Discussion Items

1. Minutes

Dr. Borgia made a motion, seconded by Dr. Resch, to approve the minutes with the following change to the discussion regarding Educational Products Conflict of Interest: the last sentence of the first paragraph should be deleted. A sentence will be added to the second paragraph, clarifying that DxR contracted with SIU faculty for cases in the past.

2. Announcements

Dr. Kruse announced that, in follow-up to the motion regarding formation of an Educational Research Subcommittee, a memo has been sent to Dr. Moticka, asking him to formulate the subcommittee.

3. Committee Reports

3.1 Year 1 Curriculum Committee

Dr. Wade reported that students had begun the Sensorimotor Systems and Behavior Segment and have a holiday break in two weeks.

He then directed the attention of the Council to the memo sent to the EPC from the Year 1 Curriculum Committee, requesting a three-week extension to the first year. He explained that the additional weeks would be used to add a pregnancy case and two decompression weeks to the year.

Dr. Wade a motion, seconded by Dr. Caspary, to extend Year 1 by three weeks, with the additional time allotted to add one week each to Endocrine/Reproduction/Gastrointestinal (ERG) and Sensorimotor Systems and Behavior (SSB) for decompression, and an additional week to ERG to add a pregnancy case.

Dr. Constance explained that it was important to keep in mind that the University’s summer semester begins on June 1, and that, if the curriculum continues beyond that date, it would likely result in additional tuition and fees for students. Students who participate in the existing MPEE pay fees but do not pay tuition.

Ms. Lipcamon said that students in her class would have appreciated the additional time for study and decompression. Dr. Barnhart said that Year 2 had added a pregnancy case this year, and that that case would be enhanced by having this be a reiteration for students, rather than an introduction to the learning issues associated with pregnancy.

Dr. Constance suggested that a decision on this motion be tabled until all four years have presented their plans so that the EPC can see what each year is doing, rather than making isolated decisions on a year-by-year basis.

Dr. Distlehorst asked how this decision would affect students who wished to do off-campus research projects and fellowships. Dr. Constance explained that, as long as the curriculum ended by June 1, he did not believe there would be an effect.

It was suggested that the motion be tabled until next meeting for resolution of the following points:

· Impact of loss of three weeks on MPEE

· Impact of loss of three weeks on extramural activities

· Start date for University summer semester

· Impact of ending Year 1 curriculum by June 1

· Impact of curriculum change on tuition

· Development of a four-year calendar for review by the EPC

Dr. Resch made a motion, seconded by Dr. Borgia, to table the motion until the January meeting. The motion passed with 10 in favor and one opposed.

3.2 Year 2 Curriculum Committee

Dr. Borgia reported that recommendations had been prepared for the Student Progress Committee. One student has been recommended for remediation during the buffer period; three have been noted as progressing with concerns. Twenty-two students received recommendations of progressing with concerns regarding a particular clinical skill. Recommendations for students who remediate those deficiencies before the end of the next block will be converted to progressing satisfactorily. He added that the exam had gone reasonably well, but a more efficient exam construction process with higher faculty involvement and enhanced feedback to faculty should be developed. Software also continues to be a concern, but it appears that the survey developed by the EPC/IMPC IT Subcommittee covers the areas of concern.

The Planning Subcommittee, which is developing the plan for the 2002-2003 academic year has agreement on areas of improvement (smaller number of segments with greater degree of integration), and proposals reviewed to date have much overlap. The biggest single issue is rotation of segments. At this point, there is not a final recommendation, but one will be presented at the January EPC meeting.

Dr. Borgia added that each segment has several open tutor slots for upcoming rotations. Dr. Caspary said that involving content faculty more heavily in the curriculum would increase participation. Dr. Kruse added that faculty also needed to know expectations and receive materials in a timely manner. Faculty and staff who plan the segment need to implement the curriculum and its assessment.

3.3 Year 3 Curriculum Committee

Dr. Kovach reported that the Year 3 Curriculum Committee was addressing the issues of whether students get clerkship information enough in advance and whether clerkships are following policy regarding submission of clerkship evaluations following clerkships and will be reviewing the Class of 2001 Graduation Questionnaire at the next meeting. The major issue for the November meeting was the Year 3 Calendar for 2002-2003.

Dr. Kovach reminded the EPC that a calendar that included both Neurology and an ER rotation in Year 3 had been approved by both the Y3CC and the EPC last year, but that the Department of Surgery had had problems with the calendar because it reduced the Surgery Clerkship to nine weeks and included several four‑to-six-week down times, which the department saw as negative due to the time, funding, and energy expended in their educational programs. There was also concern that the ER Clerkship would not have full‑time faculty oversight. Dr. Kovach met with Department of Surgery leadership to discuss potential solutions to concerns such as scheduling Year 4 Electives during clerkship down times, but without resolution. Dr. Kovach also met with Dean Dorsey to determine the advisability of trying to implement the calendar in the face of this opposition and was told that he would support decisions made by curriculum committees.

The Y3CC discussed several additional possible calendars and ultimately approved a calendar at the November meeting that rotates two two-week Neurology Clerkships through the Medicine Clerkship. This results in two two-week overlaps that may cause problems for Medicine faculty to deal with, but Dr. Kovach has identified scheduling strategies to potentially offset those problems. Students also may not get the specialty they prefer, and the clerkship may be less flexible. Although Department of Medicine faculty continue to have major concerns over the calendar, they are willing to implement the calendar if that is the only way to implement Neurology in Year 3.

It was noted by several EPC members that the calendar approved by Y3CC could potentially result in the need for additional institutional resources to support the curriculum, as well as affecting the ability of Department of Medicine faculty to participate in other years of the curriculum. These issues will be considered as the EPC reviews how the four years look across the calendar at the January meeting.

3.4 Year 4 Curriculum Committee

Dr. Lower reported that the Y4CC had been reviewing the schedule for the upcoming year. The Geriatrics Curriculum, as part of the Doctoring Streamer, will extend through Year 4, with four meetings required for the year. Neurology will have two sets of students this year, since there was not a Neurology Clerkship in Year 3. Student Evaluation of Elective Courses was very positive.

3.5 Four-Year Doctoring Streamer

This issue was postponed to January meeting due to time constraints.

4. Class of 2001 Graduation Questionnaire

This issue was postponed to January meeting due to time constraints.

5. Other

Dr. Kruse suggested that the EPC plan to meet on both January 14 and 28, at 1:30 pm. Confirmation of meeting arrangements will be distributed via e-mail.

6. Next Educational Policy Council Meeting: Monday, January 14, 2001, 1:30 to 3 pm.

	Minutes