Guests:

Catherine Holloway

Discussion Items

1. Minutes

Dr. Resch made a motion, seconded by Dr. Caspary, to approve the December 10 minutes with the following changes to the discussion regarding the Year 3 Curriculum Committee: second paragraph: “…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.” Third paragraph: “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.”

2. Announcements

Dr. Wade announced that, with Dr. Dorsey’s appointment as Interim Dean, he had been asked to appoint a new Mentored Professional Enrichment Experience Coordinator, and had appointed Dr. Eric Niederhoffer to that position.

Dr. Kruse announced that the EPC Subcommittee on Program Evaluation has invited Scott Obenshain from New Mexico to visit SIUSOM to review the new curriculum. Dr. Distlehorst added that an additional reviewer with a Basic Science background would also be invited.

Dr. Kovach announced that she had received data comparing Internal Medicine Clerkship students to national Internal Medicine clerkship students in December and that NBME has reported that Surgery would be their next project. Eventually national comparison data will be available for all subject tests.

3. Class of 2001 Graduation Questionnaire

Dr. Distlehorst distributed a document entitled Medical School Graduation Questionnaire SIU 2001 Themes. She reminded EPC members that the raw data for the questionnaire had been distributed electronically a few months ago and that summaries of the data had been distributed at previous EPC meetings. She also noted that the curricula referenced in the data would be for curricula that have had changes due to annual internal curriculum planning and the new curriculum.

MEDICAL SCHOOL GRADUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

SIU 2001 –THEMES

Students from SIU and national medical schools alike indicate strong satisfaction with the quality of the medical education and great confidence in their preparedness for beginning a residency program.

The SIU class of 2001 has a mean age at graduation of 28.1 years. Female and underrepresented minority rates have been in decline at SIU since 1999.

SIU 2001 students indicated their instruction in Introduction to Clinical Medicine/Patient and Neuroscience as excellent or good at rates higher than the US 2001 students. SIU 2001 students report more often than the US 2001 group poor instruction in the following sciences basic to medicine: biostatistics and epidemiology, genetics, immunology, and microbiology. (Q. 8)

Students from SIU indicate strong satisfaction with the quality of educational experiences in family medicine, internal medicine and surgery. The experiences in emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, neurology, pediatrics, psychiatry and radiology were rated weaker. (Q. 11)

SIU students specified all aspects of the family medicine, internal medicine and surgery clerkships as strengths but pointed out deficiencies in three clerkships, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics and psychiatry. The areas of concern are receiving clear learning objectives, student performance being assessed against the learning objectives, how involved the attending is, faculty providing sufficient feedback on their performance, adequate geriatric/gerontology subject matter (ob/gyn) and productive ward time (pediatric and psychiatry). (Q. 12)

SIU students report a decrease in the use of oral testing as a method of evaluation. Rather SIU students use peer, SP, OSCE and computerized case simulation as methods of evaluation at rates higher than the national group. (Q. 13)

Two-thirds of the 2001 SIU class report inadequate time was devoted to nutrition instruction. Students express lacking adequate nutrition education in assessing patients’ status for obesity and undernutrition. This is an area of deficiency nationwide. (Q. 14)

SIU students rated all aspects of geriatric and gerontology education higher than the US 2001 group of students. A noted deficit was the perception of a lack of geriatric/gerontology education across all four years of medical education. (Q. 15)

SIU generally has strengths over US medical schools in communication and technology skills. (Q. 18)

The SIU 2001 class reports a decline from previous years in participation in activities involving delivering health services to underserved populations, field experiences in home care, community health and nursing home care. (Q. 17)

SIU has strengths in administration, academic counseling, financial aid services and faculty mentoring. (Q. 30)

Dr. Distlehorst added that data by track have been requested from the AAMC.

There was discussion for the need for vertical integration to strengthen weak content areas across the curriculum. It was noted that such effort has begun in Nutrition and Genetics.

The decline in ratings for basic science education; OB/GYN, Pediatrics, and Psychiatry Clerkships; Emergency Medicine training were noted, as were positive issues such as faculty and staff, good clinical training, and primary care.

Dr. Kruse noted that the data had been distributed to Year Directors for review and report back to EPC regarding plans for follow-up.

4. EPC Subcommittees:

4.1 Educational Value Unit Task Force

Dr. Kruse reported that the EVU Task Force has re-initiated its efforts, under the direction of Dr. Dorsey. The topic has been in the literature again, and the Task Force will be reviewing that literature. The importance of quality measurement in conjunction with quantity measurement was stressed.

4.2 Biotechnology, Genetics and Ethics

Dr. Borgia reported that the subcommittee has met twice and is focusing on reviewing the SIUSOM curriculum, as well as national trends. Dr. Kruse added that he had received an “operationalized charge” from the subcommittee that offered a good oversight of how it planned to proceed:

Develop a set of curriculum recommendations for how genetics and topics related to genetics (ethics, counseling, etc.) should be presented to students. These recommendations should include a content outline and delivery and assessment methods. Past and current genetics curricular efforts at SIUSOM should be reviewed, as well as those at other medical schools. Recommendations from appropriate national, regional, and state groups should also be studied.

Recommendations developed by the group should be compiled into a report that includes:

· What students need to know regarding Biotechnology, Genetics and Ethics

· The curriculum activities necessary to ensure that students are exposed to and learn Biotechnology, Genetics and Ethics learning issues and clinical skills

· How student knowledge, attitudes and skills regarding genetics should be assessed

· The curriculum changes potentially necessary to ensure that students are exposed and learn to Biotechnology, Genetics and Ethics learning issues and clinical skills

· The faculty or group of faculty responsible for oversight of Genetics issues across the four-year curriculum

· A plan for faculty education to broaden faculty awareness of issues related to Genetics, to ensure that tutor guides for cases have appropriate Genetics learning issues, and to ensure that clinical faculty can assist students in making the connection between clinical activities and genetics issues

4.3 Faculty Development

Dr. Caspary reported that the Faculty Development Subcommittee had held its first meeting. The focus of the discussion was on how to ensure that faculty know that education is a priority and that an institutional commitment to excellence in education must exist. The subcommittee plans to focus on planning, instruction, delivery, and evaluation of instruction. The range of educational activities that faculty are involved in range from small group sessions to large group didactic lectures to mentoring and clinical experiences, and programs to support faculty in all of these activities need to be developed. A Needs Assessment will be conducted, as well as a review of other institutions.

Dr. Caspary added that it would be potentially useful and exciting to bridge the gap between areas such as the Research Policy Committee and develop an integrated faculty development program with a budget to bring in outside people for instructional development. EPC members concurred with this concept, and Dr. Caspary will make arrangements with RPC to develop the joint subcommittee.

4.4 Information Technology (EPC AND IMPC Joint Subcommittee)

Dr. Resch reported that the EPC/IMPC IT Subcommittee continued to meet regularly and was currently reviewing the IT Needs Assessment; developing a schedule of Technology Fair sessions, and surveying curriculum committees regarding assessment software needs.

4.5 Program Evaluation

Dr. Caspary reported that the Program Evaluation Subcommittee has not had a second meeting, but that members are being recruited and the next meeting should be scheduled in the near future.

4.6 Educational Research (EPC, RPC and SCHRIHS Joint Subcommittee)

Dr. Kruse reported that Dr. Moticka is formulating the Educational Research Subcommittee and that Dr. Davis and Dr. Williams will serve as the EPC representatives.

5. Committee Reports

Dr. Kruse reported that all Curriculum Committees would be asked to present their plans for the upcoming academic year at the January 28 meeting. He noted that Year 1 had presented its proposal to the EPC at its December meeting; Year 2 will be reviewing three plans next week; Year 3 will be reviewing three plans this week; Year 4 will not be affected by changes to Year 3 this year. A four-year plan will be reviewed and voted on at the January 28 meeting. He added that he had received an endorsement from Dr. Dorsey for the Year 1 plan, noting that there would not be an adverse affect on the Mentored Professional Enrichment Experience. Dr. Wade reported that he had checked the University calendar, and there did not appear to be a conflict with the proposed Year 1 changes.

Mr. LeBlang made a motion, seconded by Dr. Caspary, to un-table the motion from the December meeting to approve the Year 1 Calendar separately from the remainder of the curriculum. The motion passed with 10 in favor and one opposed.

The motion to approve the proposed Year 1 Calendar passed with 10 in favor, none opposed, and one abstaining.

5.1 Year 1 Curriculum Committee

Dr. Wade reported that the Year 1 Curriculum is proceeding smoothly. Mr. McDowell reported that students were relatively pleased with the way the curriculum is progressing.

5.2 Year 2 Curriculum Committee

Dr. Borgia reported that the Y2CC had reviewed and approved a Faculty Evaluation policy and is reviewing a draft Student Progress Policy. Segment Chairs continue to have problems filling tutor slots, and assigning tutors at the last minute makes it difficult for tutors to adequately prepare for the segment.

It was suggested that a lack of faculty “buy-in” to the curriculum would continue to create this problem until the curriculum was changed, but it was also noted that faculty should recognize that all School of Medicine faculty should support the institution’s curriculum, as outlined in their position descriptions.

Dr. Borgia explained that the issues on the table for the Year 2 calendar are: proper constitution of segments (length, cases); tutor group content; and a careful examination of the clinical activities and their appropriate alignment with the curriculum. He added that the issues are more related to organization than content and that there is agreement that the number of segments needs to be reduced and that vertical and horizontal integration needs to be enhanced, which could be done more efficiently by moving Year 2 more toward Year 1 organization. The goal is to find a balance between efficiency and effectiveness of delivery and maximum vertical and horizontal integration. He added that the biggest issue continued to be rotation. There was discussion as to whether the issue of rotation should even be on the table, and Dr. Kruse said that he was working with the Y2CC to resolve this issue.

5.3 Year 3 Curriculum Committee

Dr. Kovach reported that Psychiatry has a new clerkship director, Dr. Robert Pary. She added that timeliness of clerkship evaluations, the type of information students should have prior to beginning each clerkship, and the clerkship deferral policy were the current issues under discussion by the committee.

Dr. Kruse added that he has asked the Clerkship Directors to meet on January 16 regarding a set of proposals for the Year 3 schedule. It was noted that a Y3 Curriculum Committee Subcommittee had spent considerable time and energy reviewing various calendars and that the Y3CC had reviewed recommendations from that subcommittee, approved the calendar it felt would best meet the needs of the clerkships and students, and had forwarded that calendar to the EPC. Dr. Kruse said that he had been discussing various proposals with the Clinical Chairmen and wanted to discuss those proposals with the Y3CC, as well. There was some discomfort by EPC members with this process, and Dr. Kruse said he would discuss the issue with Dr. Kovach following the meeting.

5.4 Year 4 Curriculum Committee

No report was made in Dr. Lower’s absence.

5.5 Four-Year Doctoring Streamer

Dr. Barnhart and Mr. LeBlang reported that the Year 3 Curriculum Committee had discussed student accountability in the Geriatrics Curriculum and that the Y3CC had endorsed the authority of the Doctoring Director to notify the Student Progress Committee when students do not meet curriculum requirements. It was suggested, however, that the EPC should give the Doctoring Director the authority to follow-up with students who do not meet curriculum objectives and, when necessary, to report these instances to the Student Progress Committee.

Mr. LeBlang made a motion, seconded by Dr. Borgia, that the Educational Policy Council endow the Doctoring Director with the authority to review student adherence to Doctoring Curriculum objectives, to follow up with students as necessary, and to report non-compliance to the Student Progress Committee, when students do not appropriately resolve their non-compliance. The motion passed unanimously.

Dr. Constance recommended that the Doctoring Streamer be added to students’ transcripts as a separate entity.

Dr. Barnhart will develop a four-year plan for Doctoring, including the Geriatrics component, and present it to all curriculum committees.

6. Other

Dr. Williams reported that the Chicago Tribune had published an article regarding universities trying to balance teaching and research that referenced the Carnegie Teaching Academies and would be of interest to EPC members.

7. Next Educational Policy Council Meeting: Monday, January 28, 2001, 1:30 to 3 pm.

	Minutes