Discussion Items

1. Minutes

Since this was not a regular meeting of the EPC, the minutes were held until the next regular meeting.

2. Announcements

There were no announcements.

3. Program Evaluation

Dr. Distlehorst presented the Program Evaluation Plan developed by the Curriculum 2000 Program Evaluation Study Group that was enacted in the spring of 2000. Much of the information being collected en route is being done at the committee level, but being evaluated at a more global level. Data collected during this process will be presented to the Year Committees and the EPC. Faculty and student focus groups will be convened in the near future. Part of the plan includes a review of the curriculum by an external evaluator. There have been preliminary discussions as to who might serve as the external evaluator, and the plan is to bring the identified person in within the next few weeks. Members of the Program Evaluation Study Group have asked to continue to serve in this role. It was pointed out that Program Evaluation is one of the main responsibilities of the EPC, and that a group should be formed to oversee this project as soon as possible. The main issue is whether the EPC should serve as the Program Evaluation Subcommittee or whether a separate subcommittee should be appointed. Dr. Feltovich made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeBlang, that the EPC appoint a Program Evaluation Subcommittee to ensure the continuation of the Program Evaluation efforts begun by the Curriculum 2000 Study Group. In the discussion that followed, however, it was pointed out that, whether or not a separate subcommittee is established, this activity will remain a major focus of the EPC as a whole, and that information provided by the subcommittee should be carefully reviewed, evaluated, and acted upon. The motion passed unanimously with one abstention.

4. Implementation of Doctoring Streamer in Year 4

Dr. Barnhart explained that the proposal being brought before the EPC was an implementation of the proposed Doctoring Streamer in Year 4, based on the previous Year 4 ICM Elective. In the past, this has been an elective experience that has been useful to both Year 4 and Year 2 students, but has involved only about one third of the Year 4 class. Under the proposal, all Year 4 students would participate in the elective, which trains them for careers in academic medicine by providing opportunities for them to be trained to teach clinical skills, develop teaching and exam cases, and mentor Year 2 students. There would be four teaching sessions, and four scheduled interactions between Year 4 and Year 2 students, based on the Year 2 mentor clinic assignments. There was consensus that this would be a good opportunity for Year 4 students to obtain necessary training in preparation for their roles as teachers in their residency programs. It would also allow for increased peer evaluation training and practice.

Logistical issues such as how students (both Year 4 and Year 2) in academic difficulty would participate in this activity, how students will be matched when there are disparate numbers of students in each class, how Year 4 and Year 2 students will be evaluated, and how to deal with students who either do not participate appropriately or who perform at an inappropriate level were briefly discussed.

There was also discussion as to whether this constituted a new graduation requirement or whether it was simply an expansion of an existing requirement (Doctoring Streamer) and as to how students would view an additional requirement on their time. It was noted that the additional time requirements were not onerous and that there is much literature regarding lack of training and preparedness for residents as teachers.

Concerns were also voiced as to whether the project required Year 2 approval. (The Year 4 Curriculum Committee has already endorsed the proposal). The consensus was that this was not an increase in Year 2 requirements, since it falls under the weekly mentor sessions for Year 2 students.

Dr. Tomkowiak made a motion, seconded by Dr. Dunaway, to endorse the proposal as outlined by Dr. Barnhart, with the exception that there should be only three sessions for Year 4 students and that alternate options will be developed for students who have military or other off-campus obligations. The motion passed unanimously with one abstention.

5. Year 3 Schedule

Dr. Kruse explained that the role of the EPC is to review Year Committee initiatives for compliance with curriculum guidelines and goals, effect on the remainder of the curriculum, residency program, institution, etc.

The Year 3 Committee was enacted in July 2000 and, from the beginning, operated under the concept that the 2000-2001 Calendar was put into place hastily and without enough discussion. A task force was formed to review the guidelines established by the Steering Committee for Year 3 and review the inequities enacted on departments that had had their time reduced. The initial plan for the clerkships was for a series of 12-week clerkships, which caused severe scheduling problems for students who needed or wished to defer clerkships.

The proposed calendar was presented to the Year 3 Committee in November and was approved, except for the two-week Emergency Medicine Rotation. The Year 3 Committee issued a call for proposals for this two-week period and received two proposals: Geriatrics and Emergency Medicine. In December, these proposals were reviewed, and the Y3CC voted to add the Emergency Medicine rotation (to create a schedule which divides the 18 students in the rotation between Neurology and Emergency Medicine).

The proposal, although approved by the Year 3 Curriculum Committee, has created some controversy in the Department of Surgery, which included “down” times. The Department Chair presented concerns to the Y3CC, and a motion was made and seconded to revoke the proposed calendar. The motion was defeated.

Based on the information presented, EPC members stressed the importance of Neurology and the need for the Psychiatry Clerkship to be returned to six weeks, in light of the LCME review. It was also noted that, as many different proposals for Year 3 were discussed during the C2000 Design Phase, many potentially good curriculum proposals were introduced and rejected, which created some negative feeling regarding the Year 3 schedule.

It was noted that the Y3CC operating paper states that the role of the committee is to develop policy recommendations and monitor policy implementation during the third year of the medical school curriculum in accordance with LCME Guidelines. The Committee is responsible for coordination and oversight of the quality of education during the Clerkship experience. A high priority is placed on the continuing development and refinement of clerkship curricula. The Year Three Curriculum Coordinating Committee resolves calendar issues and interdepartmental evaluation issues and is a forum for information sharing among members. There was consensus that the Year 3 Curriculum Committee had made its decision and that it had been appropriately decided at that level.

It was stressed that this is not a major curriculum change, and that effort should be made to ensure that students are not given the impression that it is a major change. Support was expressed for the Emergency Medicine Clerkship concept, since Emergency Medicine is a good integrating experience.

Concerns, however, include the potential impact on the residency programs that rely on Emergency Medicine physicians and the ability of a hospital department to support an unfunded academic program.

The consensus was that a legitimate body had debated a problem, listed to all appropriate faculty, and reiterated its vote. No action from the EPC was deemed necessary, except endorsement. It was noted that the FCM/Psych/Neuro combined clerkship included “down” time for all participating departments, which was appreciated by faculty in those departments as an opportunity to participate in Year 2, focus on Year 4 electives, conduct and document research, etc.

It was noted that, although the Geriatrics Clerkship was not chosen for this year’s Year 3 calendar, the importance of this issue was stressed, and it was noted that efforts should be made to ensure that the Geriatrics Curriculum outlined in the AAMC/Hartford grant is implemented as planned.

Dr. Resch made a motion, seconded by Dr. Borgia, to endorse the Year 3 Curriculum Schedule proposal. The motion passed unanimously. It was stressed again that student confidence in the curriculum should not be shaken by negative faculty attitudes and comments. EPC members noted that this schedule is student friendly and much enhanced over current Year 3 schedule.

6. Next Educational Policy Council Meeting: Monday, March 26, 2001, 1:30 to 3 pm.

	Minutes