Levels 1, 2-CE, and 3) and clinical subject COMATs serve as an objective assessment of basic science and clinical knowledge. The Assessment Office monitors pass rates and mean performance, and also analyzes school trends and national benchmarks. Data are shared with Block, Intersession, and Course Directors, Phase Directors, Academic Chairs, and Deans. Results are used by department education committees to inform curriculum reform. Scores, including performance by specialty, are used by the STEP Committee, PESA Committee, and the Curriculum Committees to target curricular improvements. The data are also reported in the annual curriculum review which is disseminated to all BIC Directors, Clerkship Directors, Phase Directors, PBL Directors and Deans.

3) Admission Data

Pre-medical school performance such as MCAT scores and undergraduate science GPA are tracked and analyzed to identify early at-risk students who may need additional support to be successful. Admitted students who have at-risk performance on these metrics are required to enroll in the

11

school’s pre-matriculation program to strengthen their foundation prior to beginning their coursework. Admission data, along with MS I and II medical school performance remain key indicators that RowanSOM tracks to predict student success on COMLEX I and USMLE I (optional for RowanSOM students).

4) Graduate Medical Education Placement Rates Student success in the national residency match is an indicator of the competitiveness of our academic program. The percentage of students who match is compared to the national rate as a benchmark. The percentage of students matching into primary care residencies is also collected as an assessment of the school’s primary care mission. Data are collected and analyzed by the Department of Academic Affairs and presented to the Deans, PESA Committee, Curriculum Committee, and Academic Chairs.

5) Residency Performance Student’s preparation for and success in their first year of residency is also an important indicator of the effectiveness of the academic program. A school-developed Residency Director Evaluation form was historically used to assess graduate performance at the end of their PGYI year of training. The survey assessed graduate performance on the 13 core EPAs on a standard entrustment scale. The results of the survey were reported to the Deans, PESA Committee, Curriculum Committee, and Academic Chairs. Currently, RowanSOM is participating in a national pilot project through the AAMC to assess performance of residency. Data that is reported will be analyzed and shared with leadership to help inform our understanding of student preparation and the need for curricular changes.

Continuous Quality Improvement Process

Student performance outcomes in each of the areas are widely disseminated to promote transparency,

which is critical to ensuring that data supports continuous quality improvement efforts. The Dean, Vice Dean, all Academic Deans, Chairs, Course and Clerkship Directors, the Curriculum Committee, STEP Committee and PESA Committee all serve a critical role in monitoring outcomes to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program, including identifying predictors of success, and ensuring students are competent to graduate.

School-based Trends and National Benchmarks School performance measures are primarily focused on institutional success related to admission,

matriculation, retention, and graduation. It is the goal of RowanSOM to recruit the best and brightest students and provide them with the environment and institutional support leading to high rates of retention, graduation, and program completion. In addition, the school is dedicated to maintaining its success in matriculating a gender-balanced and ethnically diverse class, while also focusing its recruitment pool within the State of New Jersey and its medically underserved areas.

The following outcomes are collected annually and tracked across years by the Admissions Office, the

registrar, and Alumni Affairs.

Admissions Outcome Measures

1) Academic rigor of accepted students: data are collected on admission GPA and MCAT scores to ensure that academically qualified students are matriculated. Data are also used in an analysis of predictors of student success.

12

2) Diversity of accepted students: admission data are monitored to ensure the school fulfills its mission of diversity. Measures include sex, age, race/ethnicity, under-represented groups in medicine, and first generation to ensure a diverse class. A broader view of diversity data such as socioeconomic status, English proficiency and gender identity are in the process of being incorporated into the cohort data tracking of incoming students to find ways to better support potentially disadvantaged students.

3) Percentage of students from New Jersey: data are tracked to assess the school’s success in recruiting in-state residents that would allow future placement of physicians in the state as a component of the school's mission.

Retention Outcome Measures

The outcomes listed below are used to assess overall student retention and academic success 1) Yearly Attrition and Retention Rate: specifying the number of students who were dismissed or

withdrew and the number of students on a leave of absence. 2) Total Graduates by Year 3) Completion Rates by Entering Class: a table consisting of 5 years’ worth of entering class data, with

graduation completion rate after 4, 5, 6, and 7 years at RowanSOM.

Placement and Match Rate RowanSOM’s placement rate is compared to all COM’s overall placement rate. Specific trends are also tracked as follows:

1) % In-state match rate 2) % Match to affiliated hub sites 3) % Primary care 4) Comparison of SGL and PBL tracks

Alumni Measures

Alumni data are collected by the office of Alumni Affairs on graduates in order to assess the effectiveness of our academic program and accomplishment of our school’s mission. The specific outcomes tracked by the alumni office are:

1) Graduates who complete residency training 2) Graduates with medical licensure 3) Graduates with board certification 4) Graduates who practice as primary care clinicians 5) Graduates who practice in medically underserved areas/sites 6) Graduates who practice in state and overall geographic area of practice The Office of Alumni Affairs collects the data above annually through sources such as Doximity, US

News Health, LinkedIn, National Provider Identifier, NJ State Board Medical Examiners Site License Verification, and Google searches. The data is shared with the Office of Assessment for inclusion in the Mission-Based Educational Trends Report.

Implementation of the Plan The Outcomes Assessment Plan is developed by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation and approved

by faculty PESA members. The plan is viewed as a living document that is adapted to respond to innovation in the field and changing needs within the school. Data in each of the three core areas is monitored by and presented to a number of key stakeholders (refer to Outcomes Assessment Plan

13

summary table). These individuals ensure the implementation of the process and the analysis and dissemination of the resulting outcomes.

Appendix ⮚ Outcomes Assessment Plan Summary Table ⮚ RowanSOM Competencies and Milestone Grid ⮚ RowanSOM Tensegrity Curriculum Student Evaluation Data: Flowchart for Quality Improvement ⮚ PESA Course/Clerkship Review Process Flowchart ⮚ Annual Curriculum Review Process Flowchart ⮚ STEP Processes

o STEP Student Process Diagramo STEP Student Process Diagram - Requiremento STEP Committee FlowChart

⮚ Curriculum/Program Effectiveness Assessment o Course and Clerkship Evaluation Forms

▪ Student Evaluation of Block/Intersession/Course▪ Student Evaluation of Clerkship▪ Student Evaluation of OCS Course▪ PBL Student Evaluation of Case-Based Learning Modules▪ PBL Student Evaluation of Course (for Longitudinal courses and Intersessions)▪ PBL Student Evaluation of PBL Curriculum▪ Student Evaluation of SGL Curriculum▪ Course Director Report (PESA Committee)▪ Exam Item Review Summary sheet▪ PESA (SGL) Course Review Form▪ PESA PBL Course Review Form▪ BRIDGE Week 1A Survey▪ BRIDGE Week 1B Survey

o Instructor, Preceptor and Facilitator Evaluation Forms▪ Student Evaluation of Instructor▪ Student Evaluation of CBL Small Group Facilitator▪ Student Evaluation of OCS Lab Facilitator▪ Student Evaluation of Preceptor▪ PBL Student Evaluation of Facilitator▪ PBL Student Evaluation of Instructor (For Longitudinal courses and Intersessions)

⮚ Student Performance Evaluation o Case-based Learning (CBL) Facilitator Evaluation of Studento CBL Facilitator Summary Feedback Evaluation of Student (semi-annual)o PBL Facilitator Feedback for Studento Residency Director Evaluation of Student (PGY1)

⮚ Competencies/Milestones and EPA Evaluation Forms o Preceptor Evaluation of Students – Core Rotationo Preceptor Evaluation of Students – Elective Rotationo Preceptor Formative Evaluation of EPAs 1, 2 & 3o EPA 5: Documenting a Clinical Encountero Entering/Writing a Prescription Faculty Guidelines for Teaching and Scoring (EPA 4)o Preceptor Evaluation of Oral Case Presentation (EPA 6)o Preceptor Evaluation of Oral Case Presentation in Clinical Setting (EPA 6)o Preceptor Evaluation of Oral Case Presentation (Geriatrics Clerkship) (EPA 6)o Preceptor Evaluation of Documenting a Clinical Encounter (EPA 5)o Psychiatry Clerkship Mini-CEX

Updated March 2020 RowanSOM Office of Assessment and Evaluation

RowanSOM Outcomes Assessment Plan Summary Table

Assessment

Target Outcomes Measured Level of Assessment/ Purpose of Assessment Data Source Submission

Timeframe Monitored By

Curriculum/Program Effectiveness Program Measures

Student Course Evaluation(SGL & PBL) - BIC/Module evaluation results - Clerkship evaluation results - BIC/Module/Clerkship comments strengths/

areas for improvement - Class reports to Curriculum Committee - Instructor/Preceptor/Facilitator evaluation

results and comments for strengths/ areas for improvement

- SGL & PBL Program evaluation results

Kirkpatrick – Level I Reaction. Used to assess learner perceptions and improve training based upon identified trends in individual course/clerkship

Academic Affairs One45

End of term/ Academic year Routinely updated on dashboard

Academic Dean Assessment Dean Curriculum Dean Clinical Education Dean Academic Affairs Course/Clerkship/Phase Directors Department Chairs Curriculum Committee PESA

Course (SGL & PBL) /Clerkship Performance - Exam grade distributions - Final grade distributions across years - Clinical Eval. grade distributions across years - OSCE grades distribution across years - COMLEX, COMAT performance by

Discipline/Content Area and Overall - Correlation of course/clerkship data with

national testing performance (COMLEX, Clinical & FBS COMATs), and with Benchmark and Capstone OSCEs

- Annual Curriculum Review Report - Hub site Comparability Analysis - One45 Student Log Analysis - PESA Course Review Reports - Exam item Review Analysis

Kirkpatrick – Level II Learning Assess amount of learning and to determine if curriculum adequately prepares students

Academic Affairs Assessment Office One45 NBOME

End of term/ Academic year PESA- End of BIC/Module/Clerkship (three-year cycle) Item Review- End of each exam Routinely updated on dashboard

AACOM Graduation Survey - Graduation survey and Trends

Kirkpatrick Level I – Reaction Evaluate student experience at SOM. Overall satisfaction with school curriculum, services, support and preparation

AACOM

Annually

COCA Survey of Students - Summary description of student feedback

COCA

Annually

Student Performance Outcomes


Assessment Target Outcomes Measured Level of Assessment/

Purpose of Assessment Data Source Submission Timeframe Monitored By

National Test Performance

National Test (NBOME & NBME) Performance - COMLEX, USMLE, COMSAE, COMAT FBS

Annual results – school/national mean, pass rates

- Comparison of longitudinal trends - Correlations of test performance with other

student data (Admission metrics, medical school performance)

- Mission-based Educational Trends Report

Kirkpatrick – Level II/III Learning and Behavior

Benchmark against national standards

Identify predictors of success Required for graduation and

medical licensure

Assessment Office NBOME NBME

Spring – COMSAE, COMAT FBS End of test cycle COMLEX I, II, III & USMLE I, II, III Routinely updated on dashboard

SOM Dean Academic Dean Assessment Dean Academic Chairs Curriculum Committee PESA STEP

Competency Performance

Student Grades and Competency Assessments - Longitudinal tracking of student performance

(exams, OSCEs, grades) across 4 years - Content area, systems, and competency

performance from ExamSoft category tags - Student competency performance dashboard

including data from written exams, performance in practice (One45 evaluations), and performance in simulation (OSCEs & practical exams)

- Benchmark and Capstone OSCEs - EPA Assessment via preceptor evaluations

Kirkpatrick Level III – Behavior Measure to assess the transfer of learning to practice skills

Track longitudinal competency performance at both student and class level

Assessment Office One45 ExamSoft Learning Space

End of term/ Academic year STEP Review- End of MS I, beginning and end of MS II, beginning of MS III, and beginning and end of MS IV. Routinely updated on dashboard

Academic Dean Assessment Dean CSC PESA STEP

Residency Performance

Postgraduate GME Placement Summary Report - Match results: national match rate - % students matching in primary care - % of students matching into NJ programs

Kirkpatrick Level IV – Results Match positions graduates for first year of postdoctoral training demonstrates how academically competitive SOM is compared to other schools.

Academic Affairs AACOM NRMP

Annually

SOM Dean Academic Dean Assessment Dean Clinical Education Dean Curriculum Committee GME PESA Residency Performance

- National survey to residency program directors

- COMLEX III Performance

Assess student readiness for PGY 1 year

AACOM & AAMC NBOME

Annually

School-based Trends and National Benchmarks


Assessment Target Outcomes Measured Level of Assessment/

Purpose of Assessment Data Source Submission Timeframe Monitored By

Admissions Measures

Admissions/Matriculation Summary Report In Mission and Benchmark Report - GPA distribution - MCAT distribution - % Female students - % Underrepresented minority students - % First generation students - % NJ resident students

Predictors of Academic Success - Analysis across years of admissions data as

early predictors of success

Characteristics of student population which can be used to identify trends in performance

Kirkpatrick Level IV – Result

Predictors of success

Admissions Assessment Office

Annually Annually updated on dashboard Every 1-3 years

SOM Dean Academic Dean Assessment Dean Admissions

Retention Measures

Retention/Graduation - Yearly attrition and retention rates - Total graduates per year - Graduation rates by entering class (# of years

to reach graduation)

Kirkpatrick Level IV - Results Historical data documenting student progress

Academic Affairs Registrar

Annually SOM Dean Academic Dean Assessment Dean

Alumni Measures

Alumni Survey - graduates 5 years out - % of students completed residency training - % of students licensed and board certified - % of students practicing in primary care - % of students practicing in medically

underserved areas - % of students by geographic area of

practice/and in NJ

Kirkpatrick Level IV - Results Determine location and area of practice graduates pursue. Track trends over time

Alumni Affairs

Annually 3-5yrs post-graduation

SOM Dean Academic Dean Alumni Affairs

Osteopathic Core Competencies and Milestones

For

RowanSOM Students

Approved by RowanSOM Curriculum Committee

July 2020

RowanSOM Competencies and Milestones

Competencies and Milestones Approved by RowanSOM Curriculum Committee –July 2020

Page 1

Medical Knowledge

Pre-clerkship Training Clerkship Training Competency Required for Graduation

MS 1 (July – May) MS 2 (July – April) MS 2 (April – June) – MS 3 (July – June) MS 4 (July – May)

- Demonstrate knowledge of normal structure and function in the maintenance of human health. - Demonstrate knowledge of etiologies, pathogenesis, and manifestations of disease. - Apply scientific reasoning to identify and work through clinical problems. Tag: 1: MK1.1 Basic Science MLS1

- Explain the pathophysiology of the RowanSOM Core Chief Complaints (RSC3) in scientific terms. Tag: 1: MK1.1 Basic Science MLS2

MK 1.1 (Basic Science)

Demonstrate knowledge and application

of basic science principles as they relate

to normal and abnormal structure and

function in maintaining homeostasis and

in the development of disease,

respectively.

- Identify the clinical presentations associated with the RSC3. - Demonstrate knowledge of screening and diagnostic tests. - Demonstrate knowledge of osteopathic structural diagnosis and techniques. - Identify the basic preventative, curative, and/or palliative therapeutic strategies. Tag: 1: MK1.2 Clinical Science MLS1

- Apply scientific reasoning to promote health. - Apply scientific reasoning to screen for, diagnose, treat, and manage disease. Tag: 1: MK1.2 Clinical Science MLS2

- Explain the rationale for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Tag: 1: MK1.2 Clinical Science MLS3

MK 1.2 (Clinical Science)


of clinical science principles to diagnostic

and therapeutic problem solving.

- Demonstrate knowledge of population health concepts in the prevention and management of disease. Tag: 1: MK1. 3 Population Health MLS1

- Critically evaluate & apply population health concepts to prevention and management of disease. Tag: 1: MK1.3 Population Health MLS2

MK 1.3 (Population Health)


of population health concepts in the

prevention and management of disease.

- Demonstrate knowledge of psychosocial/behavioral concepts in the delivery of patient-centered care. Tag: 1: MK1.4 Psychosocial and Behavioral MLS1

- Apply psychosocial/behavioral concepts to the delivery of patient-centered care. - Explain the impact of psychosocial/behavioral issues in the delivery of patient-centered care. Tag: 1: MK1.4 Psychosocial and Behavioral MLS2

MK 1.4 (Psychosocial and Behavioral)


of psychosocial/behavioral concepts in

the delivery of patient-centered care.

Level 2 Level 1

Level 3 Level 1 Level 2

Level 1 Level 2

Level 1 Level 2



Page 2



- Demonstrate knowledge of the inter-relationship between mental and physical health. - Describe the influence of personal philosophies/spiritual beliefs on physical and mental health. - Demonstrate knowledge of Osteopathic Principles and Practice (OPP) and their influence on overall health. Tag: 1: MK1.5 OPP MLS1

- Integrate patient’s physical and mental health, and personal/spiritual philosophy into the individualized patient care plan. Tag: 1: MK1.5 OPP MLS2

MK 1.5 (OPP)


of the principles of treating the patient as

an integrated unit of mind, body, and

spirit.

Level 1 Level 2



Page 3

Osteopathic Patient Care



- Demonstrate the elements of a focused and comprehensive medical interview (history), including relevant aspects of biopsychosocial information. - Demonstrate the elements of a focused and comprehensive physical/structural exam. - Obtain accurate vital signs. Tag: 2: OPC2.1 History and Physical MLS1

- Perform a comprehensive medical interview and physical/structural exam with fluency and organization. - Perform a focused medical interview and physical/structural exam with fluency and organization. Tag: 2: OPC2.1 History and Physical MLS2

OPC 2.1 (History and Physical)

Gather essential & accurate

biopsychosocial information about patients

and their conditions through medical

interviewing (history) and physical/

structural examination.

- Differentiate normal/abnormal vital signs in a patient. - Describe signs and symptoms related to RSC3 that can lead to urgent and emergent needs. Tag: 2: OPC2.2 Urgent Care MLS1

- Recognize and interpret concerning clinical symptoms or unexpected results or data and ask for help. - Describe the initial sequence of actions for managing urgent and emergent patient care situations. Tag: 2: OPC2.2 Urgent Care MLS2

- Effectively initiate the appropriate evaluation and management of urgent and emergent patient care situations in a simulated or clinical environment. Tag: 2: OPC2.2 Urgent Care MLS3

OPC 2.2 (Urgent Care)

Demonstrate the ability to recognize the

signs and symptoms of a patient requiring

urgent or emergent care and initiate

appropriate evaluation and management.

- Describe signs and symptoms related to RSC3. - Formulate a differential diagnosis for a patient problem. Tag: 2: OPC2.3 Differential MLS1

-Prioritize and consolidate differential diagnoses for a patient problem. Tag: 2: OPC2.3 Differential MLS2

OPC 2.3 (Differential)

Develop a complete problem list and

combine problems where appropriate to

develop a differential diagnosis.

- Identify a potential therapeutic intervention for a presenting problem. Tag: 2:OPC2.4 Therapeutic Interventions MLS1

- Integrate plausible therapeutic interventions for a presentation in a patient case. Tag: 2: OPC2.4 Therapeutic Interventions MLS2

- Recommend reasonable therapeutic interventions for patient care. Tag: 2: OPC2.4 Therapeutic Interventions MLS3

- Apply appropriate therapeutic interventions in a simulated or clinical environment. Tag: 2: OPC2.4 Therapeutic Interventions MLS4

OPC 2.4 (Therapeutic Interventions)

Determine the appropriate therapeutic

interventions for each patient.


Level 1

Level 1

Level 1

Level 2

Level 2

Level 2

Level 3

Level 3



Page 4



- Identify potential screening and diagnostic tests for a presenting problem. Tag: 2: OPC2.5 Screening and Diagnostic Tests MLS1

- Integrate plausible screening and diagnostic tests for a presenting problem into a patient case. Tag: 2: OPC2.5 Screening and Diagnostic Tests MLS2

- Utilize evidence-based guidelines for choosing screening and diagnostic tests. - Justify and interpret screening and diagnostic tests. Tag: 2: OPC2.5 Screening and Diagnostic Tests MLS3

OPC 2.5 (Screening and Diagnostic Tests)

Recommend and interpret appropriate

screening and diagnostic tests including

laboratory data, imaging studies, and other

tests required for RSC3.

- Define health promotion strategies. - Describe self-management strategies. Tag: 2: OPC2.6 Management Plans MLS1

- Develop a health management strategy for patient cases. Tag: 2: OPC2.6 Management Plans MLS2

- Design a program to promote health in patients and their communities. Tag: 2: OPC2.6 Management Plans MLS3

OPC 2.6 (Management Plans)

Develop management plans that

emphasize lifestyle and self-management

strategies to promote health and treat

disease in patients and their communities.

- Describe the elements of prescription writing. Tag: 2: OPC2.7 Orders and Prescriptions MLS1

- Demonstrate appropriate prescription writing skills. - Describe the necessary elements of medical orders. Tag: 2: OPC2.7 Orders and Prescriptions MLS2

- Demonstrate the ability to write orders. Tag: 2: OPC2.7 Orders and Prescriptions MLS3

OPC 2.7 (Orders and Prescriptions)

Demonstrate the ability to write

appropriate orders and prescriptions.






Page 5



- Describe the basic tenets of patient education. Tag: 2: OPC2.8 Risks and Benefits MLS1

- Utilize evidence-based resources to identify treatment options. - Demonstrate the ability to educate a patient about a diagnosis and related treatment options in a simulated environment. - Explain the key elements and importance of informed consent in shared decision-making. - Explain the role of medical decision making capacity as it relates to informed consent. Tag: 2: OPC2.8 Risks and Benefits MLS2

- Explain medical condition and treatment options to a patient. - Communicate with the patient/family avoiding medical jargon to ensure their understanding of the indications, risks, benefits, alternatives and potential complications for basic tests and procedures (e.g. immunizations, OMT, ultrasound). - Practice eliciting patient and family preferences in discussions of treatment options. Tag: 2: OPC2.8 Risks and Benefits MLS3

- Obtain and document informed consent for basic tests and procedures. Tag: 2: OPC2.8 Risks and Benefits MLS4

OPC 2.8 (Risks and Benefits)

Assist patients in understanding and

managing their conditions and weighing

the risks, benefits, and burdens of available

treatment options.

- Perform basic skills in core medical procedures, including basic cardiac life support and bag and mask ventilation on a mannequin. - Demonstrate basic skills in ultrasound techniques. - Perform therapeutic OMT. Tag: 2: OPC2.9 Procedures MLS1

- Demonstrate successful venipuncture, intravenous placement, injections, Foley catheter placement, and basic suturing skills. - Demonstrate skill in using ultrasound in a simulated or clinical environment. - Evaluate, apply and demonstrate proficiency in therapeutic OMT in a simulated or clinical environment. Tag: 2: OPC2.9 Procedures MLS2

OPC 2.9 (Procedures)

Perform core procedures (medical or

surgical) including but not limited to: OMT,

BCLS, venipunctures/intravenous

placement and injections, and all school

mandated procedures.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Level 1 Level 2



Page 6

Professionalism



- Demonstrate respectful interactions including written and verbal communication with patients, peers, faculty, and staff. - Demonstrate preparedness and punctuality. - Describe primary obligations built into the patient-physician relationship. - Adhere to the Student Code of Conduct. Tag: 3: P3.1 Professional Duties MLS1

- Explain the value of relationship building with patients, families, and other professionals. - Practice compassion. Tag: 3: P3.1 Professional Duties MLS2

- Develop respectful, compassionate relationships with patients and their families and members of the health care team. Tag: 3: P3.1 Professional Duties MLS3

P 3.1 (Professional Duties)

Carry out professional duties with

accountability, integrity, respect, and

compassion.

- Define and practice humility during all learning experiences. - Modify behaviors based on feedback from all evaluators. Tag: 3: P3.2 Personal Limits MLS1

- Explain the limits of their role as student doctor on a health care team. - Identify mentoring resources to meet goals. Tag: 3: P3.2 Personal Limits MLS2

- Identify one’s own limits and seek mentoring. - Actively seek learning opportunities to improve physician skills. Tag: 3: P3.2 Personal Limits MLS3

P 3.2 (Personal Limits)

Recognize the limits of one’s current

capacity and seek direction and support to

be the best that you can be.





Page 7



- Identify situations that are potential conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. - Describe how conflicts of interests undermine public trust. - Attest to the AOA Code of Ethics. - Identify situations that are potential professional conflicts of interest between the practitioner and the patient. - Identify situations that are potential professional conflicts of interest between the profession and the public. Tag: 3: P3.3 Primacy of Patient Needs MLS1

- Describe conflicts of interest experienced or seen in clinical care and practice making appropriate recommendations to resolve these conflicts. Tag: 3: P3.3 Primacy of Patient Needs MLS2

P 3.3 (Primacy of Patient Needs)

Recognize the potential for conflicts of

interests, and place the interest of patients

above one’s own.

- Analyze issues of confidentiality, capacity, and informed consent. - Complete HIPPA training. Tag: 3: P3.4 Privacy and Autonomy MLS1

- Discuss benefits and burdens of treatments with patients, families, and surrogates. - Maintain boundaries with patients and their surrogates. - Protect the privacy of patients. Tag: 3: P3.4 Privacy and Autonomy MLS2

- Elicit patient goals and concerns about their outcomes. Tag: 3: P3.4 Privacy and Autonomy MLS3

P 3.4 (Privacy and Autonomy)

Demonstrate respect for patient privacy

and autonomy.

- Practice humility in all interactions. - Demonstrate curiosity about the patient’s story. - Describe and demonstrate key aspects of cultural competency in all interactions. - Demonstrate appreciation and respect for the expertise of others. Tag: 3: P3.5 Cultural Competence MLS1

- Integrate patient beliefs and values into management plan. Tag: 3: P3.5 Cultural Competence MLS2

P 3.5 (Cultural Competence)

Communicate interest in, respect and

support for all people in a manner sensitive

to age, gender, race, disability, and culture.

Level 1 Level 2


Level 1 Level 2



Page 8



- Describe the components of emotional intelligence and their importance in patient care and professional life. - Identify personal cultural frameworks and associated biases and how they may impact patient interactions and decision-making. - Recognize triggers of emotional interactions in interpersonal situations and process relevant factors appropriately. Tag: 3: P3.6 Self-Awareness of Bias MLS1

- Implement strategies to reduce barriers to effective collaboration. - Recognize triggers of emotional interactions in patient care situations and process relevant factors appropriately. Tag: 3: P3.6 Self-Awareness of Bias MLS2

P 3.6 (Self-Awareness of Bias)

Recognize personal biases and how they

can affect the professional community and

patient care, and strive to minimize their

influence.

- Recognize health care disparities. - Identify barriers to adequate health care. - Describe collective and individual responsibilities to reduce disparities. Tag: 3: P3.7 Advocacy MLS1

- Develop strategies to reduce barriers to the delivery of quality health care. - Identify compromised healthcare providers and situations that require intervention. Tag: 3: P3.7 Advocacy MLS2

P 3.7 (Advocacy)

Advocate for those whose healthcare needs

are not being met.

- Develop healthy behaviors and coping mechanisms to reduce stress and promote wellbeing. - Identify, accept, and seek help when needed for personal vulnerabilities. Tag: 3: P3.8 Self-Care MLS1

- Recognize vulnerabilities in peers and respond with support and/or guide them to seek help as needed. Tag: 3: P3.8 Self-Care MLS2

- Describe the impact of personal wellbeing on delivery of patient care. - Demonstrate healthy habits. Tag: 3: P3.8 Self-Care MLS3

P 3.8 (Self-Care)

Maintain healthy habits and seek help

when needed.

Level 2

Level 1 Level 2

Level 1




Page 9

Interpersonal and Communication Skills



Skill: Patient Communication - Describe and practice the elements of effective interpersonal and communication skills to promote a caring relationship with patients and families. - Explain the importance of patients’ background and culture on doctor-patient communication. Tag: 4: ICS4.1 Patient and Team Communication: Patient MLS1

Skill: Patient Communication - Demonstrate ability to establish rapport and utilize effective communication skills during medical interviewing. Tag: 4: ICS4.1 Patient and Team Communication: Patient MLS2 Skill: Team Communication - Describe the elements of interpersonal and communication skills to promote effective teamwork. - Communicate effectively and respectfully with other professionals in both academic and healthcare environments. Tag: 4: ICS4.1 Patient and Team Communication: Team MLS2

Skill: Patient Communication - Demonstrate effective interpersonal skills and therapeutic interactions during medical interviewing and physical/structural examination. - Communicate effectively with all patients and families, including those with diverse backgrounds, cultures and communication barriers. Tag: 4: ICS4.1 Patient and Team Communication: Patient MLS3 Skill: Team Communication - Communicate effectively and respectfully with other professionals involved in the care of a patient. Tag: 4: ICS4.1 Patient and Team Communication: Team MLS3

Skill: Patient Communication - Demonstrate rapport and therapeutic interactions with patients presenting in a range of settings and with varying levels of complexity. - Engage in collaborative diagnostic and treatment planning with patients and families of diverse backgrounds and cultures. Tag: 4: ICS4.1 Patient and Team Communication: Patient MLS4 Skill: Team Communication - Demonstrate ability to communicate effectively as a member of an interdisciplinary team in a variety of settings and in performing hand-offs to promote patient safety. Tag: 4: ICS4.1 Patient and Team Communication: Team MLS4

ICS 4.1 (Patient and Team

Communication)

Utilize interpersonal and communication

skills to develop and maintain trusting

relationships with patients and team

members.

- Describe the components of motivational interviewing (e.g. open-ended questioning, reflective listening, and affirmative responses). - Communicate the benefits of motivational interviewing to promote behavior change and self-care. Tag: 4: ICS4.2 Health Promotion Counseling MLS1

- Demonstrate key aspects of motivational interviewing during patient interactions. Tag: 4: ICS4.2 Health Promotion Counseling MLS2

ICS 4.2 (Health Promotion Counseling)

Engage in motivational interviewing.


Level 1 Level 2



Page 10



- Describe the components of social awareness and management needed for effective interactions in all professional settings. - Describe the importance of communicating with sensitivity, honesty and compassion regarding adverse events, disclosure of errors and similar difficult topics. - Describe effective strategies for engaging in difficult conversations. Tag: 4: ICS4.3 Difficult Conversations MLS1

- Demonstrate effective interpersonal and communication skills in challenging patient and professional interactions. Tag: 4: ICS4.3 Difficult Conversations MLS2

ICS 4.3 (Difficult Conversations)

Engage in difficult conversations, with

sensitivity, honesty, and compassion.

- Describe the important elements and appropriate format of a standard patient note. Tag: 4: ICS4.4 Documentation MLS1

- Appropriately document a history, vital signs and basic physical/structural exam findings in a well and a sick patient visit in a simulated or clinical environment. Tag: 4: ICS4.4 Documentation MLS2

- Document a patient encounter which includes pertinent information in the appropriate note sections including a prioritized assessment and care plan. - Appropriately document an admissions note on an acute care patient. - Appropriately document OMT procedure. Tag: 4: ICS4.4 Documentation MLS3

- Prepare thorough, organized and accurate written and electronic records for patients seen in a variety of settings in which the information is synthesized and appropriately prioritized. Tag: 4: ICS4.4 Documentation MLS4

ICS 4.4 (Documentation)

Demonstrate the ability to document

concise, timely, accurate, and legible

medical records.

- Describe the elements of a patient case presentation. Tag: 4: ICS4.5 Case Presentation MLS1

- Present basic history and vital signs in a logical fashion following a patient encounter. Tag: 4: ICS4.5 Case Presentation MLS2

- Using a problem-based approach, present patient information in an organized, concise, and accurate fashion including an assessment and elementary plan. Tag: 4: ICS4.5 Case Presentation MLS3

- Present a rationale for treatment which is appropriate for the clinical situation and setting. Tag: 4: ICS4.5 Case Presentation MLS4

ICS 4.5 (Case Presentation)

Present patient cases in an organized,

accurate and concise manner.

Level 1 Level 2





Page 11

Practice-Based Learning and Improvement



- Define basic epidemiological terms and statistical methods. - Demonstrate knowledge of clinical information resources. - Access, understand, and appraise scientific/medical information. - Describe the components of formulating a clinical question. Tag: 5: PBLI5.1 Evidence Based Medicine MLS1

- Formulate clinical questions. - Integrate evidence from scientific literature into patient care based on patients’ values, preferences, and unique health care needs. Tag: 5: PBLI5.1 Evidence Based Medicine MLS2

PBLI 5.1 (Evidence Based Medicine)

Formulate clinical questions and identify,

evaluate, and integrate evidence from

scientific literature related to patients’

unique health care needs (biology, values,

ethnicity, etc.) and the larger population

from which these patients are drawn.

- Identify the elements of written scientific communication (papers, posters, etc.). - Describe the elements of an oral presentation (lectures, posters, case presentations, etc.). - Communicate scientific information in written and oral forms. - Identify appropriate forums to disseminate information. - Explain the principles of translational research. Tag: 5: PBLI5.2 Scholarly Work MLS1

- Practice the steps of applying translational research to clinical care. - Effectively communicate scientific information in written and oral forms. - Prepare and effectively deliver a scientific oral presentation to various audiences. Tag: 5: PBLI5.2 Scholarly Work MLS2

PBLI 5.2 (Scholarly Work)

Contribute to the application,

dissemination, and translation of new

health care knowledge to clinical practice.

- Identify essential behaviors for becoming an effective practicing physician. - Compare data on current individual performance with expected outcomes. - Identify human and material resources for personal and professional learning. - Choose and implement appropriate learning strategies to improve individual performance. - Assess outcomes of implemented learning strategies. Tag: 5: PBLI5.3 Self-Directed Learning MLS1

- Demonstrate reflective practice habits to become an effective physician. Tag: 5: PBLI5.3 Self-Directed Learning MLS2

PBLI 5.3 (Self-Directed Learning)

Engage in self-directed learning to identify

the strengths, deficiencies, and limitations

in one’s knowledge and expertise and set

learning and improvement goals to

support professional growth and

effectiveness as a practicing physician.

Level 1 Level 2

Level 1 Level 2

Level 1 Level 2



Page 12

Systems-Based Practice



- Explain the ways in which people, processes, technology, and policy combine to form systems (health systems science). - Describe delivery care models and levels of care. - Describe the professional responsibility to identify quality concerns and improve system performance. Tag: 6: SBP6.1 Health Care Systems MLS1

- Describe the relationships of various health care models and systems as it affects patient care. - Identify quality measures used by different health systems and care delivery models. - Apply the strategies of quality improvement process and make recommendations in a case. Tag: 6: SBP6.1 Health Care Systems MLS2

SBP 6.1 (Health Care Systems)

Demonstrate knowledge of health systems

and care delivery models to optimize the

delivery of quality patient care across the

continuum.

- Identify payment systems and models. - Recognize how quality measures may affect reimbursement. - Describe the evidence that supports the quality measures implemented. Tag: 6: SBP6.2 Cost Effectiveness MLS1

- Describe how reimbursement and resource allocation affects patient care. - Demonstrate application of the principles of cost-effective health care. Tag: 6: SBP6.2 Cost Effectiveness MLS2

SBP 6.2 (Cost Effectiveness)

Demonstrate knowledge of cost

containment principles, efficiency of time

and their application to the delivery of

patient care.

- Explain the unique roles and responsibilities of the inter-professional team members. - Describe the importance of teamwork and team-based care. - Recognize collaboration strategies to promote effective teamwork. Tag: 6: SBP6.3 Teamwork MLS1

- Identify the essential elements of effective team-based care and how they impact patient safety. - Utilize collaboration strategies to promote effective team-based care. Tag: 6: SBP6.3 Teamwork MLS2

- Practice debriefing and reflection in order to improve team performance and patient outcomes. Tag: 6: SBP6.3 Teamwork MLS3

SBP 6.3 (Teamwork)

Demonstrate knowledge of the

responsibilities of the health care team

and collaborate in providing integrated

and inter-professional patient care.

Level 1 Level 2

Level 1 Level 2




Page 13



- Describe how transitions impact patient safety. - Describe the critical elements of a quality patient transition. Tag: 6: SBP6.4 Transitions of Care MLS1

- Demonstrate the ability to effectively present and document a patient’s needs and condition/status and hand off care to other health care providers. Tag: 6: SBP6.4 Transitions of Care MLS2

SBP 6.4 (Transitions of Care)

Ensure safe transitions across the

continuum of care.

- Identify risks to patient safety. - Describe the physician’s role in identifying system failures and appropriately reporting them. Tag: 6: SBP6.5 Identify System Failures MLS1

- Apply strategies to deliver safe patient care (handwashing, time-outs, checklists, hand-offs, etc.). - Recognize system failures. - Describe the components and principles of quality improvement processes (e.g. root cause analysis, PDSA model) to address system failures. - Apply quality improvement processes and make recommendations in a case. Tag: 6: SBP6.5 Identify System Failures MLS2

SBP 6.5 (Identify System Failures)

Demonstrate the ability to identify system

failures and contribute to a culture of

safety.

Level 1 Level 2

Level 1 Level 2

Anonymous and confidential online student evaluation of

Block/Intersession/Course (BIC) and Faculty (SGL and PBL)

Anonymous and confidential online student evaluation of

clerkship and preceptors

COCA prepared student survey administered to students

Curriculum-SGL Office summarizes student feedback from

SGL Pre-Clerkship students

Curriculum-PBL Office summarizes student feedback from

PBL Pre-Clerkship students

Clincial Education Office summarizes student feedback from

Clerkship students

Pre-Clerkship Phase Directors and Curricular Dean reviews

summary

PBL Directors and Curricular Dean

reviews summary

Dean for Clinical Education reviews

summary

Summarized student feedback is disseminated to and reviewed by: Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Associate Dean for Assessment, Assistant Dean for Curriculum, Assistant Dean for Clinical Education, Director of Academic Affairs, Curriculum Phase Directors, Academic Chairs, and

Block/Intersession/Course (BIC) Directors

Assessment Office conducts the Annual Curriculum Review and Comparability; presents findings and recommendations. (reported curricular changes are included)

Curriculum Committee Meeting

Clerkship Committee Meeting

Pre-Clerkship Committee Meeting

PESA Committee Meeting

Changes are made to the BIC/clerkship/student services

Assistant Dean for Curriculum and

Curriculum Phase Directors communicate

with BIC leadership and/or faculty as needed

Assistant Dean for Clinical Education communicates with:

1) clerkship leadership and 2) hub site directors

Hub site director communicates with preceptors

as needed

Hub-site specific changes are made

to clerkship

Ongoing delivery of medical education and services

Academic Chairs Meeting

PESA comprehensive 3 year review

Mid-year feedback from student curriculum

representatives

Pre-Clerkship and Clerkship Committees'

Chair and Co-Chair, Director of PBL and Curriculum Phase

Directors respond to student feedback

Review results sent to BIC/Clerkship Director, Director of PBL, Department Chair, Phase I or II Director, Assistant

Dean for Curriculum, Assistant Dean for Clinical Education, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and

Pre-Clerkship or Clerkship committees.

BIC director communicates

with faculty as needed

Clerkship director communicates with preceptors

as needed

Curricular changes are reported to Curriculum Committee (includes Student Leadership), related sub-committees, responsible curriculum leadership, and/or Academic Affairs.

Dat

a C

olle

ctio

nD

ata

An

alys

isS

elf-

Ass

essm

ent

and

Qu

alit

y Im

pro

vem

ent

RowanSOM Tensegrity CurriculumStudent Evaluation Data:

Flowchart for Quality Improvement

Assessment Office review

Data and Review Materials Collection

Assessment Office collects course materials, student performance data, item category review, competencies and milestones performance, student

feedback, and Course Director Report. Compiled materials are posted on

PESA Shared Google Drive.

Course/Clerkship Delivered

Disseminate Course/Clerkship Review

The signed cover letter, final review report, and item category review are sent to the appropriate curriculum leadership.

Review is shared with Pre-Clerkship

or Clerkship Committee

Changes are reported back to

Curriculum Committee and

PESA Committee


Committee is notified of upcoming review to complete. PESA member volunteers as primary reviewer and conducts initial review before next

PESA meeting.


Committee discusses review and finalizes all outcomes

RowanSOM Tensegrity Curriculum Program Evaluation and Student Assessment Committee (PESA)

Flowchart for Course/Clerkship Review Process

Curriculum Office tracks changes implemented for

accreditation

Pre-Clerkship or Clerkship Committee

track changes implemented

Course Director Report is completed for the Course/Clerkship on review schedule

Curricular outcomes are documented in

PESA Annual Report

*Student Surveys

RowanSOM Tensegrity CurriculumFlowchart for Annual Curriculum Review Process

Student comment

summaries

Prior PESA Reviews

Grade Distributions

Written Exam Content Area Distributions

COMAT FBS Exams

COMAT Clinical Subjects

Exams

COMLEX Level 1 & 2-CE Exams

Clinical Hub Comparability

Three-year trends or comparisons to national data are

completed when applicable

Collect Data

Assessment Office collects data for each course and clerkship.

Summarize Data

Assessment Office summarizes course and

clerkship data into detailed tables and graphs.

Analyze Data

Performance indicator criteria is applied to analyze the

summarized data.

Recommendations

A final summary provides specific recommendations based upon data

reviewed. The Curriculum Office provides their response of any active

or planned actions, which is then included in the final report.

Based on review results a course/clerkship may be

recommended for additional review by the PESA Committee

or Assessment Office

*Final report is disseminated to: Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs,

Assistant Deans for Curriculum and for Clinical Education, Chairs, Course and Clerkship Directors, Hub Site Directors,

Curriculum Committee, PESA Committee and the Director of Academic Affairs.

Final report is presented to: Curriculum Committee

(includes student leadership), related sub-committees, and

Academic Chairs

Course/Clerkship is delivered

Evaluation Results

Data is categorized into:

Performance Measures

Internal Sources

National Sources

Data driven changes are made by the

responsible curriculum leadership and Academic Affairs

*See Student Evaluation Data Flowchart for details

No Suggestion or Requirement

Student Reviews

Performance Reports

No Requirement or Suggestion

Suggestion

Student Recieves a STEP Letter

STEP Student Process

Suggestion Requirement

Continue with coursework and

outside activities

Consider making

changes suggested by

STEP

Contact coach to schedule

meeting

Requirement

Recieve and answer

reflection questions

Meet with Coach

Create Action Plan

Use Action Plan as a roadmap

Follow up with coach as needed

Complete and submit progress

report

Recieve feedback regarding

progress report

Created by the Office of Assessment & Evaluation Last updated 6/10/21

Befo

re C

oach

Mee

ting

Duri

ng C

oach

Mee

ting

Afte

r Co

ach

Mee

ting

Student reviews performance

reports

Student Receives a STEP Letter

with a requirement*

Student Process - Requirement

Student contacts coach

to schedule meeting

Student recieves and

answers reflection questions

Establish Rapport

Discuss/create Action Plan

Use action plan as resource for accountability and

continued development

Laying the Foundation Discussion Next Steps

Review/Discuss reflection

questions and ask powerful

questions

Student led discussion

Clarify reason for requirement

Coach provides additional

resource(s)

Coach shares a copy of the

progress report

Coach reiterates deadlines

Follow up with coach as needed

Complete and submit progress report

Student recieves feedback regarding progress report from Assessment Office

Coach reiterates the importance of Action Plan &

self-accountability

Share relevant data

Coach offers follow up

meeting(s) as needed

Student led discussion

*some students may also receive a suggestion from the STEP Committee

Created by the Office of Assessment & EvaluationLast Updated 6/10/21

Dat

a C

olle

cted

, Ana

lyze

d, a

nd S

umm

ariz

ed

by th

e A

sses

smen

t Offi

ce P

rior

to S

TE

P

Com

mitt

ee M

eetin

g

STEP Committee Suggestion (Optional development activity)

Competency Level of Performance

STEP Committee Meeting

STEP Committee

Outside Activities

Professionalism Reports

Overall Student Performance

EPA Level of Performance

RowanSOM BRIDGE Week Written and

Clinical Assessments

Clinical Skills, Procedures, and

Ultrasound Performance

Student Status & Support from the

Center for Teaching and Learning

Progress on Previous STEP Requirements

STEP Committee Requirement (Required development activity)

Referral to Student Academic Progress

Committee for Formal Remediation

Dec

isio

ns/O

utco

mes

of

ST

EP

Com

mitt

ee M

eetin

gs

Created by the Office of Assessment & Evaluation Last Updated 6/10/21

Rowan SOM EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name

Evaluating :person (role) or moment's name (ifapplicable)

Dates :start date to end date

* indicates a mandatory response

STUDENT EVALUATION OF BLOCK/INTERSESSION/COURSECourse CharacteristicInstructions: Rate the course on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.Depending on the learning sessions you are evaluating, "course" in this survey could also mean block, intersession orlongitudinal course.

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Unableto

Evaluate

Nolearning

objectiveswere

providedfor thecourse.

Learningobjectives were

provided butwere somewhatunclear and didnot align with

course content orexams.

Learningobjectiveswere clear

and alignedwith course

content,assignmentsand exams.

Learning objectives wereprovided for both the

overall course and eachsession, were clearly

stated and aligned withcourse content,

assignments and exams.

*Learning Objectives


Unableto

evaluate

Content wasdisorganized,sequence oftopics was

illogical anddid not support

learning,material notdelivered at

theappropriate

level, noresources

provided tosupport self-

directedlearning.

Content was fairlyorganized,

sequence of sometopics seemed outof order and did

not alwayssupport learning,

some material notdelivered at the

appropriate level,limited resources

provided tosupport self-

directed learning.

Content wasorganized,sequenced

and effectivefor learning,

materialdelivered at

theappropriate

level, severalresources

wereprovided tosupport self-

directedlearning.

Content was well-organized, sequenced

and specificallylinked to prior

content for effectivelearning, materialdelivered at the

appropriate level andadapted to meet theneeds of the class, a

wide variety ofresources were

provided to supportself-directed learning.

*Course Content

Poor Fair Good Excellent

Unableto

Evaluate

Course contentand assessment

were notintegrated at all.

Some of thecontent but few

assessmentswere integrated.

Most of thecontent and some

assessmentswere integrated.

All the contentand

assessmentswere well

integrated.*Integration of Content andAssessment

Page 1

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

The quizzesand exams did

NOT informthe learningprogress; NOconstructive

feedback wasprovided aftertests to help

studentimprove.

The quizzes andexams

SOMEWHATinformed the

learningprogress;

feedback wasprovided after

SOME tests, BUTwas unclear for

studentimprovement.

The quizzes andexams informed

the learningprogress;

feedback wasprovided afterMOST tests,WITH SOME

detailsconstructive for

studentimprovement.

The quizzes andexams WELLinformed the

learning progress;feedback was

provided after ALLtests, WITH RICH

details of strength,weakness andrationale for

studentimprovement.

*Assessment for learning


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasNOT

engaging,delivery

limited topresentationsof concepts

with noopportunity

to applycontent oruse criticalthinking orproblem-

solving skills.

Course wasMODERATELY

engaging,delivery mostlypresentationsof conceptswith limited

opportunity foractive learningor for students

to applycontent anduse criticalthinking orproblem-

solving skills.

Course wasengaging and

used SOMEactive learningstrategies (e.g.

small group,cased-based

learning, etc.)that provided

students someopportunity toapply content

and use criticalthinking and

problem-solvingskills.

Course was HIGHLYengaging and used a

VARIETY of activelearning strategies(e.g. small group,

cased-based learning,interprofessional panel

discussion, self-directed assignments,

etc.) that providedstudents the

opportunity to applycontent and use

critical thinking andproblem solving skills.

*Quality of Overall Course Instruction


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasdisorganized,syllabus and

schedule wereunclear or

incomplete,learning

managementsite was

ineffective anddid not provide

access tomaterials inadvance of

class, CourseDirector not

readilyaccessible forfeedback orguidance.

Course wassomewhat

disorganized,syllabus was fairly

clear andcomplete,

schedule wasinaccurate or

frequentlychanged, learningmanagement site

was adequatehowever access to

materials oftenprovided afterclass, Course

Director was notreadily accessible

for feedback orguidance.

Course wasorganized,

syllabus andschedule were

clear andcomplete,learning

managementsite was

effective withaccess toslides andmaterials

provided atthe time of

class, CourseDirector

accessible forfeedback orguidance.

Course was veryorganized, syllabusand schedule wereclear andcomplete, learningmanagement sitewas highlyeffective withaccess to materialsand self-directedlearning resourceswell in advance ofclass, CourseDirector wasreadily accessibleoutside of class forfeedback andguidance.

*Course Administration


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasineffective anddid not support

student learning;one of the worst

classes that Ihave had.

Course wassomewhat

ineffective, butdid support

student learning;among the

weaker classes Ihave had.

Course waseffective and

supportedstudent

learning;among the

better classes Ihave had.

Course was highlyeffective,

significantlyadvanced studentlearning; one of

the best classes Ihave had.

*General Course Experience

Page 2

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths of the course.

Please provide specific recommendations that you feel would help improve the course.

Page 3

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


:evaluator's name

Evaluating :person (role) or moment'sname (if applicable)



STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLERKSHIPAttendance & ParticipationInstructions: Select the statement that best describes your experience.

< 4hours/day

4-6hours/day

6-8hours/day

> 8hours/day

*Please indicate the average number of hours per day you were present onsiteduring this rotation (excluding travel & prep time):

< 2hours/day

2-4hours/day

4-6hours/day

> 6hours/day

*Please indicate the average number of contact hours you spent per day with afaculty/attending preceptor while on rotation:

Clerkship CharacteristicsInstructions: Rate the clerkship on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Nolearningobjectiveswereprovidedfor theclerkship

Learning objectiveswere provided for theoverall clerkship butwere somewhatunclear and did notalign with clinicalexperiences,assignments orexams

Learningobjectives forthe overallclerkship wereclear andaligned withclinicalexperiences,assignmentsand exams

Learning objectiveswere provided foroverall clerkship andspecific rotationexperiences, wereclearly stated andaligned with clinicalexperiences,assignments and exams



Unableto

Evaluate

Inadequate patientexperience orvariety of patientcases to supportskill development,pacing was alwayseither too rushedor too slow tofacilitate learning

Adequate patientexperience andvariety of patientcases to supportskill development,pacing was ofteneither too rushedor too slow tofacilitate learning

Good patientexperience andvariety ofpatient cases tosupport skilldevelopment,pacing wasusuallyappropriate tofacilitatelearning

Excellent patientexperience andvariety of patientcases to supportskilldevelopment,pacing wasalwaysappropriate tofacilitatelearning

*Patient Care Experience

Page 1

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Inadequateincorporation of aholistic approachto patient care ORuse of osteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on technique) inpatient care

Adequateincorporation of aholistic approachto patient careOR use ofosteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on technique) inpatient care

Goodincorporation of aholistic approachto patient careOR use ofosteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on techniques) inpatient care

Excellentincorporation of aholistic approachto patient care ORuse of osteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on techniques) inpatient care

*Osteopathic Principles and Practice


Unableto

Evaluate

No exposure toworking withother membersof theinterprofessionalteam

Limited exposureto working withother members oftheinterprofessionalteam

Some exposureto working withother membersof theinterprofessionalteam

A great deal ofexposure toworking with othermembers of theinterprofessionalteam

*Interprofessional Practice Experience


Unableto

Evaluate

Faculty/attendingswere disinterestedin teaching andsupportingstudent learning,little bedsideteaching or formalinstruction,instruction notprovided at theappropriate level

Faculty/attendingsoffered limitedteaching andsupport forstudent learning,some bedsideteaching andformal instruction,instruction oftennot provided atthe appropriatelevel

Faculty/attendingswere interested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,good bedsideteaching andformal instruction,instructiongenerallyprovided at theappropriate level

Faculty/attendingswere highlyinvested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,excellent bedsideteaching andformal instruction,instructionconsistentlyprovided at theappropriate level

*Clinical Teaching by Faculty &Attending Physicians


Unableto

Evaluate

Housestaff weredisinterested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,little bedsideteaching orformalinstruction,instruction notprovided at theappropriate level

Housestaffoffered limitedteaching andsupport forstudent learning,some bedsideteaching andformalinstruction,instruction oftennot provided atthe appropriatelevel

Housestaff wereinterested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,good bedsideteaching andformalinstruction,instructiongenerallyprovided at theappropriate level

Housestaff werehighly invested inteaching andsupporting studentlearning, excellentbedside teachingand formalinstruction,instructionconsistentlyprovided at theappropriate level

*Clinical Teaching by Housestaff

Page 2

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Rotation providedno hands-oninvolvement inpatient care,students were notincluded asvaluablemembers of theteam and werelimited to anobservational role

Rotation providedsome hands-oninvolvement inpatient care,students weregiven someresponsibility butwere not activelyincluded asvaluable membersof the team

Rotation providedregular hands-oninvolvement inpatient care,students wereincluded asmembers of theteam and allowedto participate insome decision-making

Rotationprovidedextensive hands-on patient care,students wereincluded asvaluablemembers of theteam and asactiveparticipants indecision-making

*Student Participation


Unableto

Evaluate

No feedbackwas provided,no directreview ofstudent workor observationof student'sclinical skills

Some generalfeedback provided butoffered only whenprompted by students,there was no review ofstudent work or directobservation of clinicalskills

Generalfeedback wasprovided basedupon a review ofstudent workwith some directobservation ofclinical skills

Specific andconstructivefeedback wasprovided basedupon review ofstudent work anddirect observationof clinical skills

*Feedback


Unableto

Evaluate

Clerkship wasdisorganized,learningmanagementsite wasineffective,expectationsand scheduleswere notprovided orwere unclear,ClerkshipDirector/coordinator notreadilyaccessible forguidance

Clerkship wassomewhatdisorganized,learningmanagement sitewas adequate atsupporting studentrotation,expectations andschedules weresomewhat unclearor frequentlychanged, ClerkshipDirector/ coordinatornot readilyaccessible forguidance

Clerkship wasorganized,learningmanagementsite waseffective atsupportingstudentrotation,expectationsand scheduleswere clear,ClerkshipDirector/coordinatoraccessible forguidance

Clerkship was veryorganized, learningmanagement sitewas highly effectiveat supportingstudent rotation andself-directedlearning,expectations andschedules weredetailed and clear,Clerkship Director/coordinator readilyaccessible forguidance

*Clerkship Administration


Unableto

Evaluate

Clerkship wasineffective anddid not supportstudent learning;one of the worstclinical rotationsthat I have had

Clerkship wassomewhatineffective, but didsupport studentlearning; amongthe weaker clinicalrotations I havehad

Clerkship waseffective andsupportedstudentlearning; amongthe betterclinical rotationsI have had

Clerkship washighly effective,significantlyadvanced studentlearning; one ofthe best clinicalrotations I havehad

*Overall Clerkship Experience

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the clerkship. Specific recommendations that you feel would improve theclerkship are particularly helpful.

*Strengths:

Page 3*Weaknesses (with specific recommendations):

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Rowan SOMUndergrad

Evaluated By : evaluator's nameEvaluating : person (role) or moment's name (if applicable)Dates : start date to end date


Student Evaluation of Osteopathic Clinical Skills (OCS) CourseInstructions: Please take note of the specific component indicated in each of the section headers (History & Physical Exam, OMM, and Procedures and Ultrasound) below, and select the statementthat best describes your experience in regards to that specific component of the Osteopathic Clinical Skills (OCS) Course. The remaining questions at the bottom of this evaluation relate to the OCScourse overall, and are not component-specific.

History & Physical Exam ComponentPoor Fair Good Excellent

Unableto

Evaluate

Small group sessions wereNOT engaging; there was

inadequate opportunity topractice clinical skills or

receive formative feedbackon SOAP note writing.

Small group sessions wereMODERATELY engaging;

there was limited opportunityto practice clinical skills or


Small group sessions wereMOSTLY engaging; there

was opportunity to practiceclinical skills and receiveformative feedback on

SOAP note writing.

Small group sessions wereHIGHLY engaging; there was

ample opportunity topractice clinical skills and


*Quality of Overall Course Instruction (History& Physical Exam)


Unableto

Evaluate

OSCEs and practical examswere NOT representative of

content covered in pre-session materials, lecturesand small group activities.

OSCEs and practical examswere MODERATELY

representative of contentcovered in pre-session

materials, lectures and smallgroup activities.

OSCEs and practical examswere MOSTLY

representative of contentcovered in pre-session

materials, lectures and smallgroup activities.

OSCEs and practical examswere HIGHLY representative

of content covered in pre-session materials, lecturesand small group activities.

*Integration of Content and Assessment(History & Physical Exam)


Unableto

Evaluate

OSCEs and practicalexams did not inform the

learning process; NOconstructive feedback was

provided to help thestudent improve.

OSCEs and practical examsSOMEWHAT informed thelearning process; minimalconstructive feedback was

provided to help the studentimprove.

OSCEs and practical examsADEQUATELY informed

the learning process;constructive feedback was

provided to help thestudent improve.

OSCEs and practical examsFULLY informed the learning

process; constructive feedbackwas provided detailing strengths

and weaknesses to help thestudent improve.

*Assessment for learning (History & PhysicalExam)

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths of this specific component (History & Physical Exam).

Please provide specific recommendations that you feel would help improve this specific component (History & Physical Exam).

OMM ComponentPOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Unableto

Evaluate

Component was NOTengaging, lab sessions

were instructional only,with inadequate

opportunity to practicetechniques, apply critical-

thinking for treatmentoptions, or engage with

facilitators in a meaningfulway.

Component wasMODERATELY engaging,lab sessions were mostlyinstructional with limitedopportunity to practice

techniques, apply critical-thinking for treatment

options, or engage withfacilitators in a meaningful

way.

Component was MOSTLYengaging and used SOME

active learning strategies thatprovided students someopportunity to practice

techniques, apply critical-thinking for treatment

options, and engage withfacilitators in a meaningful

way

Component was HIGHLYengaging and used a VARIETY

of active learning strategiesthat provided students the

opportunity to practicetechniques, apply critical-

thinking for treatment options,and engage with facilitators in a

meaningful way.

*Quality of Overall Course Instruction (OMM)

Page 1


Unableto

Evaluate

Diagnostic exams, practicalexams and/or OSCEs were

NOT representative ofcontent covered in pre-

session materials, lectures,demonstrations and lab

activities.

SOME of the diagnosticexams, practical exams

and/or OSCEs wererepresentative of content

covered in pre-sessionmaterials, lectures,

demonstrations and labactivities.

MOST of the diagnosticexams, practical exams

and/or OSCEs wererepresentative of content

covered in pre-sessionmaterials, lectures,


ALL of the diagnostic exams,practical exams and/or

OSCEs were representativeof content covered in pre-session materials, lectures,


*Integration of Content and Assessment(OMM)


Unableto

Evaluate

Diagnostic exams, practicalexams and/or OSCEs didNOT inform the learningprocess; NO constructivefeedback was provided tohelp the student improve.

Diagnostic exams, practicalexams and/or OSCEs

SOMEWHAT informed thelearning process; MINIMALconstructive feedback was

provided to help the studentimprove.

Diagnostic exams, practicalexams and/or OSCEs

ADEQUATELY informedthe learning process;

constructive feedback wasprovided to help the

student improve.

Diagnostic exams, practicalexams and/or OSCEs FULLY

informed the learning process;constructive feedback was

provided detailing strength andweakness to help the student

improve.*Assessment for learning (OMM)

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths of this specific component (OMM).

Please provide specific recommendations that you feel would help improve this specific component (OMM).

Procedures and Ultrasound ComponentPoor Fair Good Excellent

Unableto

Evaluate

Core Procedures andUltrasound lab sessions were

NOT engaging; there wasinadequate opportunity to

practice skills or receiveformative feedback on core

procedures performance.

Core Procedures andUltrasound lab sessions were

MODERATELY engaging;there was limited opportunity

to practice skills or receiveformative feedback on core

procedures performance.

Core Procedures andUltrasound lab sessionswere MOSTLY engaging;there was opportunity topractice skills and receive

formative feedback on coreprocedures performance.

Core Procedures andUltrasound lab sessions wereHIGHLY engaging; there was

ample opportunity topractice skills and receive

formative feedback on coreprocedures performance.

*Quality of Overall Course Instruction(Procedures and Ultrasound)


Unableto

Evaluate

Core Procedures andUltrasound assessments

were NOT representative ofcontent covered in pre-

session materials and in-class activities.

SOME Core Procedures andUltrasound assessmentswere representative of

content covered in pre-session materials and in-

class activities.

MOST Core Procedures andUltrasound assessmentswere representative of

content covered in pre-session materials and in-

class activities.

ALL Core Procedures andUltrasound assessments werewell representative of content

covered in pre-sessionmaterials and in-class

activities.*Integration of Content and Assessment(Procedures and Ultrasound)


Unableto

Evaluate

Core Procedures andUltrasound assessmentsdid NOT improve ability

to perform coreprocedures; NO

constructive feedbackwas provided to help

student improve.

Core Procedures andUltrasound assessmentsSOMEWHAT improvedability to perform core

procedures; constructivefeedback was provided, BUTwas unclear to help student

improve.

Core Procedures andUltrasound assessmentsADEQUATELY improved

ability to perform coreprocedures; constructivefeedback was provided

WITH SOME details to helpstudent improve.

Core Procedures and Ultrasoundassessments FULLY improved

ability to perform coreprocedures; constructive

feedback was provided WITHRICH details of strength,

weakness and rationale to helpstudent improve.

*Assessment for learning (Procedures andUltrasound)

Page 2

Please provide specific recommendations that you feel would help improve this specific component (Procedures and Ultrasound).

OCS Course OverallPOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Unableto

Evaluate

No learningobjectives

wereprovided forthe course.

Learning objectives wereprovided but were somewhatunclear and did not align with

course content or exams.

Learning objectives wereclear and aligned with

course content, lab/smallgroup activities, and

exams.

Learning objectives were provided for boththe overall course and each session, were

clearly stated and aligned with course content,lab/small group activities and exams.

*Learning Objectives (OCS)


Unableto

evaluate

Content wasdisorganized, sequence

of topics was illogicaland did not support

learning, material notdelivered at the

appropriate level, noresources provided tosupport self-directed

learning.

Content was fairly organized,sequence of some topics

seemed out of order and didnot always support learning,

some material not delivered atthe appropriate level, resources

provided were somewhateffective in supporting self-

directed learning.

Content was organized,sequenced and

effective for learning,material delivered at the

appropriate level,resources provided

were adequatelyeffective in supportingself-directed learning.

Content was well-organized,sequenced and specifically linked

to prior content for effectivelearning, material delivered at theappropriate level and adapted to

meet the needs of the class,resources provided were highly

effective in supporting self-directed learning.

*Course Content (OCS)


Unableto

Evaluate

Course was disorganized,syllabus, studentexpectations, and

schedule were unclear orincomplete, learning

management site wasineffective and did not

provide access to materialsin advance of class,

Component Director(s)were not readily accessiblefor feedback or guidance.

Course was somewhatdisorganized, syllabus and

student expectations were fairlyclear and complete, schedulewas inaccurate or frequently

changed, learning managementsite was adequate however

access to materials oftenprovided after class,

Component Director(s) werenot readily accessible for

feedback or guidance.

Course was organized,syllabus, studentexpectations and

schedule were clear andcomplete, learning

management site waseffective with access to

slides and materialsprovided at the time of

class, ComponentDirector(s) were

accessible for feedback orguidance.

Course was very organized,syllabus, student expectationsand schedule were clear and

complete, learningmanagement site was highly

effective with access tomaterials and self-directedlearning resources well in

advance of class, ComponentDirector(s) were readily

accessible outside of class forfeedback and guidance.

*Course Administration (OCS)


Unableto

Evaluate

Course was ineffective anddid not support studentlearning or clinical skills

development; one of theworst classes that I have had.

Course was somewhatineffective, but did supportstudent learning and clinical

skills development; among theweaker classes I have had.

Course was effective andsupported student learning

and clinical skillsdevelopment; among thebetter classes I have had.

Course was highly effective,significantly advanced

student learning and clinicalskills development; one of the

best classes I have had.*General Course Experience (OCS)

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths of the OCS course.

Please provide specific recommendations that you feel would help improve the OCS course.

Page 3

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths of this specific component (Procedures and Ultrasound).

Rowan SOMUndergrad



PBL Student Evaluation of Case-Based Learning ModuleCase EffectivenessPlease rate the following aspects of cases used in this module.

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe sequence of cases was totallydisorganized; cases didn't connect

with each other, and didn't alignwith the learning progress of the

module, and needed to be re-designed.

The sequence of cases wassomehow organized, but

their connections were stillunclear and didn't align withthe learning progress of the

module.

The sequence of cases wasorganized and the case

connections were fairly clear, butsome of them could be rearranged

to better align with the learningprogress of the module.

The sequence of cases wasorganized and the caseconnections were clear

that closely aligned withthe learning progress of

the module.*Sequence of the cases

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe number of cases was too few

that only cover few targetedcontent, or too abundant that

exceeded students' workload andcapacity.

The number of cases onlycover some of the targeted

content, or slightly exceededstudents' workload and

capacity.

The number of cases wassufficient to cover most of thetargeted content, and did notexceeded students' workload

and capacity.

The number of cases wassufficient to cover all of the

targeted content, and did notexceeded students' workload

and capacity.*The number of cases

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTNone of the cases was accurate

and relevant to the modulecontent

Only a few cases were accurateand relevant to the module

content

Most of the cases were accurateand relevant to the module

content

All the cases were accurateand relevant to the module

content*The accuracy and relevance of cases

Please provide your suggestions that could help improve the cases.

Overall Quality of the ModulePOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

The number of assessmentswas too few or too

abundant, assessments didnot align with program goals

The number ofassessments was

appropriate but theassessments did not

address critical thinkingskills

The number of assessmentswas appropriate; Some

aspects of the assessmentsaddressed critical thinking

skills

The number of assessments wasappropriate; Assessments addressed

critical thinking skills and represented acontinuation of the learning process

*Assessment

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTResources to help thecase learning were not

available or accessible; noability to store or share

information

Minimal resources wereavailable to help the case

learning, but were difficult toaccess; no ability to store or

share information

Adequate resources wereavailable to help the case

learning, and readily accessible;limited capacity to store and

share information

A wide variety of resources wereavailable to help the case learningand easily accessible; Appropriate

data storage and technology to shareinformation

*Learning resources

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTFeedback wasnot provided

and/or nothelpful

Individual and/or group feedbackwas provided sporadically, and

feedback was somewhat helpful

Individual and group feedback wasprovided consistently, and feedback

was for the most part helpful andtimely

Individual and group feedback wasprovided consistently, and feedbackwas detailed, very helpful and timely

*Feedback

Page 1

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTModule was disorganized,schedule was unclear or

incomplete, modulefostered a non-

collaborative environmentwith negative group

dynamics

Module was somewhat disorganized,schedule was fairly clear but changes

frequently occurred, moduleoccassionally fostered a collaborativeenvironment with both positive and

negative group dynamics

Module was organized,schedule was clear and

complete, module fostereda collaborative

environment with mostlypositive group dynamics

Module was very organized,schedule was clear and

complete, moduleconsistently fostered a richcollaborative environment

with positive group dynamics

*Module Organization

Please comment on other Strengths and Weaknesses of this module. Specific suggestions are particularly helpful.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Page 2


:evaluator's name

Evaluating :person (role) or moment's name (ifapplicable)



PBL Student Evaluation of CourseCourse CharacteristicInstructions: Rate the course on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Nolearningobjectiveswereprovidedfor thecourse

Learningobjectives wereprovided butwere somewhatunclear and didnot align withcourse content orexams.

Learningobjectiveswere clearand alignedwith coursecontent,assignmentsand exams.

Learning objectives wereprovided for both theoverall course and eachsession, were clearlystated and aligned withcourse content,assignments and exams.



Unableto

evaluate

Content wasdisorganized,sequence oftopics wasillogical anddid not supportlearning,material notdelivered attheappropriatelevel, noresourcesprovided tosupport self-directedlearning

Content was fairlyorganized,sequence of sometopics seemed outof order and didnot alwayssupport learning,some material notdelivered at theappropriate level,limited resourcesprovided tosupport self-directed learning

Content wasorganized,sequencedand effectivefor learning,materialdelivered attheappropriatelevel, severalresourceswereprovided tosupport self-directedlearning

Content was well-organized, sequencedand specificallylinked to priorcontent for effectivelearning, materialdelivered at theappropriate level andadapted to meet theneeds of the class, awide variety ofresources wereprovided to supportself-directed learning

*Course Content


Unable toEvaluate

The quizzesand/or exams

didNOT informthe learningprogress; NOconstructivefeedback wasprovided aftertests to help

studentimprove.

The quizzesand/orexams

SOMEWHATinformed the

learningprogress;

feedback wasprovided afterSOME tests,

BUTwas unclear for

studentimprovement.

The quizzesand/orexams

informedthe learning

progress;feedback wasprovided afterMOST tests,WITH SOME

detailsconstructive for

studentimprovement.

The quizzesand/or

exams WELLinformed the

learningprogress;

feedback wasprovided after

ALLtests, WITH

RICHdetails ofstrength,

weakness andrationale for

studentimprovement.

*Assessment for learning

Page 1

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Course was notengaging,

delivery limitedto presentationsof concepts withno opportunity

to apply contentor use critical

thinking orproblem-solving

skills.

Course wasmoderately engaging,delivery mostlypresentations ofconcepts with limitedopportunity for activelearning or forstudents to applycontent and usecritical thinking orproblem- solvingskills.

Course wasengaging andused some activelearning strategiesthat providedstudents someopportunity toapply content anduse criticalthinking andproblem-solvingskills.

Course washighlyengagingand used avariety ofactivelearningstrategiesthatprovidedstudentstheopportunityto applycontentand usecriticalthinkingandproblemsolvingskills.

*Quality of Overall Course Instruction


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasdisorganized,syllabus andschedule wereunclear orincomplete,learningmanagementsite wasineffective anddid not provideaccess tomaterials inadvance ofclass, CourseDirector notreadilyaccessible forfeedback orguidance

Course wassomewhatdisorganized,syllabus was fairlyclear andcomplete,schedule wasinaccurate orfrequentlychanged, learningmanagement sitewas adequatehowever access tomaterials oftenprovided afterclass, CourseDirector was notreadily accessiblefor feedback orguidance.

Course wasorganized,syllabus andschedule wereclear andcomplete,learningmanagementsite waseffective withaccess toslides andmaterialsprovided atthe time ofclass, CourseDirectoraccessible forfeedback orguidance.

Course was veryorganized, syllabusand schedule wereclear andcomplete, learningmanagement sitewas highlyeffective withaccess to materialsand self-directedlearning resourceswell in advance ofclass, CourseDirector wasreadily accessibleoutside of class forfeedback andguidance.

*Course Administration


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasineffective anddid not supportstudent learning;one of the worstclasses that Ihave had

Course wassomewhatineffective, butdid supportstudent learning;among theweaker classes Ihave had.

Course waseffective andsupportedstudentlearning;among thebetter classes Ihave had.

Course was highlyeffective,significantlyadvanced studentlearning; one ofthe best classes Ihave had.

*General Course Experience

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths of the course.

Page 2

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Please provide specific recommendations that you feel would help improve the course.

Rowan SOMUndergrad



PBL Student Evaluation of PBL Curriculum (Modules/Intersessions/Courses/BRIDGE Weeks)*Program Director

PICK

*YearOMS IOMS II

Instructions: Rate the PBL curriculum including modules, intersessions, longitudinal courses, and BRIDGE week(s) on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describesyour experience.

Curriculum CharacteristicsPOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT


wereprovided

for thecurriculum

Learning objectives were provided forsome components of the curriculumbut were somewhat unclear and did

not align with course content,assignments or assessments

Learning objectives were providedfor ALL components of the

curriculum and were mostly clearand aligned with course content,

assignments and assessments

Learning objectives were provided forALL components of the curriculum and

were very clearly stated and well-aligned with course content,


*Curriculum Objectives

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTModules, intersessions,

courses, and BRIDGE week(s)were not logically sequenced,

were of poor quality withcontent that was both

inaccurate and irrelevant, anddid not support active student

learning or an effectivelearning experience

Modules, intersessions, courses,and BRIDGE week(s) were

somewhat logically sequencedand of adequate quality with

content that was mostlycurrent and relevant, includedactive student learning and an

overall adequate learningexperience

Modules, intersessions,courses, and BRIDGE

week(s) were effectivelysequenced and of good

quality with content that wascurrent and relevant,

included active studentlearning and an overall

effective learning experience

Modules, intersessions, courses,and BRIDGE week(s) were

effectively sequenced and ofexcellent quality with content that

was current, relevant andappropriately linked to prior

learning, included active studentlearning and an overall highlyeffective learning experience

*Curriculum Content (including Case-basedmodules/Intersessions/Courses, and BRIDGEweeks)

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTResources required tocomplete assignmentswere not available or

accessible.

Minimal resources required tocomplete assignments wereavailable but were difficult to

access.

Adequate resources required tocomplete assignments were

available and readily accessible.

A wide variety of resourcesrequired to complete assignments

were available and easilyaccessible.

*Learning resources

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTOCS was not aligned with

content and learningobjectives of other case-based

learning modules

OCS was somewhat aligned withcontent and learning objectives

of other case-based learningmodules

OCS was mostly aligned withcontent and learning objectives

of other case-based learningmodules

OCS was fully aligned withcontent and learning

objectives of other case-basedlearning modules

*Integration of OCS


The number of cases was toofew or too abundant, and theirquality was poor, and did not

align with the curriculum.

The number of cases wasappropriate, but the quality of

SOME cases was not good, andsome were not aligned with the

curriculum

The number of cases wasappropriate, and their

quality was mostly good,and aligned with the

curriculum

The number of cases wasappropriate, and their qualitywas good and effective, and

well-aligned with thecurriculum

*Case-based Learning Modules


and/or nothelpful

Individual and/or group feedbackwas provided sporadically,


Individual and group feedback wasprovided consistently, feedback wasfor the most part helpful and timely

Individual and group feedback wasprovided consistently, feedback was

detailed, very helpful and timely

*Feedback

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe number of

assessments wastoo few or too

abundant,assessments did

not align withinstruction

The number of assessmentswas appropriate but the

assessments did notconsistently align withinstruction or addressproblem solving and

reasoning skills

The number of assessments wasappropriate, and assessments were

consistently aligned withinstruction, some aspects of theassessments addressed problem

solving and reasoning skills


effective and consistently aligned withinstruction; they addressed problem-

solving and reasoning skills andrepresented a continuation of the learning

process*Assessment

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe curriculum was

disorganized,syllabi/schedules wereunclear or incomplete,

program fostered a non-collaborative environment

with negative groupdynamics

The curriculum was somewhatdisorganized, syllabi/schedules were

fairly clear but inaccuracies and changesfrequently occurred, program

occasionally fostered a collaborativeenvironment with both positive and


The curriculum wasorganized, syllabi/schedules

were clear and complete,program in general fostereda collaborative environmentwith mostly positive group

dynamics

The curriculum was veryorganized, syllabi and

schedules were clear andcomplete, program

consistently fostered a richcollaborative environment


*Curriculum administration

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe curriculum wasineffective; did not

develop critical thinkingor communication skills,students gained minimal

knowledge of basicscience and clinical

principles

The curriculum was somewhateffective, but provided limitedopportunity to develop criticalthinking and communication

skills, students gained adequateknowledge of basic science and

clinical principles

The curriculum was effective;developed critical thinking andcommunication skills, studentsgained considerable knowledge

of basic science and clinicalprinciples, and a basic ability to

integrate these concepts

The curriculum was highlyeffective; developed critical

thinking and communication skills,students gained advanced

knowledge of basic science andclinical principles, and ability to

thoroughly integrate theseconcepts

*General experience

CommentsPlease comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this curriculum. Specific recommendations that you feel would improve the curriculum are particularly helpful.Strengths

Weaknesses (with specific recommendations):

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Student Evaluation of SGL Curriculum (Blocks/intersessions/Courses/BRIDGE Weeks)*Phase Director

PICK

*YearOMS IOMS II

Instructions: Rate the SGL curriculum including blocks, intersessions, longitudinal courses, and BRIDGE week(s) on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describesyour experience.

Curriculum CharacteristicsPOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT


wereprovided

for thecurriculum

Learning objectives were provided forsome components of the curriculum but

were somewhat unclear and onlypartially aligned with course content,

assignments or assessments

Learning objectives were providedfor ALL components of the

curriculum and were mostly clearand aligned with course content,


Learning objectives were provided forALL components of the curriculum

and were very clearly stated and well-aligned with course content,


*Curriculum Objectives

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTBICs and BRIDGE week(s)

were not logically sequenced,were of poor quality with

content that was bothinaccurate and irrelevant, anddid not support active student

learning or an effectivelearning experience

BICs and BRIDGE week(s) weresomewhat logically sequencedand of adequate quality with

content that was mostlycurrent and relevant, includedactive student learning and an

overall adequate learningexperience

BICs and BRIDGE week(s)were effectively sequenced

and of good quality withcontent that was current

and relevant, includedactive student learning andan overall effective learning

experience

BICs and BRIDGE week(s) wereeffectively sequenced and of

excellent quality with content thatwas current, relevant and

appropriately linked to priorlearning, included active student

learning and an overall highlyeffective learning experience

*Curriculum Content(Blocks/Intersessions/Courses, i.e. BICs, andBRIDGE weeks)

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTResources required tocomplete assignmentswere not available or

accessible.

Minimal resources required tocomplete assignments wereavailable but were difficult to

access.

Adequate resources required tocomplete assignments were

available and readily accessible.

A wide variety of resourcesrequired to complete assignments

were available and easilyaccessible.

*Learning Resources

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTOCS was not aligned with

content and learningobjectives of the blocks

OCS was somewhat aligned withcontent and learning objectives

of the blocks.

OCS was mostly aligned withcontent and learning objectives

of the blocks

OCS was fully aligned withcontent and learning

objectives of the blocks*Integration of Osteopathic Clinical Skills

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe number of case-based

learning sessions was too fewor too abundant, and their

quality was poor, and did notalign with the curriculum.

The number of case-based learningsessions was appropriate, but thequality of SOME sessions was notgood, and some were not aligned

with the curriculum

The number of case-basedlearning sessions was

appropriate, and their qualitywas mostly good, and

aligned with the curriculum

The number of case-basedlearning was appropriate, and

their quality was good andeffective, and well-aligned

with the curriculum*Case-based Learning Sessions


and/or nothelpful

Individual and/or group feedbackwas provided sporadically,


Individual and group feedback wasprovided consistently, feedback wasfor the most part helpful and timely

Individual and group feedback wasprovided consistently, feedback was

detailed, very helpful and timely

*Feedback

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe number of

assessments wastoo few or too

abundant,assessments did

not align withinstruction

The number of assessmentswas appropriate but the

assessments did notconsistently align withinstruction or addressproblem solving and

reasoning skills


consistently aligned withinstruction, some aspects of theassessments addressed problem

solving and reasoning skills


effective and consistently aligned withinstruction; they addressed problem-

solving and reasoning skills andrepresented a continuation of the learning

process*Assessment

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe curriculum was

disorganized,syllabi/schedules wereunclear or incomplete,

program fostered a non-collaborative environment

with negative groupdynamics

The curriculum was somewhatdisorganized, syllabi/schedules were

fairly clear but inaccuracies and changesfrequently occurred, program

occasionally fostered a collaborativeenvironment with both positive and


The curriculum wasorganized, syllabi/schedules

were clear and complete,program in general fostereda collaborative environmentwith mostly positive group

dynamics

The curriculum was veryorganized, syllabi and

schedules were clear andcomplete, program

consistently fostered a richcollaborative environment


*Curriculum Administration

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe curriculum wasineffective; did not

develop critical thinkingor communication skills,students gained minimal

knowledge of basicscience and clinical

principles

The curriculum was somewhateffective; but provided limitedopportunity to develop criticalthinking and communication

skills, students gained adequateknowledge of basic science and

clinical principles

The curriculum was effective;developed critical thinking andcommunication skills, studentsgained considerable knowledge

of basic science and clinicalprinciples, and a basic ability to

integrate these concepts

The curriculum was highlyeffective; developed critical

thinking and communication skills,students gained advanced

knowledge of basic science andclinical principles, and ability to

thoroughly integrate theseconcepts

*General Experience

CommentsPlease comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this curriculum. Specific recommendations that you feel would improve the curriculum are particularly helpful.Strengths


Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

PESA Course Director Report P a g e | 1

Course Director Report (PESA Committee)

Course Name: Instructional Period: Course Director Name:

All block objectives reflect the content component parts: □ Yes □ No

Each block objective was taught: □ Yes □ No

Each block objective was assessed: □ Yes □ No

Each block objective was linked to a RowanSOM competency: □ Yes □ No

Which of the course learning objectives do you plan to modify for the upcoming year? Please provide a rationale for proposed changes:

How are course objectives and instructions disseminated to your teaching faculty (please check all that apply)?

□ In-person meeting□ Email□ Syllabus□ Blackboard site access□ Other ________________________________________________

Which of the RowanSOM Chief complaints are presented and/or assessed in the course (please check all that apply)?

□ Abdominal Pain □ Dizziness □ Health Prom/Preventative Care □ Pelvic Pain□ Abnormal Vaginal Bleeding □ Dysuria □ Jaundice □ Rashes□ Abnormal Vaginal/Penile

Discharge□ ENT complaints □ Joint Pain & Injury □ Shortness of Breath/Wheezing

□ Abnormalities of Mood □ Fever □ Leg Swelling □ Substance Abuse□ Altered mental status □ Generalized/Focal Neuropathy □ Low Back Pain □ Trauma□ Amenorrhea □ GI Bleed □ Lumps □ Weakness – Muscle or General□ Chest Pain □ Headache □ Pallor & Plethora □ Weight Concerns□ Cough

How do you ensure the content is up-to-date (please check all that apply)?

□ COMLEX Blueprint □ Benchmarks against other schools □ Emerging Research □ Textbooks□ National Guidelines (ECOP, CDC, NIH, Specialty Colleges, US Preventative Task Force□ Other/more detail __________________________________________________________________________________________

What strategies have been made towards discipline integration (i.e. team teaching, integrated flipped classroom, integrated test items, other)? DO N

OT REUSE O

R DISTRIBUTE


Which of the following learning approaches were incorporated into the course (please indicate hours)?

□ Audience responseware __________hours □ Lecture __________hours □ Role playing __________hours □ Case-based learning __________hours □ Patient panels __________hours □ Simulation __________hours □ Discussion large group __________hours □ Q & A open discussion __________hours □ Small groups (Labs) __________hours □ Discussion small group __________hours □ Self-directed learning __________hours □ Team-based learning __________hours □ Flipped classroom __________hours □ Other __________hours

What types of assessments are used in the course (indicate number)?

□ Formative assessments (#________) □ MCQ exam (#________) □ Quizzes (#________) □ Group project (#________) □ Peer assessment (#________) □ Research paper/Essay (#________) □ In-class audience responsware (#________) □ Personal reflection (#________) □ Simulation (#________) □ Lab exam (#________) □ Practice problems (#________) □ Standardized Patient (#________)

What type of feedback is provided to students (please check all that apply)?

□ Group debriefing □ Strengths & opportunities for improvement reports □ Peer feedback □ Structured verbal course feedback (course forum/discussion board/announcements) □ One-on-one verbal feedback (office hours) □ Written feedback

What curricular or assessment changes, if any, did you make or plan to make to your course?

How do you ascertain that the course faculty are employing good practice of teaching?

□ Direct observation □ Listening to presentation online □ Reviewing teaching materials/methods □ Reviewing student feedback □ Other ________________________________

What recommendations or modifications did you make based on the feedback you received? Did you make changes to objectives, instruction or activities?

Please attach the following grade data:

• Final grades for the module (% 90-100, % 80-89, % 70-79, % Failure, Mean, Standard Deviation) • Exam grades for the module (% 90-100, % 80-89, % 70-79, % Failure, Mean, Standard Deviation) • Illumination Quiz grades (% 90-100, % 80-89, % 70-79, % Failure, Mean, Standard Deviation) • Any Practical/Standardized Patient/Simulation Procedure Grades (% 90-100, % 80-89, % 70-79, % Failure, Mean,

Standard Deviation, if procedures these can be in a table form) • CBL grades

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Please describe efforts to appropriately categorize items and if you plan to make changes based on your reflection of the module data.

Please reflect on and describe what went well in the course/clerkship/block:

What changes do you plan to make for the next time the course/clerkship/block is delivered?

Please use the attached table to indicate which milestones and competencies are taught and/or assessed in your course. You may attach the following reports as supplemental information:

□ ExamSoft category summary report for each exam□ One45 mapping report received from the Curriculum office

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Prepared by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation

Exam Name:

Failures (< 70) (n=)

Item Performance Summary No. %

No. Acceptable ItemsNo. Marginal ItemsNo. Poor ItemsNo. Mastery Items

Item Difficulty Summary No. %No. Items Very Hard (≤ 29% students answered correctly)

No. Items Hard (30%- 44% answered correctly)

No. Item Moderate (45% - 89% answered correctly)

No. Items Easy (90% - 94% answered correctly)

No. Items Very Easy (95% - 100% answered correctly)

Item Discrimination Summary No. %No. Items Effective DiscriminationNo. Items Acceptable DiscriminationNo. Items Poor Discrimination

Item Distractor Analysis Summary No. %No. Items with Effective DistractorsNo. With Ineffective Distractors

Review Prior to Next Exam Administration Follow Up Instructions

Item Categorization: It is critical that you review your exam items to ensure they are accurately tagged in the appropriate category tagging areas. All items must be tagged for: author, curricular component, question type, complexity, and competency/milestone. Additional tagging areas that may only be appropriate for certain items include: entrustable professional activities, chief complaints, systems, and content area. Item tags are critical for providing an effective ExamSoft Strength and Opportunity Reports for our students. We also rely on item tagging to track student performance longitudinally across the curriculum.

Before grade release, review all items on the spreadsheet marked as requiring immediate action. Please refer to the large, red, bold number to the left.

The area(s) of concern likely include one of the following: 1) The item may have more than one correct answer based upon a review of the distractor metrics. 2) The item is very difficult and does not discriminate effectively. 3) The item has a significant negative discrimination (≤ -0.08 point biserial) 4) Refer to comment on item analysis for other issues.

Note: If the % of students who failed is > 10%, you must consult with the Office of Assessment.

Mean Item Discrimination (rpb) (target: ≥ 0.15)

OVERALL REVIEW SUMMARY FINDINGS Immediate Action Instructions

# of Items in Exam

Overall Exam Reliability (KR20) (target: ≥ 0.70)

Exam Mean (%) (target range: 78% - 88%)

Exam Item Review Summary

Exam Standard Deviation

The point biserial is an index of item discrimination and indicates how well the item distinguishes between higher and lower performing students. Please consider the following strategies to improve your exam:

1) Modify or remove all items with a negative point biserial (more low performers answered correctly than high performers) 2) Review items with poor discrimination for accuracy, clarity, and complexity. At least three distractors in an item should have been chosen by 2.5% or more of students. Any item that does not meet this criteria is considered an item with ineffective distractors.

If an item has ineffective distractors, please consider revising one or more distractors to make them more plausible . Eliminating poor distractors can further improve item discrimination as well.

Item difficulty is based upon the % of students who answered the item correctly. Every exam should include items with varying levels of difficulty as follows: Very hard/hard: 10- 20% of all items Moderate: 60 - 80% of all items Very Easy/Easy: 10- 20% of all items

If your exam did not meet the above targets , modify the items included on the exam in order to provide a better difficulty mix. Create an exam blueprint to help guide this process.

No. Highly Effective Items

Review Immediately

# of Exam Takers

Item performance reflects a combination of an item's difficulty and discrimination. Highly effective items are appropriately challenging and discriminate between high and low performing students. If the majority of your items are not highly effective/acceptable, please consider the following strategies to improve your exam:

1) Modify Poor items to increase the level of complexity of the question (e.g. omit item, change to case format which requires critical thinking, modify the distractors, etc.) 2) Review Mastery items to ensure they are purposefully designed to test minimum knowledge required of all students.

# of Items that Require Immediate Action

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Program Evaluation and Student Assessment Committee (PESA) PESA Course Review

Page 1 of 5

COURSE NAME: COURSE DIRECTOR COURSE DATES:

TERM/YEAR: COURSE LEVEL: OMS

DATE OF REVIEW:

PART I: COURSE MATERIALS Syllabus Contact Information | Learning Objectives | Course Materials | Attendance Policy | Grading and Remediation Policy | Mapped to Competencies ☐ Complete ☐ Incomplete ☐ Not Present

Learning Management System ( ☐ Not Applicable )Structure of Course Site ☐ Well Organized and

User-Friendly☐ Organized and

Somewhat User-Friendly☐ Neither Well-Organized

Nor User-Friendly

Learning Assignments and Resources (Slides, Podcasts, Lecture Recordings, Self-Study Activities, Quizzes, etc.) ☐ Present ☐ Not Present

PART II: STUDENT PERFORMANCE DATA Final Grades

Class Size: Final Grade Mean (Std. Dev.): Number of Pass/Fail:

Refer to the attached summary and charts, and be sure to comment on number of Pass/Fail students and the mean and standard deviation.

Revised: 5-2021

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Page 2 of 5

Written Exam Grades ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to Course Director Report for grade charts with mean and standard deviation, and Course Director feedback.

Illumination Quiz Grades ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to Course Director Report for grade charts with mean and standard deviation, and Course Director feedback.

Case Based Learning (CBL) ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to Course Director Report for grade charts with mean and standard deviation, and Course Director feedback.

Practical / Diagnostic Exams and Procedures ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to Course Director Report for grade charts with mean and standard deviation, and Course Director feedback.

Standardized Patient (SP) Encounter / Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) and Simulation with Debriefing

( ☐ Not Applicable )

Refer to Course Director Report for grade charts with mean and standard deviation, and Course Director feedback.

Other Assessments ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to Course Director Report for grade charts with mean and standard deviation, and Course Director feedback. DO N

OT REUSE O

R DISTRIBUTE


Page 3 of 5

PART III: ITEM CATEGORY REVIEW PESA Category Item Review Results ( ☐ Not Applicable ) Category Performance Summary from ExamSoft Provided by the Course Director with the Course Director Report. Also used for Part IV.


PART IV: COMPETENCIES AND MILESTONES PERFORMANCE Category Performance Summary Report from ExamSoft Provided by the Course Director with the Course Director Report. ( ☐ Not Applicable )

PART V: STUDENT FEEDBACK Student Course Evaluation Survey ( ☐ Not Applicable ) Student Curriculum Feedback Summary ( ☐ Not Applicable ) Response Rate (as Percentage of Class): Average and Mean Survey Rating (1-4 Scale): Summary Comments about Student Feedback on Identified Strengths and Weaknesses

Student Identified Strengths:

Student Identified Areas in Need of Improvement:

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Page 4 of 5

PART VI: COURSE DIRECTOR REPORT Course Director Report Summary Results ( ☐ Not Applicable )

1) Describes Process for Coordination between Faculty and Sessions ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable2) Describes Integration within Course ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable3) Includes Active Learning Strategies ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable4) Review of Student Performance Results ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable5) Identified Strengths ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable6) Identified Weaknesses ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable7) Planned Improvements ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable8) Learning objectives are aligned with Milestones and Competencies ☐ Included ☐ Not Included ☐ Not Applicable

PART VII: COURSE REVIEW SUMMARY Overall Course Rating

☐ Met Standards ☐ Commendations ☐ Met Standards in Some Areas ☐ Recommendations ☐ Did Not Meet Standards ☐ Required Action

Overall Summary Comments

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Page 5 of 5

Commendations Target areas that meet commendations:

☐ 1) Course reflects effective integration of disciplines and content.☐ 2) Course includes a range of active learning strategies that represents more than 20% of course hours.☐ 3) Utilizes teaching strategies that promote critical thinking.☐ 4) Course includes multiples opportunities for students to receive feedback.☐

☐

5) Written exam items are completely categorized.

☐

6) Percent of clinical cases on written assessment exceed target.7) Items that require critical thinking (problem solving and interpretation) exceeds 50% of all items.

Recommendations (Recommendations for consideration by the Course Director)

Required Action Items/Plan (Requires action from the Course Director)

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Program Evaluation and Student Assessment Committee (PESA) PESA PBL Course Review

Page 1 of 5

COURSE NAME: COURSE DIRECTOR COURSE DATES:

TERM/YEAR: COURSE LEVEL: OMS

DATE OF REVIEW:

PART I: COURSE MATERIALS Syllabus Contact Information | Learning Objectives | Course Materials | Attendance Policy | Grading and Remediation Policy | Mapped to Competencies ☐ Complete ☐ Incomplete ☐ Not Present

PBL Learning Issues ☐ Complete ☐ Incomplete ☐ Not Present

Learning Management System ( ☐ Not Applicable )Structure of Course Site ☐ Well Organized and

User-Friendly☐ Organized and

Somewhat User-Friendly☐ Neither Well-Organized

Nor User-Friendly

Learning Assignments and Resources (Slides, Podcasts, Lecture Recordings, Self-Study Activities, Quizzes, etc.) ☐ Present ☐ Not Present

PART II: STUDENT PERFORMANCE DATA Final Grades

Class Size: Final Grade Mean (Std. Dev.): Number of Pass/Fail:

Refer to grade charts with mean and standard deviation submitted by PBL Course Director.

Revised: 4-2021

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Page 2 of 5

Written Exam Grades ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to attached summary and charts for grade mean and standard deviation of this current year.

PBL Facilitator Feedback for Student ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to attached summary and charts for grade mean and standard deviation of this current year.

Practical / Diagnostic Exams and Procedures ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to attached summary and charts for grade mean and standard deviation of this current year.

Standardized Patient (SP) Encounter / Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) and Simulation with Debriefing


Refer to attached summary and charts for grade mean and standard deviation of this current year.

Other Assessments ( ☐ Not Applicable )Refer to attached summary and charts for grade mean and standard deviation of this current year. DO N

OT REUSE O

R DISTRIBUTE


Page 3 of 5

PART III: ITEM CATEGORY REVIEW PESA Category Item Review Results ( ☐ Not Applicable ) Category Performance Summary from ExamSoft Also used for Part IV.


PART IV: COMPETENCIES AND MILESTONES PERFORMANCE Category Performance Summary Report from ExamSoft ( ☐ Not Applicable )

PART V: STUDENT FEEDBACK Student Course Evaluation Survey ( ☐ Not Applicable ) Student PBL Program Feedback Summary ( ☐ Not Applicable ) Response Rate (as Percentage of Class): Average and Mean Survey Rating (1-4 Scale): Summary Comments about Student Feedback on Identified Strengths and Weaknesses

Student Identified Strengths:

Student Identified Areas in Need of Improvement:

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Page 4 of 5

PART VI: COURSE REVIEW SUMMARY Overall Course Rating

☐ Met Standards ☐ Commendations ☐ Met Standards in Some Areas ☐ Recommendations ☐ Did Not Meet Standards ☐ Required Action

Overall Summary Comments

Commendations Target areas that meet commendations:

☐ 1) Course reflects effective integration of disciplines and content. ☐ 2) Course includes multiple formal opportunities for students to receive feedback.

☐ 3) Course provides specific and actionable positive and developmental feedback provided to each student on the PBL Facilitator Feedback for Student Form.☐ 4) Written exam items are completely categorized.☐ 5) Percent of clinical cases on written assessment exceed target.☐ 6) Items that require critical thinking (problem solving and interpretation) exceeds 50% of all items.☐ 7) Course provides structured opportunities for Exam Preparation (e.g. Exam review session, formative assessments, etc.).☐ 8) Course integrates opportunities to explore the impacts of health disparities, implicit bias, and other psycho-social factors in regards to the cases presented.

Recommendations (Recommendations for consideration by the Course Director)

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

graeber

Highlight

graeber

Highlight

graeber

Highlight

graeber

Highlight


Page 5 of 5

Required Action Items/Plan (Requires action from the Course Director)

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

5/14/2021 Qualtrics Survey Software

https://rowan.co1.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_0VtfQ3ygdsqKfnT&ContextLibraryID=UR_5msuy6r5Zxfb5ml 1/3

Default Question Block

This survey will ask you to evaluate your experiences during BRIDGE 1A. Your feedback is valued and will be considered when creating content for futureBRIDGE weeks. If you were excused from participating in BRIDGE week, you may disregard this survey request. Otherwise you are expected to submit thissurvey by Monday, December 21st.

Which of the following statements would you use to describe your overall experience in BRIDGE 1A? Check all that apply.

BRIDGE week helped me:

Please answer the following three questions for each BRIDGE week activity.

Advance my problem solving skills

Enhance my ability to work as a member of a professional team

To plan for my future medical professional career

Understand how to use my medical school performance data and feedback from past assignments to improve my future performance

Connect with resources and faculty/staff support to provide guidance throughout many aspects of my medical education

Identify and create a positive attitude about achieving my goals through my medical career

Overall, how helpful/engaging were each of the activities?Were the activities toolong, too short, or just

the right length of time?How effective were the facilitators in

communicating the content?

Unhelpful/Unengaging SlightlyHelpful/Engaging

ModeratelyHelpful/Engaging

ExtremelyHelpful/Engaging N/A Too

LongToo

ShortJustRight N/A Ineffective Slightly

EffectiveModerately

EffectiveExtremelyEffective N/A

Implicit Bias

TOSCEReview

Intro toCompetencyExpectations

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


https://rowan.co1.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_0VtfQ3ygdsqKfnT&ContextLibraryID=UR_5msuy6r5Zxfb5ml 2/3

Powered by Qualtrics

If you have any suggestions on how to further improve this BRIDGE week, please describe below.

Thank you for completing this survey. By clicking the arrow below your responses will be submitted.







LongToo


EffectiveModerately


IntegratedFoundationalScienceActivity(IFSA)

SimulationActivity

ProcedureActivity

CV Writing,Careers inMedicine,and Intro toMSPE

SummerOpportunities

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

http://www.qualtrics.com/


https://rowan.co1.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_4SCLZZ7AsHEGQyG&ContextLibraryID=UR_5msuy6r5Zxfb5ml 1/3

Default Question Block

This survey will ask you to evaluate your experiences during BRIDGE 1B. Your feedback is valued and will be considered when creating content for futureBRIDGE weeks. If you were excused from participating in BRIDGE week, you may disregard this survey request. Otherwise you are expected to submit thissurvey by Tuesday, June 1st.

Which of the following statements would you use to describe your overall experience in BRIDGE 1B? Check all that apply.

BRIDGE week helped me:

Please answer the following three questions for each BRIDGE week activity.

Advance my problem solving skills

To plan for my future medical professional career

Understand how to use my medical school performance data and feedback from past assignments to improve my future performance

Connect with resources and faculty/staff support to provide guidance throughout many aspects of my medical education

Identify and create a positive attitude about achieving my goals through my medical career

To broaden my understanding of different social and cultural groups and norms, and ultimately grow in my personal beliefs and humanism skills.







LongToo


EffectiveModerately


How to beMore Human:Large Group

How to beMore Human:SP SmallGroups DO N

OT REUSE O

R DISTRIBUTE


https://rowan.co1.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks/Ajax/GetSurveyPrintPreview?ContextSurveyID=SV_4SCLZZ7AsHEGQyG&ContextLibraryID=UR_5msuy6r5Zxfb5ml 2/3

Powered by Qualtrics

If you have any suggestions on how to further improve this BRIDGE week, please describe below.

Thank you for completing this survey. By clicking the arrow below your responses will be submitted.







LongToo


EffectiveModerately


How toChoose aSpecialty

Let's TalkAbout Boards

UnderstandingUnderservedCommunitiesPanelDiscussion

ImposterPhenomenonLecture

What I Wish IKnew as aRising SecondYear

SimulationExperience

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

http://www.qualtrics.com/

Rowan SOM Evaluated By:evaluator's nameEvaluating :person (role) or moment's name (if applicable)Dates :start date to end date


STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTORPlease be sure to evaluate the instructor for the course indicated at the top of this form

Instructor CharacteristicInstructions: Rate your instructor on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describes yourexperience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor didnot start or endclass on time,was not well-prepared, didnot provideaccess to

slides/materialsin advance of

class.

Instructorstarted and

ended class ontime, was notfully prepared,

providedaccess to

slides/materialsafter the class.

Instructorstarted and

ended class ontime, wasprepared,providedaccess to

slides/materials at

the time of theclass.

Instructor startedand ended class ontime and effectively

utilized the timeallotted, was well-prepared, provided

access toslides/materials wellin advance of class.

*Preparation for Class


Unableto

Evaluate

Content wasdisorganizedand not wellsequenced,information

was inaccurateand dated,

material notdelivered at

theappropriate

level, amountof content wasinappropriate

for timeallotted.

Content wasfairly organizedand sequenced,information was

accurate andrelatively

current, somematerial not

delivered at theappropriate

level, amount ofcontent wassomewhat

excessive for thetime allotted.

Content wasorganized andappropriatelysequenced,information

was accurateand current,

materialdelivered at

theappropriate

level, amountof content

appropriate forthe timeallotted.

Content was well-organized,

sequenced andspecifically linked to

prior knowledge,information wasaccurate, currentand provided with

supportingreferences, material

delivered at theappropriate level,amount of contentappropriate for the

time allotted.

*Presentation Content

Page 1

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasnot engaging,

did notintroduce therelevance ofthe topic orprovide anoverview of

the objectivesfor the

session,presentation ofconcepts wasunclear, pacewas rushed,

did notemphasize

major teachingpoints,

frequentlywent on

tangents.

Instructor wassomewhatengaging,introduced

relevance of thetopic but did not

provide anoverview of theobjectives forthe session,

presentation ofconcepts wasfairly clear butpace at times

felt rushed, didnot emphasizemajor teachingpoints and attimes went on

tangents.

Instructor wasengaging,introduced

relevance of thetopic and

provided ageneral

overview of theobjectives forthe session,

presentation ofconcepts was

clear andappropriatelypaced, major

teaching pointswere

emphasized andinstructorremained

focused onrelevantcontent.

Instructor washighly engaging

and held theinterest of students,

introducedrelevance of the

topic in the contextof prior learning,provided specificobjectives for the

session,presentation of

concepts was clearand effectivelypaced, major

teaching pointswere emphasized

and instructorremained focused

on relevant content.

*Presentation Style


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructorpresented

content withlittle or no

emphasis onconceptual

understandingand/or critical

thinking,audiovisualswere unclearand did noteffectively

supportlearning.

Instructorpresented

contentwith some

examples tosupport theapplicationof learning,audiovisualswere limited

to textslides.

Instructorpresented content

using an activeteaching strategy

to promoteconceptual

understandingand/or criticalthinking skills,

audiovisuals wereclear and included

elements(graphics, images)

to reinforcelearning.

Instructor used avariety of active

teaching strategiesto promoteconceptual

understanding and/orcritical thinking skills,

audiovisuals werehighly effective andincluded a variety ofelements (graphics,videos, diagrams) toreinforce learning.

*Teaching Skills


Unableto

Evaluate

Did notsupport

interactionwith students,made students

feeluncomfortable

askingquestions, wasnot accessible

outside ofclass for

guidance orfeedback.

Supportedsome

interactionwith students,responded to

studentquestions

appropriately,at times

difficult toaccess outside

of class forguidance orfeedback.

Encouragedstudent

interaction,made students

feel comfortableasking

questions andresponded

effectively, wasaccessible

outside of classfor guidance

and feedback.

Encouraged studentinteraction in a

positive andsupportive way, made

students feelcomfortable taking

risks and askingquestions and

responded effectively,was readily accessible

outside of class forguidance and

feedback.

*Interaction with Students

Page 2

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasineffective anddid not provide

a valuablelearning

experience; oneof the worstinstructors Ihave had.

Instructor wassomewhat

ineffective, butdid provide an

adequate learningexperience;among the

weakerinstructors I have

had.

Instructor waseffective andprovided avaluablelearning

experience;among the

betterinstructors Ihave had.

Instructor washighly effectiveand provided an

engaging andvaluable learning

experience; one ofthe best

instructors I havehad.

*General Quality of Instructor

COMMENTSPlease comment on strengths in the instructor's teaching.

Please provide specific recommendations you feel would help improve this instructor's teaching.

Page 3

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Rowan SOMUndergrad

Evaluated By:evaluator's nameEvaluating :person (role) or moment's name (if applicable)Dates :start date to end date


Student Evaluation of CBL Small Group FacilitatorInstructions: Rate your facilitator on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.

The facilitator was effective at stimulating our group to:

Rarely Sometimes Usually Almost Always Always*work effectively as a team*be open to all members of the group in discussion*explore the clinical reasoning process with questions andprobes

Rarely Sometimes Usually Almost Always Always*The facilitator clearly outlined sessions' structure andexpectations.*The facilitator clarified concepts with explanation and examples.*The facilitator encouraged participation of all group members.*The facilitator allowed students to guide and sustain discussion.*The facilitator questioned, listened, and responded appropriately.

Poor Fair Good VeryGood Excellent

*Please rate the general performance of the facilitator based upon his/hereffectiveness supporting student learning and engagement.

Please provide feedback to the facilitator about his/her effectiveness by completing the followingstatements:

*I appreciated the way the facilitator:

*I found it challenging when the facilitator:

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Student Evaluation of OCS Lab FacilitatorInstructions: Rate your facilitator on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.


Rarely Sometimes Usually AlmostAlways Always

*The facilitator was fully engaged during the lab session.*The facilitator encouraged student participation within the group.*The facilitator was receptive to student questions.*The facilitator was knowledgeable and provided quality feedback toenhance student learning.

Poor Fair Good VeryGood Excellent

*Please rate the general performance of the facilitator based upon his/hereffectiveness supporting student learning and engagement.

Please provide feedback to the facilitator about his/her effectiveness by completing the followingstatements:



Page 1

DO NOU U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOM Evaluated :evaluator's nameEvaluating :person (role) or moment's name (if applicable)Dates :start date to end date


STUDENT EVALUATION OF PRECEPTORInstructions: Students are asked to complete an evaluation on 2-3 preceptors on every rotation, unless there is a singlepreceptor. Rate your preceptor on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describes yourexperience.

Preceptor CharacteristicsPOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Unableto

Evaluate

Teachingenvironmentwasuncomfortableand notconducive forlearning.

Teachingenvironment wasat timesuncomfortable,but for the mostpart conducive forlearning.

Teachingenvironment wassupportive,encouraging ofquestions andconducive forlearning

Teachingenvironment wassupportive,encouraging ofquestions andconducive forlearning

*Teaching Environment


Unableto

Evaluate

Disinterested inteaching, does notcheck studentwork, only teacheswith prompting,informationprovided was notat the appropriatelevel

Teaching wasfairly limitedunlessprompted;conveysuseful andappropriateinformation onstudent work.

Allocates timefor teaching andansweringquestions;information wasusually clearlyexplained and atthe appropriatelevel

Highly investedin studentteaching;engagedstudents byquestioning andencouraginganalytical andcritical thinkingskills

*Teaching Skills


Unableto

Evaluate

Provided nohands-oninvolvementin patientcare

Providedlimitedhands-oninvolvementin patientcare

Provided routinehands-on involvementin patient care andsome decision-making

Actively involvedstudents in hands-on patient care anddecision-making

*Student Participation


Unableto

Evaluate

Providednofeedbacktostudents

Providedlimitedfeedback andonly whenasked bystudents

Providedfeedback, butat timesneeded to beprompted bystudents

Provided regular andconstructive feedback aboutstudent work (i.e. SOAP notes,H&Ps), and offeredsuggestions for improvement

*Feedback

Page 1

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Displayedinsensitivity orlack ofunderstandingto patientneeds

Generallyrespectful andcompassionatewith patients

Modeledrespectful andcompassionatepatient care

Modeled respectfuland compassionatepatient care thatvalued and respectedpatient preferences

*Professional Role Model


Unableto

Evaluate

Ineffective andone of my worstpreceptors, Iwould notrecommend thispreceptor to otherstudents

An acceptablepreceptor, butone I would beunlikely torecommend toother students

Overall agoodpreceptor, Iwouldrecommendthis preceptorto otherstudents

Highly effective,one of my bestpreceptors, I wouldstronglyrecommend thispreceptor to otherstudents

*Overall Effectiveness of Preceptor

COMMENTSPlease comment on specific strengths or weaknesses in working with the preceptor.

Strengths:


Page 2

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Page 1

(Poor) (Excellent)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rowan SOM Evaluated By: evaluator's name

Evaluating : person (role) or moment's

name (if applicable)

Dates : start date to end date


PBL Student Evaluation of Facilitator Form

*Please select your group number:

--

Instructions: Rate your facilitator on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.


*generate clear learning issues by ourselves

*search for various resources by ourselves

*summarize what we learned in our own words

*apply underlying mechanisms and theories

*explore the clinical reasoning process with questions and

probes

*make connections between issues discussed in the group

*relate prior learning to the discussed problem

*be open to all members of the group in discussion

*give constructive feedback about our group work

Rarely Sometimes Usually Almost Always Always

*The facilitator encouraged participation among all members of the group.

*The facilitator encouraged the group to discuss interpersonal problems

and conflicting views

*The facilitator provided an open and supportive learning environment.

Rarely Sometimes Usually Almost

Always Always

*Please rate the overall performance of the facilitator based upon his/her effectiveness in supporting the problem-based

learning environment and student engagement.

Please provide feedback to the facilitator about his/her effectiveness by completing the following

statements:



Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Rowan SOM Evaluated By:evaluator's nameEvaluating :person (role) or moment's name (if applicable)Dates :start date to end date


PBL Student Evaluation of InstructorInstructor ModalityPlease be sure to evaluate the instructor for the course indicated at the top of this form

Instructor CharacteristicInstructions: Rate your instructor on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describes yourexperience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor didnot start or endclass on time,was not well-prepared, didnot provideaccess toslides/materialsin advance ofclass

Instructorstarted andended class ontime, was notfully prepared,providedaccess toslides/materialsafter the class

Instructorstarted andended class ontime, wasprepared,providedaccess toslides/materials atthe time of theclass

Instructor startedand ended class ontime and effectivelyutilized the timeallotted, was well-prepared, providedaccess toslides/materials wellin advance of class

*Preparation for Class


Unableto

Evaluate

Content wasdisorganizedand not wellsequenced,informationwas inaccurateand dated,material notdelivered attheappropriatelevel, amountof content wasinappropriatefor timeallotted

Content wasfairly organizedand sequenced,information wasaccurate andrelativelycurrent, somematerial notdelivered at theappropriatelevel, amount ofcontent wassomewhatexcessive for thetime allotted

Content wasorganized andappropriatelysequenced,informationwas accurateand current,materialdelivered attheappropriatelevel, amountof contentappropriate forthe timeallotted

Content was well-organized,sequenced andspecifically linked toprior knowledge,information wasaccurate, currentand provided withsupportingreferences, materialdelivered at theappropriate level,amount of contentappropriate for thetime allotted

*Presentation Content

Page 1

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasnot engaging,did notintroduce therelevance ofthe topic orprovide anoverview ofthe objectivesfor thesession,presentation ofconcepts wasunclear, pacewas rushed,did notemphasizemajor teachingpoints,frequentlywent ontangents

Instructor wassomewhatengaging,introducedrelevance of thetopic but did notprovide anoverview of theobjectives forthe session,presentation ofconcepts wasfairly clear butpace at timesfelt rushed, didnot emphasizemajor teachingpoints and attimes went ontangents

Instructor wasengaging,introducedrelevance of thetopic andprovided ageneraloverview of theobjectives forthe session,presentation ofconcepts wasclear andappropriatelypaced, majorteaching pointswereemphasized andinstructorremainedfocused onrelevant content

Instructor washighly engagingand held theinterest of students,introducedrelevance of thetopic in the contextof prior learning,provided specificobjectives for thesession,presentation ofconcepts was clearand effectivelypaced, majorteaching pointswere emphasizedand instructorremained focusedon relevant content

*Presentation Style


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructorpresentedcontent withlittle or noemphasis onconceptualunderstandingand/or criticalthinking,instructionswere unclearand did noteffectivelysupportlearning

Instructorpresentedcontentwith someexamplesto supporttheapplicationof learning,instructionswerelimited tocontent inreadings orrecordedlectures

Instructorpresented contentusing an activeteaching strategyto promoteconceptualunderstandingand/or criticalthinking skills,instructions wereclear and includedelements(graphics, images)to reinforcelearning

Instructor used avariety of activeteaching strategies topromote conceptualunderstanding and/orcritical thinking skills,audiovisuals werehighly effective andincluded a variety ofelements (graphics,videos, hands-ondemonstrations) toreinforce learning

*Teaching Skills


Unableto

Evaluate

Did noteffectivelysupportinteractionwith students,madestudents feeluncomfortableaskingquestions,was notaccessibleoutside ofclass forguidance orfeedback

Somewhat effective insupporting interaction

with students, respondedto student questions

appropriately, at timesdifficult to access outsideof class for guidance or

feedback

Fairlyeffective insupportingstudentinteraction,madestudents feelcomfortableaskingquestions andrespondedeffectively,wasaccessibleoutside ofclass forguidance andfeedback

Highlyeffective insupportingstudentinteraction, madestudents feelcomfortabletaking risksand askingquestions andrespondedeffectively,was readilyaccessibleoutside ofclass forguidance andfeedback

*Interaction with Students

Page 2

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasineffective anddid not providea valuablelearningexperience; oneof the worstinstructors Ihave had

Instructor wassomewhatineffective, butdid provide anadequate learningexperience;among theweakerinstructors I havehad

Instructor waseffective andprovided avaluablelearningexperience;among thebetterinstructors Ihave had

Instructor washighly effectiveand provided anengaging andvaluable learningexperience; one ofthe bestinstructors I havehad

*General Quality of Instructor

COMMENTSPlease comment on strengths in the instructor's teaching.

Please provide specific recommendations you feel would help improve this instructor's teaching.

Page 3

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Rowan SOMUndergrad

Evaluated :evaluator's nameByEvaluating : student nameDates :start date to end date


CBL Facilitator Evaluation of StudentInstructions: Please choose the closest descriptor of this student's performance based on the skills demonstrated during thismodule.

Absent

(0 pts)

Unsatisfactory

(1.375 pts)

MinimalExpectations

(1.75 pts)

MeetsExpectations(2.125 pts)

ExceedsExpectations

(2.5 pts)

Absentfromthe

session.

Did notparticipate

andsupportgroup

learning.

1. At timesparticipates in

group discussionsand responds to

questions.

2. Responses lackdepth to

adequatelysupport group

learning.

3. Informationprovided issomewhat

incomplete,disorganized and

not clearlyexplained.

1. Routinelyparticipates in

group discussionsand asks questions

that stimulatediscussion.

2. Responsesreflect appropriatedepth to supportgroup learning.

3. Informationprovided iscomplete,

organized andclearly explained.

1. Activelyparticipates without

dominating andpromotes group

discussion byengaging others.

2. Responsessignificantly

advance grouplearning andsupport an

understanding ofthe case.

3. Informationprovided isthorough,

exceptionally well-organized and

concisely explained.*Preparation & Participation

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific exampleof the student's significant contributions.

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Absent

(0 pts)

Unsatisfactory

(1.375 pts)

Minimal Expectations

(1.75 pts)


ExceedsExpectations

(2.5 pts)

Absentfromthe

session.

Did notdemonstrate anunderstanding

of basicconcepts or

critical thinkingskills.

1. Demonstratesunderstanding ofbasic conceptsand adequate


2. Offers somecritical appraisalof evidence andability to apply it

to the case.

3. Adequatelyexplains

reasoning, butdoes not supportwith evidence.

1.Demonstratesunderstanding

of key conceptsand good


2. Offers goodcritical

appraisal ofevidence and

ability to applyit to the case.

3. Effectivelyexplains

reasoning, butsometimesuses weakevidence.

1. Demonstratesunderstanding ofcomplex concepts

and excellentcritical thinking

skills.

2. Offers excellentcritical appraisal ofevidence and ability

to apply it to thecase.

3. Effectivelyexplains reasoning

that is well-supported withstrong evidencefrom a range of

sources.

*Comprehension & CriticalThinking

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific exampleof the student's excellence in critical thinking and problem-solving.

Absent

(0 pts)

Unsatisfactory

(1.375 pts)

MinimalExpectations

(1.75 pts)


ExceedsExpectations

(2.5 pts)

Absentfromthe

session.

Did notdemonstrateawareness of

patients'background,values and

preferences andits relevance to

the case.

1. Demonstratesadequate

awareness ofpatients'

background,values and

preferences andits relevance to

the case.

2. Limited abilityto adapt

approach toaddress uniquepatient-specific

issues.

1. Demonstratesconsiderableawareness to

patients'background,

values,preferences andits relevance to

the case.

2. Effectivelyadapts approach

to addressunique patient-specific issues.

1. Demonstratesacute awarenessand sensitivity to

patients'background,

values,preferences andits relevance to

the case.

2. Activelypromotes others'

sensitivity andawareness of

unique patient-specific needs.

*Patient-centeredness

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific exampleof the student's sensitivity to the importance of patient-centered care.

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Absent

(0 pts)

Unsatisfactory

(1.375 pts)

MinimalExpectations

(1.75 pts)


ExceedsExpectations

(2.5 pts)

Absentfromthe

session.

1. Late to thesession.

2. Does notfulfill

responsibilitiesto the group.

3. Does notshow respect

for others'contributions;

eitherinterrupts,

dominates oris inattentive

to others.

4. Does notaccept

constructivefeedback.

1. On time, butnot ready toparticipate.

2.Generally fulfillsassigned

responsibilities tothe group.

3. Usually showsrespect for

others'contributions and

allows groupmembers toexpress their

ideas; at times isinattentive.

4. Has somedifficultyaccepting


1.On-time andready to

participate.

2. Fulfillsassigned


3. Showsrespect for

others'contributions

and allowsgroup members

to expressideas; is

attentive at alltimes.

4. Acceptsconstructive

feedback.

1. On-time, ready toparticipate and

takes initiative toget the group

session started.

2. Fulfills assigned,as well as,additional

responsibilities tosupport groupeffectiveness.

3. Always showsrespect for others'contributions, is

fully engaged andactively supports

group dynamics andopen expression of

ideas.

4. Always seeks outand acceptsconstructive

feedback and takesinitiative toimprove.

*Professionalism

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific exampleof how the student responded effectively to constructive feedback.

SUMMARY COMMENTS*Please provide feedback to student regarding performance.

Page 3

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



CBL Facilitator Summary Feedback Evaluation of Student1. Preparation and Participation

Expected performance:- Routinely participates in and is well-prepared for group discussions- Asks questions that stimulate discussion- Offers responses which reflect appropriate depth and evidence to support student learning- Helps clarify ideas from others and for others- Provides information that is complete, organized and clearly explained

*Describe the student's demonstration of preparation and participation and any growth they have demonstrated over the course of the academic year

*Provide specific feedback on how the student can continue to develop in this area of performance.

2. Comprehension and Critical Thinking SkillsExpected performance:

- Clearly demonstrates understanding of key concepts- Offers a critical appraisal of evidence, draws valid conclusions and can effectively apply the findings to the case- Demonstrates effective critical thinking skills and can clearly explain reasoning for specific suggestions/decisions- Recognizes flaws in reasoning and adapts and learns in the process

*Describe the student's demonstration of comprehension and critical thinking skills and any growth they have demonstrated over the course of the academic year


3. Patient-centerednessExpected performance:

- Demonstrates considerable awareness of patients’ background, values and preferences and its relevance to the case.- Effectively adapts approach to address unique patient-specific issues

*Describe the student's demonstration of patient-centered approach to case discussions and any growth they have demonstrated over the course of the academic year


4. ProfessionalismExpected performance:

- Reports on time, is ready to participate and is attentive at all times- Fulfills assigned responsibilities to the group- Shows respect for others’ contributions and allows them to express ideas- Encourages others to participate

*Describe the student's demonstration of professionalism and any growth they have demonstrated over the course of the academic year


Page 1

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Below Expectations: Fails to meetminimum expectations, significant

improvement required

Meets MinimalExpectations: Meets some,

but not all expectations

Meets Expectations:Consistently meets

expectations in all areas

Exceeds Expectations:Consistently performs well above

expectations in all areas1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

*Summary Evaluation of Student CBLPerformance

Page 2

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOM Evaluated :evaluator's nameByEvaluating :student nameDates : start date to end date


PBL Facilitator Feedback for Student FormInstructions: Please choose the closest descriptor of this student's performance based on the skills demonstrated during this module.

Level 1Unsatisfactory

Level2

Level 3Minimal Expectations

Level4

Level 5Meets

Expectations

Level6

Level 7Exceeds Expectations

1. Inadequate andineffective research of

learning issues (LIs),quality of sources poor.

2. Fails to contribute togroup knowledge andunderstanding of the

case.

3. Presentation of LIs isdisorganized,

inaccurate/incompleteand not effectively

explained.

1. Adequateresearch of

learning issues(LIs), quality of

sources adequate.

2. Adequatelycontributes to

group knowledgeand


3. Presentation ofLIs is somewhatdisorganized,

incomplete andrequires

improvement.

1. Effectiveresearch of

learningissues (LIs),

usesevidence-

basedsources.

2. Effectivelycontributes to

groupknowledge

andunderstandingof the case.

3.Presentationof LIs is well-organized,complete

andconcisely

explained.

1. Extensiveresearch of

learning issues(LIs) and relatedconcepts, makesuse of a wide-

range ofevidence-based

sources.

2. Significantlyadvances groupknowledge and


3. Presentation ofLIs is

exceptionallywell-organized,thorough and

conciselyexplained.

*Preparation & Presentation ofLearning Issues

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific example of thestudent's teaching excellence in presenting LIs.

Level 1Unsatisfactory Level

2

Level 3Minimal

Expectations

Level4

Level 5Meets Expectations

Level6


1. Does notactively participatein group discussions.

2. Statements reflecta lack of basicunderstanding.

3. Does notsupport statements

withreferences/evidence.

-

1. Minimallyparticipate in

groupdiscussions.

2. Statementsreflect a lackof depth in

understanding.

3. Limitedsupport fromreferences/evidence.

-

1.Routinelyparticipates in group

discussions.

2. Contributionsreflect appropriate

level ofunderstanding.

3. Supportsstatements with

somereferences/evidence.

-

1. Activelyparticipates andpromotes group

discussions byengaging others.

2. Contributionsreflect significant

depth inunderstanding.

3. Effectivelysupports statements

with a range ofreferences/evidence.

*Participation in Group Discussion

Page 1

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific example of thestudent's leadership in supporting group effectiveness.


Level2


Level4


Level6

Level 7Exceeds

Expectations

1. Demonstratessignificant

difficultygenerating

hypotheses andmaking

deductions.

2. Unable toexplain reasoning.

3. Unable tocritically appraiseinformation and

apply concepts tothe clinical case.

-

1. Has some difficultygenerating hypothesesand making deductions.

2. Adequately explainsreasoning, but does notsupport with evidence.

3. Adequate ability tocritically appraiseinformation, but

sometimes unable toapply concepts to the

clinical case.

-

1. Generateshypotheses

makesappropriatedeductions.


reasoning, butsometimesuses weakevidence.

3. Effective atcritically

appraisinginformation

and applying itto the clinical

case.

-

1. Generateswell thought-out hypothesesand deductions.


reasoning that iswell-supported

with strongevidence from

a range ofsources.

3. Highlyeffective at

criticallyappraising

information andapplying it to the

clinical case.*Critical Thinking

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific example of thestudent's excellence in critical thinking and problem-solving.


Level2


Level4


Level6


1. Frequentlylate or absent.

2. Does not fulfillresponsibilities to

the group.

3. Does notaccept


4. Demonstrates alack of respectfor peers andfacilitators.

1. At times lateand not ready to

participate.

2. At times failsto fulfill assignedresponsibilities to

the group.

3. Has somedifficultyaccepting


4. Usuallydemonstrates

respect for peersand facilitators.

1.Consistentlyon-time and

ready toparticipate.

2. Fulfillsassigned


3. Acceptsconstructive

feedback.

4. Alwaysdemonstrates

respect forpeers and

facilitators.

1. Consistently on-time,ready to participate andtakes initiative to get

the group sessionstarted.

2. Fulfills assigned, aswell as, additionalresponsibilities to

support groupeffectiveness.

3. Always seeks outand accepts

constructive feedbackand takes initiative to

improve.

4. Alwaysdemonstrates respect

for peers andfacilitators.

*Professionalism

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific example of how thestudent responded to constructive feedback to address an identified knowledge gap or weakness.

Page 2

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Level2


Level4


Level6

Level 7Exceeds

Expectations

1. Demonstratespoor teamwork.

2. Does not showrespect for others'

contributions; eitherInterrupts,

dominates or isinattentive to

others.

3. Does not help toresolve group

interpersonal issuesand conflict.

4. Does not provideconstructive

feedback.

-

1. Demonstratesadequateteamwork.

2. Usually showsrespect for others'contributions and

allows groupmembers to express

ideas; at times isinattentive.

3. Occasionallyfacilitates resolvinggroup interpersonalissues and conflict.

4. Occasionallyprovides constructive

feedback.

-

1. Demonstratesgood teamwork.

2. Shows respectfor others'

contributions andallows groupmembers to

express ideas; isattentive at all

times.

3. Facilitatesresolving groupinterpersonal

issues andconflict.

4. Often providesconstructive

feedback.

-

1. Demonstratesexceptionalteamwork.

2. Alwaysshows respect

for others'contributions, isfully engagedand actively

supports groupdynamics and

openexpression.

3. Demonstratesongoing

leadership inresolving groupinterpersonal

issues andconflict.

4. Consistentlyprovides

constructivefeedback withsuggestions

forimprovement.

*Teamwork

For ratings of "Exceeds Expectations", faculty are required to provide a specific example of thestudent's team-building skills.

COMMENTS*Please comment on the specific strengths of this student's performance.

*Please comment on areas for improvement in this student's performance.

Page 3

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Residency Director Evaluation of StudentRowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine requests all Residency Directors fill out an evaluation of their RowanSOMgraduate after the first year of residency. All questions relate to core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for enteringresidency (as defined by the American Association of College of Osteopathic Medicine) and/or RowanSOM Core Competencies.Below you will find the Residency Evaluation Survey.

Section I: Medical KnowledgePlease identify how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about theresident.

*Exhibits medical knowledge essential for effective patient care.Unable to Evaluate

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

*Demonstrates knowledge and application of osteopathic principles and manipulativetechniques into clinical and patient care activities as appropriate.

Unable to Evaluate

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Section II: Clinical Performance - EntrustmentAfter directly observing this resident, what level of entrustment best describes this resident withrespect to each of the following tasks?

*Obtain a complete and accurate history in an organized manner that is pertinent to the specificpatient presentation, and tailored to the clinical situation and specific patient encounter.Consider: Relevance and thoroughness of information gathered; clinical reasoning skills; patient-centeredinterviewing skills

Unable to Evaluate

Not trusted to perform at all

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Trusted to perform with DIRECT (in-room) supervision ONLY

Trusted to perform with INDIRECT supervision, with on site supervision immediately available

Trusted to perform with INDIRECT supervision, with remote supervision available

Trusted to perform UNSUPERVISED, with oversight and feedback available after care is delivered

*Perform an accurate (complete or focused) physical examination with respect to the patientand tailored to the clinical situation and specific patient encounter.Consider: Appropriateness of examination; identification of normal and abnormal findings; patient centeredexamination techniques; respect for patient privacy, comfort, and safety.

Unable to Evaluate






*Develop a differential diagnosis while avoiding common errors of clinical reasoning.Consider: Integration of patient data to formulate assessment; prioritization of diagnoses; clinical reasoningskills

Unable to Evaluate






*Select appropriate diagnostic and screening test(s) for common presenting problems andinterpret findings properly.Consider: Application of evidence, cost effectiveness, and patient preferences; understanding ofimplications and urgency of results

Unable to Evaluate






*Write safe orders and prescriptions in a variety of settings.Consider: Accuracy and appropriateness; ability to adapt standard order set to patient-specific factors; costand patient adherence.

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Unable to Evaluate






*Provide accurate, focused, and context-specific documentation of a clinical encounter.Consider: Organization and synthesis of information; accuracy and timeliness; reasoning to support decisionmaking.

Unable to Evaluate






*Present a well-organized and concise oral summary of a clinical encounter to member(s) of thehealth care team.Consider: Shared understanding of patients’ current condition; accurate, concise, well-organizedpresentation; adjust to meet needs of receiver.

Unable to Evaluate






*Able to identify relevant clinical questions and seek evidence to support patient care.Consider: Identify gaps in knowledge; initiative in seeking answers through inquiry; ability to interpret andapply evidence.

Unable to Evaluate






Page 3

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

*Effectively provides a handover of patient care among other providers and settings to ensure asafe transition of care.Consider: Clarity and accuracy of communication and documentation; teamwork; respect for patientprivacy.

Unable to Evaluate






*Collaborate and contribute as a member of an inter-professional team in a role-specific andresponsible manner that provides safe, timely, effective, efficient, and equitable care.Consider: Demonstration of mutual respect, dignity, integrity, and trust; listening and communication skills;help for other team members in need.

Unable to Evaluate






*Promptly recognize a patient who requires urgent and/or emergent care, initiate evaluationand management, and seek help.Consider: Awareness of severity of a patient’s illness and indicators for escalating care; communication ofgoals of care.

Unable to Evaluate






*Obtain informed consent that enable the patient/family to understand the risks and benefits oftest and procedures.Consider: Communication with patient/family; avoidance of medical jargon; use of shared decision-making

Unable to Evaluate



Page 4

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE




*Accurately perform core procedures to provide basic patient care.Consider: Technical skills required for procedures: CPR, bag and mask ventilation, venipuncture, intravenousline, sterile technique, Foley catheter; Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT).

Unable to Evaluate






*Engage in safe patient care practices and appropriately identify and report patient safetyconcerns in a timely manner.Consider: Use of safety strategies (e.g., universal precautions, time-outs, medication reconciliation),admission of one’s errors, acceptance of constructive feedback, and use of reporting system.

Unable to Evaluate






Section III: ProfessionalismRowanSOM strives to produce highly professional graduates. Please identify which answer choice bestdescribes this resident with respect to professional behavior.

*Accountability and professional responsibility

Unable to Evaluate

Unacceptable - Does not accept responsibility; not dependable; does not complete tasks on time; rarely punctual.

Developing - Assumed responsibility only when asked; not always dependable; has some difficulty organizing and completingtasks on time; sometimes late.

Approaching Competent/Competent - Readily assumes responsibility; dependable; completes tasks on time; consistentlyorganized and punctual.

Approaching Advanced/Advanced - Seeks responsibility; highly dependable and provides consistent follow up; completestasks on time; organized and punctual.

*Respect and compassion

Unable to Evaluate

Unacceptable - Disrespectful of others; intolerant of others' attitudes and beliefs; breaches trust and confidentiality

Page 5

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Developing - Needs to improve awareness of others' attitudes and beliefs; at times, lacks empathy and respect forautonomy; careless with confidentialityApproaching Competent/Competent - Respectful; Non-judgmental; seeks to understand values and beliefs of others;responds with empathy; respects patients privacy and autonomyApproaching Advanced/Advanced - Respectful; Non-judgmental; seeks to understand values and beliefs of others andminimize the impact of bias; responds with empathy and compassion; respects patients privacy and autonomy andadvocates for needs

Section IV: Overall Impressions*In hindsight, would you have offered this resident a contract?

No (please explain below)

Yes

If you chose "No" in the previous question, please explain.

*Compared with other residents in your program, into which quartile does this resident fall?Bottom Quartile (0 - 25th percentile)

2nd Quartile (26th - 50th percentile)

3rd Quartile (51st - 75th percentile)

Top Quartile (76th - 100th percentile)

Please provide specific comments about the resident's strengths.

Please describe any specific behaviors or skills that require improvement.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey. Your answers help guidecurricular decisions at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine.

Page 6

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE


Preceptor Evaluation of Students - Core RotationBy completing this evaluation, I attest to the best of my knowledge, that I (or any other contributors on this student’s evaluation), havenot provided medical care to this student as a patient, nor recall having a patient-physician relationship with this student.

-If you have had a patient-physician relationship with this student, please close this evaluation and reply directly to the emailnotification you received for this evaluation, stating that you cannot complete an evaluation of this student.

*Please select one:I confirm that this evaluation is based upon my own observationsI confirm that I am completing this evaluation as a summary

evaluation based upon my observations and that of faculty and/orresidents on our service

*Please indicate the total number of days this student took off during his/her rotation:Unsure / Did not track

4 or more days

3 days

2 days

1 day

None

Please evaluate the performance of the student in the following competencies using the anchors described below Unacceptable: Fails to meet minimum expectations of performance, significant improvement required Developing: Basic level of performance, continued improvement required Approaching Competent Competent: Performance at expected level Approaching Advanced Advanced: Performance above expected level

Medical KnowledgeStudents are expected to demonstrate knowledge of established and evolving biomedical, clinical, epidemiological, andpsychosocial/behavioral concepts and apply to patient-centered care.

Major deficits infund of

knowledge.Unable to applyknowledge in

clinical setting.

Demonstratesbasic fund of

knowledge, butwith some gaps.

Inconsistent abilityto apply

knowledge topatient care.

Demonstrates expected fundof knowledge and can apply to

patient care.

Demonstrates fund ofknowledge that is beyond

expected level of training andeffectively applies to patient

care.

Unableto

EvaluateUnacceptable Developing Approaching

Competent Competent ApproachingAdvanced Advanced

*1. Demonstrate medical knowledgeneeded for effective patient care

Page 1

P r e c e p t o r N a m e :

S t u d e n t N a m e :

R o t a t i o n D a t e s :

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Often misses importantinformation.Information

ofteninaccurate.Patientconcerns poorlycharacterized.

Sometimesmisses

importantinformation orinformation is

inaccurate.Patient

concerns notfully

characterizedor prioritized.

Usually gathers an appropriateand accurate patient history.Identifies and characterizes

most patient concerns.Generally prioritized and

organized.

Consistently gathers anappropriate and accurate

patient history. Fullyidentifies patient concerns

which are effectivelyprioritized and organized.

Applies psycho-social issuesto delivery of care.

Unableto



*2. Takes an effective history

Disorganized.Frequently not

thorough. Missesand/or

misinterpretsfindings.

Does notconsistentlydemonstrate

correct physicaland structural

exam technique.Not consistently

organized.

Demonstrates correct physicaland structural exam technique.

Generally uses an organizedapproach.

Consistently performs anappropriate comprehensiveand/or focused physical andstructural exam with fluency.Uses an organized approach.

Unableto



*3. Performs appropriate physical exam

*EPA 1 rating (formative feedback)

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 1: History and Physical Exam) is:

Unable to EvaluateNot allowed to perform,

OBSERVE only

In COACTIVITY withsupervisor, guidance

required

DIRECT (in-room)supervision, ready to

step in if neededINDIRECT supervision

and ALL findings checked

INDIRECT supervisionwith KEY findings

checked

Poor ability toorganize and

prioritize data.Misses primary

diagnosisrepeatedly.

Does notconsistentlygenerate acomplete

differentialdiagnosis, orapply sound

clinicalreasoning.

Consistently generates anadequate, but somewhat

incomplete differential diagnosiswhich includes related somatic

dysfunction as appropriate.Demonstrates adequate clinical

reasoning.

Consistently generates andprioritizes an accurate

differential diagnosis whichincludes related somatic

dysfunction as appropriate.Demonstrates effective clinical

reasoning.

Unableto



*4. Generates an effective differentialdiagnosis

*EPA 2 rating (formative feedback)

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 2: Prioritize a Differential Diagnosis Following a Clinical Encounter) is:


OBSERVE only


required





checked

Page 2

Patient CareStudents are expected to promote health and deliver compassionate, appropriate and effective treatment of disease based uponpatient information, preferences, evidence and clinical judgment.

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Lacks ability torecommend

appropriate tests.Misinterpretscommon lab

values and fails torecognize critical

values.

Recommendsstandard

diagnostic testsfor some common

problems. Maymisinterpret or

overreact tocommon lab

values.

Recommends screening anddiagnostic tests for acute and

chronic conditions. Able tointerpret routine findings.

Recommends evidence-basedscreening and diagnostic

tests for acute and chronicconditions. Able to correctly

distinguish and interpretclinically important findings.

Considers patientpreferences.

Unableto



*5. Recommends and interpretsscreening and diagnostic tests

*EPA 3 (formative feedback)

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 3: Recommend and Interpret Common Diagnostic and Screening Tests) is:


OBSERVE only


required





checked

Practice-based Learning and ImprovementStudents are expected to appraise, assimilate and apply scientific evidence to patient care.

No evidence ofoutside research

or reading.Unable to apply

evidence topatient care.

Reads onlyprovidedliterature.

Sometimesapplies resources

or evidence topatient care.

Needs guidance toform clinicalquestions.

Often accesses point of careresources and evidenced-basedliterature. Formulates clinicalquestions and usually applies

evidence to patient care.

Consistently accesses point ofcare resources and evidence-based literature. Formulateseffective clinical questionsand appropriately appliesevidence to patient care.

Unableto



*6. Demonstrates skills in evidence-based medicine


Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 7: Form Clinical Questions and Retrieve Evidence to Advance Patient Care) is:


OBSERVE only


required





checked

Page 3

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Rarely identifiespatients' concerns

and does notrecognize

emotional cues.Never establishes

a rapport withpatients. Constant

use of medicaljargon.

Sometimesidentifiespatients'

concerns andresponds to

emotional cues.Usually

establishes arapport with

patients. Oftenuses medical

jargon.

Frequently identifies andresponds to patients' concernsand emotional cues.Generallyable to establish rapport with

patients. Uses languageeffectively, mostly without

jargon.

Demonstrates effectiveinterpersonal skills.

Consistently identifiesnonverbal cues and addressesdifficult topics with sensitivity.Demonstrates empathy andestablishes a good rapport.Uses language effectively

without jargon.

Unableto



*7. Effective communication withpatients and families

Grosslyinsufficient or

inaccuratewritten record.

Somewhatincompleteand poorlyorganized

writtenrecord.

Accurate and organized writtenrecord. Generally able tosynthesize and prioritize.

Documentation in correct notesection.

Accurate, organized, andthorough written record.

Consistently able to synthesizeand prioritize. Clearly stated

assessment plan.

Unableto



*8. Effective written documentationskills


Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 5: Document a Clinical Encounter in the Patient Record) is:


OBSERVE only


required





checked

Poorpresentation.Disorganized.Inaccurate and

missing keyinformation.

Communicationsomewhat

disorganized.Information not

clearlypresented.

Information iseither

incomplete orexcessively

detailed.

Communication is clear,accurate and concise.

Information is prioritized.Adequately responds to

questions. Case presentationincludes assessment and

elementary plan.

Communication is clear,accurate and concise yet always

thorough. Information issynthesized and prioritized.Organized and polished with

minimal written prompts.Effectively responds to

questions. Case presentationincludes assessment and plan.

Unableto



*9. Effective oral presentation skills

*EPA 6 (formative assessment)

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 6: Perform an Oral Presentation) is:


OBSERVE only


required





checked

Page 4

Interpersonal & Communication SkillsStudents are expected to demonstrate effective listening, speaking, writing and nonverbal communication skills with patients and thehealthcare team.

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Systems-based PracticeStudents are expected to demonstrate knowledge of health systems and resources available to provide comprehensive quality care.

Lacksunderstanding of

team roles. Attimes,

disrespectful toteam members.

Occasionalmisunderstanding

of team roles.Does not always

communicateeffectively with

team or seek inputto support patient

care.

Understands role andcommunicates effectively and

respectfully with teammembers. Identifies

appropriate team member forinput to patient care issues.

Understands role andproactively communicateswith team members in an

effective and respectful way.Actively seeks out team

members for input on complexclinical situations, and

promotes effective patientcare.

Unableto



*10. Teamwork skills

*EPA 9 (formative feedback).

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 9: Collaborate as a Member of an Interprofessional Team) is:


OBSERVE only


required





checked

Lacks knowledgeof health

systems andquality

improvement.Fails to

recommendresources to

support patientneeds.

Limitedknowledge of

health systemsand quality

improvement.Occasionallyrecommendsresources to

support patientneeds.

Demonstrates knowledge ofhealth systems and quality

improvement. Generally usesgood safety practices.

Recommends resources tosupport patient needs.

Demonstrates strongknowledge of health care

systems and qualityimprovement. Consistently uses

good safety practices.Consistently recommendsappropriate resources to

support patient needs and safetransitions of care.

Unableto



*11. Knowledge of health systems andresources

*EPA 13 (formative assessment)

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specificskill (EPA 13: Identify System Failures and Contribute to a Culture of Safety and Improvement) is:


OBSERVE only


required





checked

Page 5

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Does not acceptresponsibility.

Not dependable.Does not

complete taskson time. Rarely

punctual.

Assumesresponsibility onlywhen asked. Not

alwaysdependable. Hassome difficultyorganizing and

completing taskson time.

Sometimes late.

Readily assumes responsibility.Dependable. Completes tasks

on time. Consistently organizedand punctual.

Seeks responsibility. Highlydependable and provides

consistent follow up.Completes tasks on time.

Consistently well-organizedand punctual.

Unableto



*12. Accountability and professionalresponsibility

Disrespectful ofothers,

intolerant ofothers' attitudes

and beliefs.Breaches trust

andconfidentiality.

Needs to improveawareness of

others' attitudesand beliefs. Attimes, lacks

empathy andrespect forautonomy.Sometimes

careless withconfidentiality.

Respectful. Nonjudgmental.Seeks to understand values

and beliefs of others. Respondswith empathy. Respects

patient privacy and autonomy.

Respectful. Nonjudgmental.Integrate patient beliefs and

values into management planand minimize the impact of

personal bias. Responds withempathy and compassion.

Respects patient privacy andautonomy and advocates for

needs.

Unableto



*13. Respect and compassion

Does notrecognize oracknowledge

limitations. Failsto seek

assistance. Doesnot put the

needs of thepatient first.

Needs to improveawareness of one'sown limitations and

seek appropriatedirection and

support. Generallyrecognizes

potential forconflict of interestand the primacy of

patient needs.

Recognizes the limits of one'sexpertise. Accepts direction

and support. Recognizespotential for conflict of interest

and the primacy of patientneeds.

Recognizes the limits of one'sexpertise and capacity.

Proactively seeks directionand support. Recognizespotential for conflict of

interest and the primacy ofpatient needs, and practice

making appropriaterecommendations to resolve

these conflicts.

Unableto



*14. Self-awareness of limitations andconflict of interest

EPA 12: Clinical ProceduresEPA 12 (formative feedback)

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires to perform anyone of the following procedures (EPA 12: Perform General Procedures of a Physician) is:

Unableto

Evaluate

Not allowedto perform,OBSERVE

only

In COACTIVITYwith supervisor,

guidancerequired

DIRECT (in-room)supervision,

ready to step in ifneeded

INDIRECTsupervision

and ALLfindingschecked

INDIRECTsupervision

with KEYfindingschecked

*OMT*Injection: Vaccination*Injection: PPD*Sterile Technique*Suturing*Blooddraw: Venipuncture*Blooddraw: ABG

Page 6

ProfessionalismStudents are expected to conduct themselves with poise, courtesy, honesty and responsibility and engage in self-care and regulation inorder to maintain a productive medical career.

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

*Please comment on the students overall performance. These comments WILL be included in the Medical Student PerformanceEvaluation (MSPE formerly known as the Dean's letter).

*Please comment on areas where the student's performance will benefit from enhanced skill development. These comments WILL NOTappear in the MSPE (For students only).

Page 7

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute


Preceptor Evaluation of Students - Elective RotationBy completing this evaluation, I attest to the best of my knowledge, that I (or any other contributors on this student’sevaluation), have not provided medical care to this student as a patient, nor recall having a patient-physician relationship withthis student.

-If you have had a patient-physician relationship with this student, please close this evaluation and reply directly to the emailnotification you received for this evaluation, stating that you cannot complete an evaluation of this student.

*Please select one:I confirm that this evaluation is based upon my own

observationsI confirm that I am completing this evaluation as a summary

evaluation based upon my observations and that of facultyand/or residents on our service

*Please indicate the total number of days this student took off during his/her rotation:Unsure / Did not track

4 or more days

3 days

2 days

1 day

None

Please evaluate the performance of the student in the following competencies using the anchors described below Unacceptable: Fails to meet minimum expectations of performance, significant improvement required Developing: Basic level of performance, continued improvement required Competent: Performance at expected level Proficient: Performance above expected level Advanced: Performance significantly and consistently above expected level

Medical KnowledgeStudents are expected to demonstrate knowledge of established and evolving biomedical, clinical, epidemiological, andpsychosocial/behavioral concepts and apply them to patient-centered care.

Major deficits inknowledge.

Unable to applyknowledge in

clinical setting.

Demonstratesbasic knowledge,

but with somegaps. Inconsistent

ability to applyknowledge topatient care.

Demonstratesexpected fundof knowledgeand can apply

to routinepatient care.

Demonstratesgood fund ofknowledge;

appropriatelyapplies

knowledge topatient care.

Demonstratesadvanced

knowledge;effectively

appliesunderstanding tocomplex patient

care.Unable

toEvaluate

Unacceptable Developing Competent Proficient Advanced

*1. Demonstrate medical knowledgeneeded for effective patient care

Page 1

P r e c e p t o r N a m e :

S t u d e n t N a m e :

R o t a t i o n D a t e s :

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Students are expected to promote health and deliver compassionate, appropriate and effective treatment of disease basedupon patient information, preferences, evidence and clinical judgment.

Poor ability toorganize and

prioritize data.Misses primary

diagnosisrepeatedly.

Does notconsistentlygenerate acomplete

differentialdiagnosis, orapply sound

clinicalreasoning.

Consistentlygenerates arelevant and

adequate (3-4)differentialdiagnosis.

Demonstratesadequate

clinicalreasoning.

Consistentlygenerates arelevant andappropriatedifferentialdiagnosis.

Demonstratesgood clinical

reasoning andjudgment.

Consistentlygenerates a relevant,

accurate andcomplete differential

diagnosis.Demonstrates

advanced level,evidence-based

clinical reasoningand judgment.

Unableto

EvaluateUnacceptable Developing Competent Proficient Advanced

*2. Generates an effective differentialdiagnosis

Contributes littleto the treatment

plan. Maysuggest

inappropriatetreatmentoptions.

Inconsistentlycontributes to

treatmentplans or

managementof patients.

Does not useholistic,patient-centered

approach tocare.

Adequatelycontributes to

treatmentplans and

patientmanagement.Appropriatelyincoporatespatient into

decision-making.

Significanltycontributes to

treatmentplans and

patientmanagement.Consistentlyincorporatespatient into

decision-making.

Independentlygenerates treatment

plans andcontributes to

patientmanagement.

Engages incollaborative

decision-making andpromotes holistic,patient-centered

care.Unable

toEvaluate

Unacceptable Developing Competent Proficient Advanced

*3. Generates holistic treatment plansand contributes to patientmanagement

Interpersonal & Communication SkillsStudents are expected to demonstrate effective listening, speaking, writing and nonverbal communication skills withpatients and the healthcare team.

Often missespatients'

concerns. Doesnot recognize

emotional cues.Frequent use ofmedical jargon.

Sometimesmisses

patients'concerns and

emotionalcues. At

times usesmedicaljargon.

Identifies andresponds to

mostpatients'concerns;

establishesrapport. Uses

languageeffectively

withoutjargon.

Consistentlyidentifies andresponds to

patients'concerns;

demonstratesempathy andestablishes

good rapport.Uses

languageeffectively

withoutjargon.

Consistenly identifiesnonverbal cues andresponds to patientconcerns; addressesdifficult topics with

sensitivity. Consistentlydemonstrates empathy

and establishesexcellent rapport and

trust relationships. Useslanguage effectively

without jargon.

Unableto


*4. Effective communication withpatients and families

Page 2

Patient Care

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

Lacksunderstanding of

team roles. Attimes,

disrespectful toteam members.

Occasionalmisunderstanding

of team roles.Does not always

communicateeffectively withteam or seek

input to supportpatient care.

Adequatelyunderstands

roles andcommunicates

respectfullywith teammembers.

Usuallyidentifies

appropriateteam members

to supportpatient caredecisions.

Understandsroles and

communicateseffectively

andrespectfullywith teammembers.Includes

appropriateteam

members inpatient caredecisions.

Understands rolesand proactivelycommunicates

with teammembers in aneffective and

respectful way.Consietently

seeks input fromteam members topromote effective

patient care.

Unableto


*5. Teamwork skills

ProfessionalismStudents are expected to conduct themselves with poise, courtesy, honesty and responsibility and engage in self-care andregulation in order to maintain a productive medical career.

Does not acceptresponsibility.

Not dependable.Does not

complete taskson time. Rarely

punctual.

Assumesresponsibility

only whenasked. Not

alwaysdependable.

Has somedifficulty

organizing andcompleting

tasks on time.Sometimes

late.

Readilyassumes

responsibility.Dependable.Completestasks on

time. Mostlyorganized

andconsistently

punctual.

Seeksresponsibility.Dependable

and routinelyprovides

appropriatefollow up.

Consistentlyorganized,

punctual andcompletes

tasks on time.

Seeks responsibility.Highly dependable

and providesconsistent follow up.

Consistentlyorganized, punctualand completes taskson time. Carries outprofessional dutieswith integrity and

respect.

Unableto


*6. Accountability and professionalresponsibility

Disrespectful ofothers,

intolerant ofothers' attitudes

and beliefs.Breaches trust

andconfidentiality.

Needs toimprove

awareness ofothers'

attitudes andbeliefs. At

times, lacksempathy andrespect forautonomy.

Careless withconfidentiality.

Respectful.Nonjudgmental.

Seeks tounderstandvalues andbeliefs ofothers.

Responds withempathy.Respects

patient privacyand autonomy.


Seeks tounderstandvalues andbeliefs of

others andminimize the

impact of bias.Responds withempathy andcompassion.

Respectspatient privacyand autonomyand advocates

for needs.


Seeks tounderstand values

and beliefs of othersand minimize theimpact of bias.Responds withempathy andcompassion.

Respects patientprivacy and

autonomy andadvocates for

needs. Integratespatient beliefs and

values intomanagement plan.

Unableto


*7. Respect and compassion

Page 3

Systems-based PracticeStudents are expected to demonstrate knowledge of health systems and resources available to provide comprehensivequality care.

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

*Please comment on the students overall performance. These comments WILL be included in the Medical Student PerformanceEvaluation (MSPE formerly known as the Dean's letter).

Page 4

*Please comment on areas where the student's performance will benefit from enhanced skill development. These comments WILL NOTappear in the MSPE (For students only).

Do Not

Use or

Red

istrib

ute

hamerc

Rectangle

hamerc

Rectangle

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Preceptor Formative Evaluation of EPAs 1, 2 & 3 (History & Physical Examination, Differential Diagnosis, and Diagnostic &Screening Tests)Completed by the preceptor.Pick your preceptor

PICK

If your preceptor is not in the pick list, please enter their complete information below:Preceptor First Name

Preceptor Last Name

Preceptor Email Address

*Type of VisitNew PatientFollow Up/Revisit

Completed by the preceptor.

LEVEL OF ENTRUSTMENT (for student feedback only)Does NOT contribute to a grade and comments are NOT included on the MSPE letter.*Complexity of Patient Care (medical decision making, psychosocial factors, etc.)

RoutineComplex

Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for each of the specific skills listed below are (evaluateany that apply):

Unableto

Evaluate

Not allowed toperform,

OBSERVE only


required

DIRECT (in-room)supervision, ready to step

in if needed

INDIRECT supervisionand ALL findings

checked


checked*EPA 1: HISTORY & PHYSICAL EXAMA student who is TRUSTED to gather a historyand perform a physical examination is able to:

- Obtain a complete and accurate history in anorganized fashion that is pertinent to the specificpatient presentation and clinical situation.

- Demonstrate patient-centered interviewing skills.

- Perform a clinically relevant and accurate physicalexam (complete or focused), including anosteopathic structural exam, in a logical and fluidmanner.

- Demonstrate respect for patient privacy, comfortand safety.

*EPA 2: DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

A student who is TRUSTED to prioritize adifferential diagnosis following a clinicalencounter is able to:

- Develop a complete and prioritized problem list.

- Synthesize information from various sources toformulate a relevant differential diagnosis that isneither too broad nor too narrow.

- Provide complete and clear explanation of clinicalreasoning.

Page 1

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

*EPA 3: RECOMMEND AND INTERPRETCOMMON DIAGNOSTIC AND SCREENINGTESTS

A student who is TRUSTED to recommend andinterpret common diagnostic and screeningtests is able to:

- Recommend first-line cost-effective screening anddiagnostic tests for routine health maintenance andcommon disorders

- Provide rationale for decision to order tests, takinginto account pre and post test probability and patientpreference.

- Interpret results of basic studies and understand theimplication and urgency of the results.

Unableto

Evaluate

Not allowed toperform,

OBSERVE only


required

DIRECT (in-room)supervision, ready to step

in if needed

INDIRECT supervisionand ALL findings

checked


checked

What does this student need to work on to become more independent in performing these skills?

Page 2

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



EPA 5: Documenting a Clinical EncounterCompleted by the student.Pick your preceptor

PICK

If your preceptor is not in the pick list, please enter their complete information below:Preceptor First Name

Preceptor Last Name

Preceptor Email Address

*Type of VisitNew PatientFollow Up/Revisit

Completed by the preceptor.*Complexity of Patient Care (medical decision making, psychosocial factors, etc.)

RoutineComplex

LEVEL OF ENTRUSTMENT (for student feedback only)Does NOT contribute to a grade and comments are NOT included on the MSPE letter.EPA 5: DOCUMENT A CLINICAL ENCOUNTERA student who is TRUSTED to document a clinical encounter is able to:

- Provide accurate and timely documentation that meets regulation and professional expectations.

- Prioritize and synthesize information into a cogent narrative appropriate for specific context or purpose (e.g., admissions, progress, post-op and procedure notes, etc.)

- Document a problem list, differential diagnosis, and plan that is aligned with patient preferences and is supported through clinical reasoning and input from other providers.*Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 5: Document a Clinical Encounter) is:

Not allowed to perform, OBSERVE only.

In COACTIVITY with supervisor, guidance required

DIRECT (in-room) supervision, ready to step in if needed

INDIRECT supervision and ALL findings checked

INDIRECT supervision with KEY findings checked

What does this student need to work on to become more independent in performing these skills?

Page 1

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Entering/Writing a Prescription Faculty Guidelines forTeaching and Scoring (EPA 4)

Instructions: Please fill out the checklist first, and then give your level of entrustment of the student performance onprescription writing.

Omit/Incorrect Correct*1. Date of prescription*2. Patient name

Omit/Incorrect PartiallyCorrect

FullyCorrect

*3. Name of drug

1) Generic names2) NO abbreviations or acronyms.note: Spelling errors are NOT counted against the student.*4. Strength of drug (in numeric form)

1) Included an appropriate strength.2) Used leading zeros and NO trailing zeros (ex. 0.5 mg, instead of .50 mg).3) Allow standard abbreviations including mg, g, ml, but prefer micrograms to be spelledout to prevent medical error4) NO use of tsp and tbsp.5) Require concentration and dose for Liquid medications.*5. Quantity of the drug (in text and numeric form)

1) For controlled medication, require both text and numeric form.2) For non-controlled medication, only require numeric form.*6. Dosage form1) Allow commonly accepted abbreviations for dosage form (PO, IM, IV, etc.).*7. Frequency of administration

1) MUST spell out daily or every day, or every other day.2) NO abbreviations QD and QOD.3) However, allow abbreviations include TID, BID, AC, PC and other commonly acceptedstandard abbreviations.*8. Instruction for use

1) Prefer to specify the indication/purpose of the use (ex. "For nausea").2) (if applicable) require specific instruction of use (ex. "Take with food"), or warnings toavoid side effects (ex. avoid sun exposure while using").3) If the medication is only used when a specific symptom occurs, MUST clearly state thesituation for use, NOT allow "Taken as directed/needed".

Omit/Incorrect Correct*9. Number of refills (if any) authorizedIf there is no refill, specifying 0 is stillrequired.

Page 1

n/a No Yes*10. Medication selected is appropriate for patient (not contraindicated)Clerkships can include it if it is a learning objective and students are specifically taught thecontent.DO N

OT USE O

R REDISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOM Evaluated By : evaluator's nameEvaluating : person (role) or moment's name (if applicable)Dates : start date to end date


Preceptor Evaluation of Oral Case Presentation*Setting:

--

*Type of Visit:New PatientFollow Up/Revisit

*Complexity of Patient Care (medical decision making, psychosocial factors, etc.):RoutineComplex

Information GatheringUnacceptable Developing Competent

NoCredit

Accuracy: Inaccurate. Data iseither missing or irrelevant. Detail: No chief complaint.

Sequence of events unclear. Pasthistory is overly detailed with no

clear connection to the activeproblem. Description of

symptoms lacks detail (e.g.,location, intensity, etc.)

Accuracy: Most data is accurate andrelevant with some minor details

omitted.Detail: Chief complaint included most

pertinent information, but lackedsome clarity. Sequence of major

events clear. Past history adequatelydescribed and linked to active

problem. Most aspects of symptomsare described.

Accuracy: Data is accurate, relevant & complete.Detail: Chief complaint is clear and concise,

Includes relevant past history. Sequence of allevents clear. Patient history complete and

concisely described and linked to activeproblem. Symptoms are described clearly using

appropriate adjectives, location, intensity andfrequency.

*Patient History

Unacceptable Developing Competent

NoCredit

Accuracy: Inaccurate. Data iseither missing or irrelevant.

Detail: Does not include generalstatement, PE is either too

detailed or incomplete. Irrelevanttest results are presented orsignificant results omitted.


omitted.Detail: Mostly clear general

statement, PE includes mostimportant +/- findings, Most relevanttest results are reported with someomissions or extra detail included.

Accuracy: Data is accurate, relevant & complete.Detail: Succinct general statement creating

clear picture of patient. PE is precise andincludes all pertinent +/- findings. All relevantresults presented and organized to distinguish

between possible diagnoses.

*Patient Data

Medical Decision MakingUnacceptable Developing Competent

NoCredit

Accuracy: DDX is notclinically grounded and

is too broad/narrow.Detail: No summary or

synthesis of criticalelements of the case.

No problem list orpoorly organized list.

No DDX given.

Accuracy: DDX is clinically grounded, but is toobroad/narrow.

Detail: Most pertinent informationsynthesized; some excessive detail. Most

important problems included and prioritized. ADDX with several possibilities is given for only

some problems. Provided adequate clinicalreasoning for diagnosis.

Accuracy: DDX is clinically grounded and isneither too broad nor too narrow

Detail: Synthesized critical elements of the casefrom various data sources. Complete and

prioritized problem list. A DDX with severalpossibilities is given for all active problems.

Provided effective clinical reasoning and rationaleto support diagnosis.

*Assessment with Differential Diagnosis


NoCredit

Accuracy: Inaccurate.Plan is incorrect or largely

incomplete.Detail: Plan is not

described or is unrelatedto problem list.

Accuracy: Plan is relevant with some detailsomitted.

Detail: Provided adequate clinical reasoning forplan. Provided a plan addressing most

important problems.

Accuracy: Plan is relevant & complete.Detail: Provided effective clinical reasoningand rationale to support plan. Considered

patient preferences.

*Plan

OPP

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Osteopathic principlesand/or treatment

modalities were omittedor not appropriatelyapplied to address

patient's presentingproblem.

Osteopathic principles and/or treatmentmodalities adequately applied. Some key

components were lacking to appropriately addresspatient's current condition. Relationship ofstructure and function and the rationale for

treatment adequately explained.

Osteopathic principles and/or treatmentmodalities appropriately applied for the

presenting patient condition.Relationship of structure and function

and the rationale for treatmenteffectively explained.

Application of Osteopathic Principles &Impact of Osteopathic Care (as applicable)

Presentation SkillsUnacceptable Developing Competent

NoCredit

Disorganizedpresentation, data is

out of order

Attempts to follow SOAP model;Organized and logical presentation of

data.

Follows SOAP model and uses it to guide audience; Datafocuses on the abnormal/chief complaint, sequentially.

*Organization


NoCredit

Presentation is unclear,key case details andpertinent +/- were

omitted.

Presentation is mostly clear. Able to adequatelyreport the major case details with some details

omitted to fully support clinical decision-making.

Presentation is clear, concise and engaging. Ableto accurately report the case and provideappropriate details to fully support clinical

decision-making.*Communication


NoCredit

Presentation of clinical topic wasnot included as required, or was

inadequate. Content was unclear,incomplete and/or inaccurate.

Presentation of clinical topic is mostlyaccurate and complete. Some important

information about diagnosis andmanagement of the condition were not

included.

Presentation of clinical topic is clear,accurate and complete. Includes relevant

details to fully support understaning of thediagnosis and management of the

condition.*Topic content


NoCredit

Unable to answerquestions, and does not

acknowledge gaps inknowledge.

Mostly able to answer questions.Acknowledges gaps in knowledge andtakes responsibility to seek additional

information.

Answers questions fully and responsively.Acknowledges gaps in knowledge, and takes

responsibility to seek additional information to clarifyor refine presentation.

*Response to Questions

LEVEL OF ENTRUSTMENT (for student feedback only)Does NOT contribute to a grade and comments are NOT included on the MSPE letter.EPA 6: ORAL CASE PRESENTATIONA student who is TRUSTED to provide an oral case presentation of a clinical encounter is able to:

- Synthesize and prioritize information into a clear, concise and well-organized presentation.

- Present a rationale for treatment which is appropriate for the clinical situation and reflects patient preferences.

- Respond to questions, acknowledge gaps in knowledge and seek additional information to clarify or refine presentation.Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 6: Oral Case Presentation) is:

Unable to Evaluate

Not allowed to perform, OBSERVE only





*What should the student do to become more effective at presenting a patient case?

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Preceptor Evaluation of Case Presentation in the Clinical Setting*Setting:

--




NoCredit

Patient CC and hx is eithermissing/incomplete, irrrelevant

or inaccurate.

Patient CC and hx is mostly completeand accurate, some irrelevant

information included.

Patient CC and hx is complete and concise,appropriately sequenced, accurate, and relevant to

presenting problem.*Patient History


NoCredit

Data is either missing orirrelevant.

PE is either too detailed,irrelevant or incomplete.

Irrelevant test results arepresented or significant results

omitted.

Most data is accurate & relevant.

PE includes most important +/- findings,

Most relevant test results are reported withsome omissions or extra detail included.

Data is accurate, relevant & complete.

PE is precise and includes all pertinent +/-findings.

All relevant results presented and organizedto distinguish between possible diagnoses.

*Patient Data


NoCredit

No synthesis of problems/ elements of thecase.

DDX is not provided OR not clinicallygrounded, too broad/narrow and poorly

prioritized.

Synthesized most pertinentproblems/elements, some excessive

detail.

DDX is clinical grounded andprioritized, but is somewhat

broad/narrow.

Provided adequate clinical reasoningfor diagnosis.

Synthesized all activeproblems/elements of the case.

DDX is clinically grounded,prioritized and appropriate in

breadth.

Provided effective clinicalreasoning for diagnosis.

*Assessment


NoCredit

Plan is incorrect orlargely incomplete.

Plan is relevant with some details omitted. Someproblems not adequately addressed.

Plan is relevant & complete.

Considered patient preferences and providedeffective rationale for the plan.

*Plan


Unableto

Evaluate

Osteopathic principles and/or treatmentmodalities were omitted or not appropriately

applied to address patient's condition.

Some key osteopathiccomponents were lacking to

appropriately address patient'scondition.

Osteopathic principles and/ortreatment modalities appropriatelyapplied for the patient's condition.

Application of Osteopathic Principles (asapplicable)


NoCredit


omitted.



Presentation is clear and concise. Able toaccurately report the case and provide

appropriate details to fully support clinicaldecision-making.

*Presentation Skills

Page 1

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


NoCredit




information.




LEVEL OF ENTRUSTMENT (for student feedback only)Does NOT contribute to a grade and comments are NOT included on the MSPE letter.

EPA 6: ORAL CASE PRESENTATIONA student who is TRUSTED to provide an oral case presentation of a clinical encounter is able to:



- Respond to questions, acknowledge gaps in knowledge and seek additional information to clarify or refine presentation.*Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 6: Oral Case Presentation) is:

Unable to Evaluate





INDIRECT supervision and KEY findings checked

What does this student need to work on to become more independent in performing this skill?

EPA 2: DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSISA student who is trusted to prioritize a differential diagnosis following a clinical encounter is able to:


- Synthesize patient data from various sources to formulate a relevant differential diagnosis that is neither too broad nor too narrow.

- Provide complete and succinct explanation of clinical reasoning.*Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 2: Differential Diagnosis) is:

Unable to Evaluate





INDIRECT supervision and KEY findings checked


Page 2

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Preceptor Evaluation of Oral Case Presentation (Geriatrics Clerkship)*Setting:

--



Information GatheringUnacceptable Developing Competent

NoCredit

Accuracy: Inaccurate.Data is either missing or

irrelevant. Detail: No chief

complaint. Sequence ofevents unclear. Past

history is overly detailedwith no clear connection

to the active problem.Description of symptomslacks detail (e.g., location,

intensity, etc.)

Accuracy: Most data is accurate and relevantwith some minor details omitted.

Detail: Chief complaint included mostpertinent information, but lacked someclarity. Sequence of major events clear.

Relevant past history, including cognitive,psychological, social (including advanced

planning preferences), and functional status,as well as medication review, are mostlyincluded. Most aspects of symptoms are

described.

Accuracy: Data is accurate, relevant & complete.Detail: Chief complaint is clear and concise,

Includes relevant past history. Sequence of allevents clear. Relevant past history, including

cognitive, psychological, social (includingadvanced planning preferences), and functional

status, as well as medication review, are allincluded. Symptoms are described clearly using

appropriate adjectives, location, intensity andfrequency.

*Patient History


NoCredit

Accuracy: Inaccurate. Data iseither missing or irrelevant.

Detail: Does not include generalstatement, PE is either too

detailed or incomplete. Irrelevanttest results are presented orsignificant results omitted.


omitted.Detail: Mostly clear general

statement, PE includes mostimportant +/- findings, Most relevanttest results are reported with someomissions or extra detail included.

Accuracy: Data is accurate, relevant & complete.Detail: Succinct general statement creating

clear picture of patient. PE is precise andincludes all pertinent +/- findings. All relevantresults presented and organized to distinguish

between possible diagnoses.

*Patient Data

Medical Decision MakingUnacceptable Developing Competent

NoCredit

Accuracy: DDX is notclinically grounded and

is too broad/narrow.Detail: No summary or

synthesis of criticalelements of the case.

No problem list orpoorly organized list.

No DDX given.

Accuracy: DDX is clinically grounded, but is toobroad/narrow.

Detail: Most pertinent informationsynthesized; some excessive detail. Most

important problems included and prioritized. ADDX with several possibilities is given for only

some problems. Provided adequate clinicalreasoning for diagnosis.

Accuracy: DDX is clinically grounded and isneither too broad nor too narrow

Detail: Synthesized critical elements of the casefrom various data sources. Complete and

prioritized problem list. A DDX with severalpossibilities is given for all active problems.

Provided effective clinical reasoning and rationaleto support diagnosis.

*Assessment with Differential Diagnosis


NoCredit

Accuracy: Inaccurate.Plan is incorrect or largely

incomplete.Detail: Plan is not

described or is unrelatedto problem list.

Accuracy: Plan is relevant with some detailsomitted.

Detail: Provided adequate clinical reasoning forplan. Provided a plan addressing most

important problems.

Accuracy: Plan is relevant & complete.Detail: Provided effective clinical reasoningand rationale to support plan. Considered

patient preferences.

*Plan

OPP

Page 1

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Osteopathic principlesand/or treatment

modalities were omittedor not appropriatelyapplied to address

patient's presentingproblem.

Osteopathic principles and/or treatmentmodalities adequately applied. Some key

components were lacking to appropriately addresspatient's current condition. Relationship ofstructure and function and the rationale for

treatment adequately explained.

Osteopathic principles and/or treatmentmodalities appropriately applied for the

presenting patient condition.Relationship of structure and function

and the rationale for treatmenteffectively explained.

Application of Osteopathic Principles &Impact of Osteopathic Care (as applicable)

Presentation SkillsUnacceptable Developing Competent

NoCredit

Disorganizedpresentation, data is

out of order

Attempts to follow SOAP model;Organized and logical presentation of

data.

Follows SOAP model and uses it to guide audience; Datafocuses on the abnormal/chief complaint, sequentially.

*Organization


NoCredit


omitted.



Presentation is clear, concise and engaging. Ableto accurately report the case and provideappropriate details to fully support clinical

decision-making.*Communication


NoCredit

Presentation of clinical topic wasnot included as required, or was

inadequate. Content was unclear,incomplete and/or inaccurate.

Presentation of clinical topic is mostlyaccurate and complete. Some important

information about diagnosis andmanagement of the condition were not

included.

Presentation of clinical topic is clear,accurate and complete. Includes relevant

details to fully support understaning of thediagnosis and management of the

condition.*Topic content


NoCredit




information.




LEVEL OF ENTRUSTMENT (for student feedback only)Does NOT contribute to a grade and comments are NOT included on the MSPE letter.EPA 6: ORAL CASE PRESENTATIONA student who is TRUSTED to provide an oral case presentation of a clinical encounter is able to:



- Respond to questions, acknowledge gaps in knowledge and seek additional information to clarify or refine presentation.Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 6: Oral Case Presentation) is:

Unable to Evaluate






*What should the student do to become more effective at presenting a patient case?

Page 2

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Preceptor Evaluation of Documenting a Clinical Encounter*Setting:

--


*Complexity of Patient Care (medical decision making, psychosocial factors, etc.)RoutineComplex

Unacceptable Developing CompetentAccuracy:

Inaccurate,incorrect or poorly

documented.

Detail: Criticalinformationmissing or

incorrect. Fails todocument themost pertinent

historycomponents.

Accuracy: Mostly accurate, pertinent andclearly documented.

Detail: Provides most pertinent historycomponents. Critical information is included.May be missing some elements of HPI, PMH,

Family/Social Hx, Allergies, Meds; ROS includesmost pertinent +/- May include some irrelevant

information or detail.

Accuracy: Accurate, pertinent, concise and clearlydocumented.

Detail: Relevant and complete with critical and supportinginformation included. All key elements of the HPI (character,location, onset, duration, etc.), PMH including surgical history,family/social HX related to patient risk factors, Allergies, and

Meds (RX, OTC, Supplements) documented; ROS includes allpertinent +/-

*Patient History

Unacceptable Developing CompetentAccuracy: Inaccurate,

incorrect or poorlydocumented.

Detail: Documentation ofphysical exam is cursory,

and missing criticalexamination components.

Accuracy: Mostly accurate and clear withsome minor omissions.

Detail: Documentation of physical exam includesmost pertinent exam components, may be

missing some pertinent +/- findings orosteopathic elements.

Accuracy: Accurate, relevant and clear.

Detail: Documentation includes all pertinent examcomponents. Pertinent +/- findings and osteopathic

elements included. Results of relevant diagnostic testsappropriately reflected.

*Objective Findings


Accuracy: DDX Inaccurate

Detail: Assessment not consistent with priordocumentation. Omits key elements of theassessment and DDX. Fails to clearly justify

diagnosis or note secondary problems; Ordersinappropriate diagnostic tests.

Accuracy: DDX Mostly Accurate, but notcorrectly Prioritized

Detail: Clear justification for diagnosisand most secondary problems included.Assesment mostly consistent with priordocumentation, some elements may be

missing.

Accuracy: DDX Complete,Accurate and Prioritized

Detail: Clear justification fordiagnosis and all secondary

problems included. Assesmentcomplete and consistent with

prior documentation.*Assessment/Diagnostic Reasoning

Unacceptable Developing CompetentAccuracy: Plan Inaccurate or

Inappropriate

Details: Minimal treatment planwhich omits key elements and

fails to address most issues raisedby diagnoses. Does not reflectinsight into patient needs and

preferences.

Accuracy: Plan is mostly Accurate andAppropriate

Details: Mostly complete and effective,may be missing some elements of the

plan but does address most issuesraised by diagnoses. Reflects adequate

consideration of patient needs andpreferences.

Accuracy: Plan is Accurate and Appropriate

Details: Complete and effective, addresses all issuesraised by diagnoses and includes treatment plan andpatient education/self-management. Reflects insightinto patient needs and preferences. Uses evidence-

based decisions and considerations for cost effectivecare.

*Treatment Plan

Page 1

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Unacceptable Developing CompetentDocumentation is

disorganized. Elements arerecorded in incorrect sections.

Little cohesion between thesections.

Documentantation is generallyorganized. Most elements are

placed in proper sections.Adequate cohesion between the

sections.

Documentation is well-organized. All elements are accuratelyplaced in proper sections. Effective cohesion between the

sections. The documentation provides a clear understandingof the patient and the clinical decisions made.

*Overall Effectiveness


EPA 5: DOCUMENT A CLINICAL ENCOUNTERA student who is TRUSTED to document a clinical encounter is able to:

- Provide accurate and timely documentation that meets regulation and professional expectations.

- Prioritize and synthesize information into a cogent narrative appropriate for specific context or purpose (e.g., admissions, progress, post-op and procedure notes, etc.)

- Document a problem list, differential diagnosis, and plan that is aligned with patient preferences and is supported through clinical reasoning and input from other providers.*Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 5: Document a Clinical Encounter) is:

Not allowed to perform, OBSERVE only.






Page 2

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad



Psychiatry Clerkship Mini-CEXScreening & Interview Content

Below Typical MS3 Typical MS3 Above Typical MS3Unable to Evaluate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

*Mood Disorders*Anxiety & Trauma-related Disorders*Harm to Self and Others*Psychosis*Substance Use Disorders*Contributing Medical Conditions

Presentation SkillsBelow Typical MS3 Typical MS3 Above Typical MS3

Unable to Evaluate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9*Case Presentation*Mental Status Exam*Assessment*Plan & Clinical Judgement

OverallBelow Typical MS3 Typical MS3 Above Typical MS3

Unable to Evaluate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9*Organization & Efficiency*Interviewing Skills*Professionalism*Overall Competence


EPA 1: HISTORY & PHYSICAL EXAMA student who is TRUSTED to gather a history and perform a physical examination is able to:

- Obtain a complete and accurate history in an organized fashion that is pertinent to the specific patient presentation and clinical situation.

- Demonstrate patient-centered interviewing skills.

- Perform a clinically relevant and accurate physical exam (complete or focused), including an osteopathic structural exam, in a logical and fluid manner.

- Demonstrate respect for patient privacy, comfort and safety.*Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 1: History and Physical Exam) is:

Unable to Evaluate






EPA 2: DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSISA student who is TRUSTED to prioritize a differential diagnosis following a clinical encounter is able to:


- Synthesize information from various sources to formulate a relevant differential diagnosis that is neither too broad nor too narrow.

Page 1

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

- Provide complete and clear explanation of clinical reasoning.*Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 2: Differential Diagnosis) is:

Unable to Evaluate






EPA 3: RECOMMEND AND INTERPRET COMMON DIAGNOSTIC AND SCREENING TESTSA student who is TRUSTED to recommend and interpret common diagnostic and screening tests is able to:

- Recommend first-line cost-effective screening and diagnostic tests for routine health maintenance and common disorders

- Provide rationale for decision to order tests, taking into account pre and post test probability and patient preference.

- Interpret results of basic studies and understand the implication and urgency of the results.*Based upon my direct observation, the LEVEL OF SUPERVISION this student currently requires for this specific skill (EPA 3: Recommend and Interpret Common Diagnostic and Screening Tests)is:

Unable to Evaluate






*Please comment on the specific strengths of this student's performance.

*Please comment on areas for improvement in this student's performance.

Page 2

DO NOT R

EUSE OR D

ISTRIBUTE

Documents

RowanSOM Outcomes Assessment Plan - Rowan University