Curriculum Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 5, 2015
Voting Members in Attendance:
Meenu Jindal, MD
Phillip Callihan, PhD
Faye Towell, MLS
Jayne Reuben, PhD
Bill Wright, PhD
Jeremiah White. M1
Rick Hodinka, PhD
Sergio Arce, MD
Jayne Reuben, PhD
Lauren Demosthenes
Lily Barkin. M2
Tom Jarecky, MD
Andrew Binks, PhD
Asa Black, PhD
Other Attendees:
Mendy Ingiaimo
I.
II.
Non-Voting Members in Attendance:
Lynn Crespo, PhD
Tom Pace
Andrew Buhr (M1 Student President)
Greg Hawkins
April Buchanan, MD
Voting Members Not in Attendance:
Rob Morgan, MD
Minutes from 4-7-2015
A motion to approve the meeting minutes from 4/7/2015 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 middle
of the M3 year. The clinical grades are not distributed on development. The mean final
grade distribution is b – b+. There are more A’s as the year progresses. She went
through the different clerkships noting the grades of the students. There was only one
individual who received an A in Clinical Evaluation. The Adjusted Shelf Grades
Distribution was presented. It was noted that there were five shelf failures. The failures
could not be represented on this document. 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 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, 70 to 80% of the time.
Overall, the comments were very good. The box for comments will be a
1
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
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 given opportunity to review these scores with their clerkship
director and opted not to do so. 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. 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.
The student evaluations were also shown. The M3 assessment evaluation
should be looked at more closely. It was noted that the overall grades are B+ or
B. The students asked for further discussion regarding the ratings. They did
consider a “unable to evaluate” option. At this point the faculty has voted to
keep it as it is.
There was a motion to send this rating of 3 and 4 back to the clerkship directors
so that this can be discussed. Before this is brought to the directors, look at
statistics and look at the different models to see what is most effective. The big
question is “Does it make a difference in the grade with the way it is currently
being done?” The scenarios can be run if there is a motion.
It was also noted that there was no standardization with the clerkship directors.
There was a motion to look at a model and how it would affect it and take it
back to the M3 clerkship directors.
The motion was seconded and all were in favor.
Family Medicine Clerkship is going from current structure of 2 weeks inpatient,
2 weeks outpatient and 2 weeks in community to the proposed of 1 week
inpatient, 1 week outpatient and 4 weeks of community. There was a motion to
approve this proposed restructuring, it was seconded and all were approved.
Medical Spanish – there is a proposal for students who are applying to
encourage them to take a 200 level class in Spanish after their M1 year. There is
a medical Spanish course at Furman and there is an effort to work out an
agreement with them to integrate this course. The course starts the 12th and
this takes 5 days away from Step 2 studying. This will be after the M1 or M2
year. This is a summer elective. They can choose this tract. They would do the
longitudinal Spanish and would continue with the Furman instructors and work
through the M4 year with this program. As they were looking for a module
director, this option became available. The elective is pass/fail. It is
summertime and 4th year elective. Those who choose must make sure they took
the Step 1 before the start of the Maymester. The M4 elective is the same as
2
III.
IV.
V.
the longitudinal elective. Currently there is a proficiency level question but the
plan in place is to make sure that everyone comes in on the same level of
Spanish. This allows students to plan across the 4 years to make provision for
doing this elective. The students can pick and choose how much they would
like to be involved in this. There was a motion to continue to investigate and
integrate this into the curriculum. It was noted that the Dean’s cabinet felt this
should not be a core requirement of the curriculum. However, this can be
brought back up and the committee can bring it back up. Even in Orlando,
medical Spanish was an online course and it was a struggle. There was a motion
to continue to explore this and have conversations with Furman to bring this
back to the committee.
ix. 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. 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. The form was streamlined to
make it easier to use. 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
i. The Module Change form was presented and Dr. LeClaire discussed how the
assessment plan was changed to include the portfolio. There was a motion to
approve. It was seconded and all were in favor.
Module Change Form
a. This form was discussed and the proposed change is to bring the recommendations
from the EOM report from the last year. Look at the deficiencies and then look at EOM
report recommendations. An example would be a change in the number of evenings,
nights or weekends. It could be a significant change in call time as the verbiage. Motion
to approve this document, seconded and all in favor. The recommendation is to bring
the EOM report recommendations and then submit no change. This committee does
not have to approve items that have no changes.
3
VI.
VII.
VIII.
The M3 and M4 IPM objectives
a. Dr. Pace noted that there are no changes to the objectives. The Grand Rounds turned
out to be pretty good. The structure is the same and within that basic structure, it will
become richer and fuller with content and material. They will work to make the whole
week a better experience. There was a bad timing of a movie that was viewed by the
students. There was a motion to approve the M3 Description and Objectives. It was
seconded and approved. There was a note to add the specialties into the IPM4
objectives.
Policies and Procedures Manual
a. Within Canvas we will post a working copy something like a wiki so that everyone can
make edits and adjustments. These must be done by June 1st to June 15th this needs to
go to Dr. Best. Have faculty look at it and make suggestions, comments, etc. The faculty
can come to you and make suggestions. There will be a draft completed by the next
meeting, June 2nd.
Adjourn
a. There was a motion to adjourn the meeting. There was a second and all were in favor.
4