 |
Minutes |
|
|
|
Educational Policy Council Meeting
November 12, 2001
Carbondale: Lindegren 310/Springfield: Lincoln Conference Room
|
Minutes |
|
|
|
Educational Policy Council Meeting
November 12, 2001
Carbondale: Lindegren 310/Springfield: Lincoln Conference Room
Present:
Peter
T. Borgia, PhD
Terri
Cameron, Staff
Donald
A. Caspary, PhD
Phillip
V. Davis, PhD
Linda
H. Distlehorst, PhD
Sharon
K. Hull, MD
Jerry
A. Kruse, MD
Matthew
Lavery, Class of 2003
Theodore
R. LeBlang, JD
Joelle
Lipcamon, Class of 2004
Tracy
K. Lower, MD
Chris
McDowell, Class of 2005
David
S. Resch, MD
Michael
F. Shanahan, PhD
Sandra
L. Shea, PhD
David R
Wade, PhD
Reed G.
Williams, PhD
Absent:
Amber
Barnhart, MD
Erik J.
Constance, MD
Clint
Farris, Class of 2002
Regina
A. Kovach, MD
Dean K.
Naritoku, MD
Guests:
Catherine
Holloway
Discussion
Items
Dr. Davis made a motion, seconded by Dr. Resch, to
approve the October 8 minutes with the following change to the Year 1
Curriculum Report: the word plastinated
should replace the word clastidated.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Dr. Caspary suggested that a formal mechanism be
established to follow up on issues brought up in the minutes.
Dr. Distlehorst announced that the Department of
Medical Education would be presenting a Grand Rounds on at 4 pm November 27 in
the Pearson Museum, with Dr. David Rogers from the Department of Surgery discussing
“Can the Teacher Be a Machine: Using
Computer-Assisted Learning to Teach Surgical Skills.” She also announced that an advisory panel had been formed to
review the future directions of the Department of Medical Education and the
institution related to research and development.
Dr. Williams announced that Dr. David Davis would be
presenting his research on CME outcomes at the Surgery Grand Rounds at 7 am
Thursday, November 29, in the Wedeberg Conference Center at Memorial Medical
Center.
Dr. Distlehorst distributed an updated version of
the USMLE Step 2 data, which included results for the Class of 2001. This information was also distributed to the
Year 3 Curriculum Committee for discussion.
Dr. Williams provided a brief summary of two
articles discussing whether program evaluation data should be considered human
subjects research. (Henry, Rebecca C.,
and Wright, David E. “When do Medical
Students Become Human Subjects of Research?
The Case of Program Evaluation.”
Academic Medicine (76) 9:871-875 and Roberts; Laura Weiss;
Geppert, Cynthia; Connor, Renee; Nguyen, Khanh; and Warner, Teddy. “An Invitation for Medical Educators to
Focus on Ethical and Policy Issues in Research and Scholarly Practice.” Academic
Medicine (76) 9:876-885.) He
explained that this issue will come under closer scrutiny in the future. One analogy used in the articles is that
program evaluation data is often used by faculty in the same way that
physicians use case studies, e.g., the intent of the project changes after IRB
approval has been received. Rebecca
Henry’s article points out that Michigan State now requires that program
evaluation results be discussed with students when they matriculate, describing
how results will be used and the limits of the usage. The topic is presented under the umbrella of professionalism, and
students are allowed to refuse to allow their data to be included in research,
but are not allowed to excuse themselves from program evaluation. Laura Roberts’s article provides a set of
scenarios for review as to where IRB approval data is required.
It was suggested that a policy regarding program
evaluation and curriculum data should be delineated, codified and
promulgated. Two methods were
suggested: 1) guidelines should be
developed by the Institutional Review Board and/or the Office of the Associate
Dean for Faculty Affairs and Research, or 2) a subcommittee consisting of
members of the EPC, RPC, and SCRIHS should be established to develop a
proposal.
Dr. Davis made a motion, seconded by Dr. Williams,
to ask Dr. Edward Moticka, as Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs,
to empanel a subcommittee with membership from the Educational Policy Council
(EPC), Research Policy Committee (RPC) and Springfield Committee for Research
Involving Human Subjects (SCRIHS) to delineate, codify, and promulgate a policy
regarding program evaluation and curriculum data. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lavery provided a report to Dr. Kruse in
follow-up to the EPC’s discussion regarding vertical integration. This issue was tabled until the next
meeting.
Dr. Kruse explained that there had been much
discussion regarding potential educational products conflict of interest in the
past few months and said that it had been suggested that this topic be placed
on the EPC agenda. Dr. Caspary
explained that he had brought this issue to the EPC due to the fact that he
felt that CCX software was pushed heavily in the curriculum by individuals who
appeared to have a financial interest in the software.
Dr. Kruse explained that he had investigated the
issue and learned that Dr. Hurley Myers developed CCX software in response to a
request from the former Post-Clerkship Exam (PCX) Committee when the mainframe
PCX software developed at SIU ceased to function. Dr. Myers provides both the CCX and DxR software to SIUSOM at no
charge and works with staff on a regular basis to update programs as necessary
to meet SIUSOM curriculum needs and changes.
Names of faculty who played a major role in the development of the
software are listed on the opening screens as acknowledgement of their efforts. There was discussion as to whether the DxR
Group (which develops the software under Dr. Myers’ direction) is benefiting
from SIU’s use of the software as it sells the software to other
institutions. It was noted that SIU
also receives much recognition regionally and nationally for development of the
software and the assessment methods the software supports. It was also stressed that no CCX cases
developed by SIU faculty and staff are sold with the software, and that,
although some SIU faculty were paid for case development in the past, the
practice of contracting with SIU DxR case authors to sell their cases with DxR
software has been discontinued.
Dr. Lower explained that she had chaired the
Curriculum 2000 Assessment Study Group, which had spent months performing a
comprehensive literature review and discussing all options for assessment and
their potential value as assessment methods for the curriculum being
developed. The results of this study
were developed into a set of recommendations, the main one being that a consistent
approach be used that emphasized performance-based demonstration of
knowledge. Since the CCX was already
being used in Years 3 and 4, it was chosen as a comprehensive tool for
evaluating student interactions with patients that could be tracked across all
four years of the curriculum. This
method also allows evaluation of basic science knowledge to be integrated into
the assessment process. It was noted
that, although the software is currently being used for a function for which it
was not initially designed, it is constantly being revised to meet new
needs. It is currently being revised to
allow longer stems and responses, as faculty have requested. A major enhancement currently being
discussed is an import/export feature that could be used in conjunction with
other assessment software for item analysis and item banking.
There was discussion as to whether the EPC should
develop a policy to prevent potential problems in the future. The policy might cover financial disclosure
statements and conflict of interest scenarios that deal with situations such as
this. For instance, while it is
documented that students cannot be required to purchase textbooks and software
written/developed by faculty, if there is a policy prohibiting use of
textbooks/software developed by faculty at no charge, it is not documented.
It was suggested that the current Conflict of
Interest and Commitment Policy should be reviewed to determine if it covers
this situation.
Dr. Distlehorst distributed two documents that
summarize the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire.
The entire questionnaire and the comments will be distributed
electronically prior to the next meeting.
Two options were offered for reviewing the data: by student number or by strengths and
weaknesses. EPC members requested the
strengths and weaknesses version. It
was noted that there are multiple comments regarding Curriculum 2000 from these
students, although this group of students had no direct contact with the new
curriculum. In addition, clerkships
that have historically been noted as having deficiencies are showing
improvement over the past three years.
In many areas, SIU students have rated the curriculum more highly than
their counterparts at other US and Canadian medical schools.
Dr. Wade reported that students are about to
complete the first of the three Year 1 segments and that they are beginning to
feel some anxiety as the date for the first exam gets closer (week of November
19). The Year 1 Curriculum Committee is
preparing a recommendation for increasing the length of the year by three
weeks. The recommendation will be
forwarded to Dr. Kruse prior to the December meeting.
Mr. McDowell reported that students are noticing the
steepening of the learning curve and getting ready for exams.
Dr. Borgia reported that he had been named the Year
2 Director. The first exam in Year 2 is
also scheduled for the week of November 19.
A subcommittee has been working steadily to plan for Year 2 in the
2001-2002 academic year (organization of the year, issue of rotation, balance
between basic science and clinical activities, and objectives for clinical
activities). Discussions by this group
have been somewhat contentious, but the group is working diligently to prepare
a set of recommendations for the December EPC meeting. The Exam subcommittee continues to discuss
guidelines for assessment in Year 2 and implementation of those guidelines. As soon as the first exam has been
administered, the efforts of this group will turn toward evaluation of the
assessment software and will be discussing the needs of the curriculum with the
EPC/IMPC IT Subcommittee. The Student
Progress Subcommittee has distributed a draft of a revised Student Progress System
document for Year 2. The Faculty
Evaluation subcommittee distributed a set of draft recommendations at the last
meeting. The recommendations were
briefly discussed, but no action was taken.
Ms. Lipcamon reported that students were getting
ready for exams.
Dr. Kruse reported that the Year 3 Calendar
Subcommittee continues to evaluate potential calendars for the 2002-2003
Academic Year and to document basic science integration in Year 3.
Dr. Lower reported that the Year 4 Curriculum
Committee has completed its review of elective course feedback and is now
sending out the Call for Electives, with emphasis on increasing the number of
Basic Science Electives.
Ms. Cameron reported that Dr. Barnhart would be
bringing an overview for the four-year Geriatrics experience to the EPC for
discussion as a component of the Doctoring Streamer. The Year 3 Curriculum Committee voted to forward a recommendation
to the EPC that the Doctoring Director be given authority to provide student
performance data regarding the four-year experience to the Student Progress
Committee. This issue will be on the
December EPC agenda.
Dr. Kruse reported that
he would be meeting with Dean Dorsey to discuss this subcommittee. Dr. Steward has compiled a report based on
the previous questionnaires and has prepared a follow-up questionnaire for
distribution, based on discussions with Dean Dorsey.
Dr. Kruse reported that
he would be meeting with Dr. Steward to discuss this subcommittee and that the
group would be meeting this month.
Dr. Caspary asked for
clarification regarding how this group would interact with faculty education
efforts by the Office of Education and Curriculum and commended OEC for their
efforts to date. Dr. Kruse responded
that the Faculty Development Subcommittee should address this issue and
delegate responsibilities as the group felt appropriate.
Dr. Resch reported that
the group continues to meet and has been reviewing the Information Technology
Needs Assessment Survey and the concept of a monthly Technology Fair, with
content such as assessment software, database issues, etc. A list of specifications for assessment
software is being developed for distribution to vendors for demos, etc. Curriculum committees will be contacted
regarding assessment specifications from a test design and reporting format.
Dr. Distlehorst reported
that the subcommittee met at the end of October and that Dr. Dawson would be
assuming the role of chair. All data
collection methods will be reviewed in comparison with the initial report by
the C2000 Program Evaluation Study Group.
Dr. Scott Obenshein from New Mexico will be conducting an external
review after the first of the year. New
Mexico combined their curricula approximately 10 years ago. Program evaluation data from all four years
of the curriculum is being prepared for distribution to the library.