PEAS Minutes
May 5, 2015
Voting Members in Attendance:
Georgia Lesser
Bill Kelly, MD
Bill Wright, PhD
Rick Hodinka, PhD
Dennis Wolff, PhD
Jennifer Trilk, PhD
Other Attendees:
April Buchanan
Mendy Ingiaimo
Voting Members Not in Attendance
Michael Fuller, MD
I.
II.
Minutes from 4-21-2015
A motion to approve the meeting minutes from 4/21/2015 was made and seconded; all in
favor so approved.
M3 Mid-Year Clerkship Report
a. Dr. Buchanan presented the information noting the highlights of the grades for the M3
year. She went through the different clerkships noting the achievements of the
students. There was only one individual who received an A in Clinical Evaluation. The
Adjusted Shelf Grade Distribution was presented. It was noted that there were five
shelf failures. It you get less than the 5th percentile then you fail the exam. What is the
remediation? Dr. Buchanan meets with the student and the clerkship director and then
schedules a retake of the exam. There is a Jan. retake and a late end-of the year retake
for any spring failures.
i. The OSCE grade distribution scores were presented. The evaluations of the
clerkship responses were presented. The M3/M4 Retreat Decisions were
presented. They decided to take a closer look at the M3 assessment
instrument, remove items they are unable to evaluate, shorten the form by
removing comment boxes, and have more faculty and resident development.
ii. There was a comparison of the instrument with no grounding versus the
instrument with grounding. It matched for the most part. There was a
comment that based on the comparison the grade on gestalt is greater than the
grade based on a rubric.
iii. The comments were very good. The box for comments will be a summative
comment box. The students stated that they were not getting good feedback
on their OSCE’s. The intention was that the clerkship director was supposed to
give the student the score and the comments. This was not happening as
sometimes the comments could not be retrieved. Ryan has pulled all comments
and is sending them to the directors and the coordinators. The students were
1
III.
IV.
given opportunity to review these scores with their clerkship director and opted
not to do so.
iv. Step One holds the most weight in determining their residency. They do
consider grades and comments as well. This team has decided to put the
distribution right beside the clerkship grade so that it will be known exactly
where the student stands in comparison to the class. Letters of
recommendation are critically important as well.
v. A new faculty and resident evaluation will be presented as they are combined
into one faculty/resident evaluation for this next year and it will hold the same
weight.
vi. This document did not need a vote of approval.
M3 and M4 Assessment Instruments
a. The Faculty/Resident Evaluation by the Student Form was presented
i. The boxes are radio buttons in Oasis.
ii. The only things different is the verbiage of organization of the learning
environment through team leadership. The tool is a fair tool. These forms are
sent out twice a year.
iii. There were a motion to approve, it was seconded, all were in favor and it was
approved.
b. Student Evaluation of the Clerkship form
i. The form was presented and there was no change.
c. M2 and M3 Elective Evaluation
i. This form was presented and it is working well. There was no change on this
form. These are held until the end of the year so they are being distributed as
needed.
ii. In addition, there was a motion to approve this as a M4 instrument. There was
a second; all were in favor so this was approved.
2015 – 2016 Foundations Documents
a. The DAR for Foundations was presented by Dr. LeClair. The recommendations provided
by M1 will be compiled by assessment after all revisions are noted. It was noted that
Objective 13 and 14 are related to test items. The M1 Subcommittee voted that these
be removed and these statistics will only be reviewed by the BMS Chair. For Objective
15, the calculation noted that the team was shooting for 40% or less of didactic lecture
for modules. The question was asked if it can be less than that 40%. The module faculty
can determine what those percentages need to be set at for the effective performance
of the module. It would be easier if there were not two standards to evaluate, meaning
an IPM interactive percentage in correlation to the BSM module interactive percentage.
i. The BMS Chair will evaluate the interactive learning percentage and then the
Associate Dean of Education will evaluate for LCME purposes.
ii. There was a recommendation to remove objective 15 in addition to 13 and 14
as recommended by the M1 Subcommittee, it was seconded, all were in favor
and approved.
2
V.
VI.
iii. This information should be communicated to the assessment office as the
standard for all modules for the academic year 2015 – 2016.
iv. Goal 3 will also be removed as it correlates Objective 15.
v. It was noted that the target varied for the different SLO’s. This was adjusted by
the module director based on the performance of the previous classes. The
recommendation was to set them all for 80 or 85 percent so that they are
consistent. This can’t be tracked to external data at this time. This can be
tracked over time with external data. It was acknowledged that these
percentages will be set at 80 or 85% by the module director.
vi. The Portfolio was discussed as an enhancement to the module. Dr. LeClair
explained how this worked within Canvas. She discussed how this was a tool
where assignments could be collected and then a portfolio could be created
based on the work of the individual student. Is the only module where the
assignments will be assessed? It was noted that there is opportunity to carry
these over for IPM for the spring semester as this tool has the potential to carry
over into other modules within the academic year. The assignments can be
dumped into Canvas so that all of this can be collected into a portfolio. This has
the opportunity for students to see value of all the work that they are
completing. This can be used as a sorting warehouse for their assignments.
Peggy and Anna do want to utilize this functionality for IPM but this has not
been determined if it will be done or not at this time.
vii. In the summary of the assignment, it should be systems based assignment
instead of systems based care. At the last module meeting, they went through
and determined the assignments for each week. This is something that they are
doing in class anyhow and they would just be graded. All of the rubrics will be
graded. These rubrics will be brought back to the PEAS committee for approval
as they are completed. Each project will have a linked module objective for
medical knowledge based competencies.
viii. There was a vote to approve the assessment plan with the aforementioned
changes of removing the objectives 13, 14 and 15 as well as Goal 3. The target
percentages will also be standardized for the SLO’s. There was a second and the
motion was approved.
ix. The second week’s assignment rubric was presented.
1. There were no revisions to this rubric.
2. There was a motion to approve this rubric, it was seconded and
approved by all.
Assessment Plans for all M1 and M2 modules.
a. There was a motion to make all verbiage in the assessment plan consistent across all M1
and M2 modules. Objectives 13, 14 and 15 will be removed as well as Goal 3. There was
a second and all approved. This motion was passed. Bill Wright will draft an email and
send the results of the committee vote to the assessment office.
EOM Process
3
VII.
a. The evaluation process at the end of each module should be determined and there were
documents presented to the committee for review. The recommendations were
presented by Dr. Wiederman and this committee will determine if they approve of the
presented process and information at the next committee meeting.
Adjourn
a. There was a motion to adjourn the meeting. There was a second and all were in favor.
4