Clinical Education Committee Friday, October 07, 2011 7:30‐9:00am MINUTES Attendance: Will continue to track attendance of clerkship directors. Will make request for programs to send a representative if the director is not able to attend. Future plan may include sending minutes and action items to both members and department heads. Committee members: Robert Acton Sharon Allen Sally Berryman Holly Boyer Kathy Brooks Elke Eckert Paul Gleich Cullen Hegarty Michael Kim Cornelius Lam Betsy Murray James Nixon James Pacala Jacob Prunuske David Power Edward Santos Ted Thompson Yasuko Yamamura David Walk Kathy Watson Majka Woods X X X X X X X X X Students: Erin Maddy Kiersten Norby Ashley Nord Guests: Patti Mulcahy Whitney Donigan Leslie Anderson Linda Reilly X X X X X X Minutes: September 9, 2011 – approved as is. INFORMATION LCME Mock Site Visit UPDATE: Please see four‐slide presentation handout. Dr Majka Woods: Successful mock site visit. Site visitors were responsive and fully engaged. Met with everyone from Dean down to faculty, students, and administrators on both campuses and completed a tour of both campuses. At conclusion, they provided a short reflection list; a longer visit summary should arrive within two weeks. During the visit, very concrete feedback was given. STRENGTHS: Highlights include compliments on educational program objectives and domains of competency. Positive comments from students about responsiveness of administration and high marks for feedback from faculty advisors (TC) and Duluth Learning Communities. Strong marks also for RPAP, diversity, Flex MD, admissions (was a citation last time – two separate processes), research, and resources (IT and library) CONCERNS: ED33: number one concern…central oversight of the curriculum. The answer is not crystal clear currently, so committee structure needs to be fine‐tuned to better show how curriculum is overseen. ED30/31: ALL STUDENTS MUST RECEIVE FORMATIVE FEEDBACK DURING CLERKSHIPS! How are clerkships providing feedback and if/how is it being documented. AND TIMELINESS OF GRADES – to be addressed later in this meeting. ED2 – monitoring clinical experiences for gaps. Are looking at clerkships to ensure comparability across experiences. PxDx monitoring system (need to provide clarification in the LCME database that this data was being collected paper/pencil previously). ED24‐ Residents as teachers. If there are residents teaching in the clerkship, they must receive formal teaching training (in person or online). Right now our language is not clear. Dr Prunuske commented that at Wisconsin they had robust training for residents in programs, but were cited because it was not consistent across all departments. ED32‐ Narrative assessment to students. Clerkships do this well by providing narratives on a student in their E‐Value evaluation of that student. Courses do not have a process in place for providing narrative feedback to students. MS37‐ Inadequate Lounge, Study, and small group space. Updates have been made, but may need additional improvements. Dr Boyer – was discussed in MS Subcommittee. Library space may have potential improvements, including storage and hours of operation. Too many AHC students sharing study spaces. Erin Maddy commented that most study spaces do not have sunlight so students migrate to NHH or other buildings where study space is more conducive to learning. ER6‐ Adequate clerkship sites and scheduling. Robust conversation that site visitors left with recognition hat we have enough placements overall, but high flexibility creates some problems for balance of placements. Further communication needs to happen to encourage a balance of scheduling. FA2‐ Sufficient number of faculty at all of our sites. Bottom line is that there are not enough faculty in Duluth due to retirements, etc. Report should discuss what UMMS is doing to build the faculty complement given the current climate. Comments for participants of meetings with mock site visitors: Dr Boyer – Concerns with discussing frankly the scheduling of visiting students. Problems with waiting for add/drop deadline and going over capacity to accommodate. Mock site visitors then circled back to capacity listings – what is true capacity number? Is going over the capacity diluting the experience for UMMS students? For LCME purposes, do we need to be more clear about registration expectations for UMMS students – to what extent should students expect to get their desired schedule (periods vs. sites). Dr Hegarty – Encourage participants in visit to be honest and clear about our reality, since students will call it out anyway. Mock site visitors said stop using word “transition” and be confident (less apologetic) about status on certain items. Dr Prunuske – in Wisconsin, faculty had a staging area between sessions where faculty could touch base about topics to be discussed and what to be prepared to think about. LCME Site Visit – March 2012 Schedule has not been set by LCME secretary yet. Linda Reilly could send out a sample agenda, but the actual schedule is at the LCME’s discretion. Annual Clerkship Reviews – new schedule plan See attached copy of email sent September 28. Annual Clerkship Review form was updated to better reflect type of data that LCME collects so that clerkship directors do not have to complete multiple forms when LCME gets close. Data cannot currently be pre‐populated from the previous year or another database. IF you would like to see what data you filled out last year, contact Whitney Donigan. Brooke Nesbitt can send out your last copy of the presentation summary if needed. Please review schedule set up for November 2011‐Feburary 2012 and contact Brooke if the date assigned to you will not work for your schedule so you can be rescheduled. ****ACR’s in Evalue should be completed by end of October. DISCUSSION Mid‐Clerkship Feedback – FOLLOW‐UP Dr Woods has a policy that reflects language in ED33 to present to Education Council regarding formal mid‐course/clerkship feedback (does not apply to 2‐week or less courses/clerkships). Must be documented though there is considerable flexibility for implementation. Will also be noted in ACR if/how mid‐clerkship feedback is being implemented. Process should be clear enough so that if students are asked by LCME about feedback, they are familiar enough with institutional process that they can comment on the extent to which they are receiving “formal mid‐clerkship feedback.” Feedback could be given by preceptor, resident, clerkship director. But the feedback documents should be reviewed by clerkship directors. Dr Prunuske recommends that this ties into resident teacher training to make sure that residents are training appropriately to provide formal feedback. *****Dr Gleich has requested a chart of policies, etc. that indicate which apply to two‐week rotations and which do not. Grade Delays – FOLLOW‐UP Even schools that only have one clerkship or one particular instance out of compliance, they still received citations. We MUST have documentation of our process; we must also have all clerkships in total compliance. Site visitors will request to see data if any students state that they do not receive their grades in timely manner (we will provide data upfront anyway for period 5). Again, Dr Woods has a policy to present to Education Council regarding grade delays. Policy is same as it has been; procedure has been upgraded. (Exact language will be sent out with minutes – was not provided to group during meeting). Four‐week, five‐week, and six‐week deadlines with specific communications and procedures – specific language to be disseminated. Dr Power – Requests parallel procedures for community preceptors to help him notify and encourage them to be compliant with grades (FMED community preceptors are most egregious offenders of grade delays). Followup from last meeting – There is a difference between “Incomplete” grade and “K” grade. We must follow University rules regarding the incomplete grades ‐ Dr Nixon requests official policy/procedure to help guide some unique student situations. Dr Woods agrees that Med Ed could work on an appropriate use statement for the incomplete and K grades, as well as referral to COSSS for withdrawal, and failures. Transcripts will not reflect any history of a K. Incompletes also removed on official transcripts once grade is completed. Internally, Med Ed can pull report to show history of incompletes. Ashley Nord – RPAP students do not get a grade for 9 MONTHS. Where does that program fit into policy? Does mid‐clerkship feedback fulfill requirement? Dr Brooks and Dr Woods communicating currently regarding this exemption. THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO ELECTIVES. Next CEC meeting: November 4, 2011 – 7:30‐9:00am in B620 Mayo Full Curriculum Committee meeting: November 11, 2011 – 7:30‐9am in B646 Mayo