MINUTES

Educational Policy Committee

EVU SUBCOMMITTEE

July 2, 2001

 

 

Present:

Dr. Steward

Dr. Borgia

Dr. Faingold

Dr. Dorsey

Dr. Browning

Dr. Loschen

 

Absent:

 

Dr. Eberle

Dr. Kruse

 

 

Staff: Karen Reynolds RN, BSN



I.                    General Discussion of Survey Results

 

There was a discussion regarding the results of the survey results.

In general the results were pretty similar to the values we proposed and when there was disagreement, it was all over the place, both higher and lower.  Dr. Faingold noted a concern in that curriculum changes may impact an Individual /Departmental faculty members ability to accumulate points, hence impacting them financially.It was felt that there may be a discordance betweens ones job description and actual participation in the curriculum

 

 

II.                  Review Original Activity Items feedback

Small Group Participation- group consensus agrees that the value should remain as the anchor value

Lecture- group consensus recognizes that the proposed value stands given that 2/3rds of the faculty agree.

Chair of an Education committee-group consensus recognizes that 5/8 of the faculty agreed and the value should stand.

Education comm. Member- stand

Resource session- needs to be defined better but value should stand

Course/Segment Director-There was discussion to divide clerkship and segment directors Clerkship clinical director 3 unit /week = Segment Director non clinical= and solicit opinions and values from the faculty

Case development-stands

MCQ development- stands

Clinical exam obs-stands

Exam case development --stands

Clinical instruction in a clinical environment- needs work regarding number of points per student per session 1.5 pt for the first then 0.5 for each student after that up to the max of 4 student/residents.   Should this include resident teaching?

 

 

III.                Additional items for inclusion on activities list

 

See attached add activities



IV.               Quality issues

There was discussion regarding quality issues. It was felt that student data as the most important. There may also need to be a designated group to gather and collate this info.

There was also a discussion about getting information on this issue from each department on how they gather quality measures. Ask departments what they do about quality.

Literature search regarding quality issues. By OEC or Med Ed.



V.                 Next step

 

 

There was discussion regarding the next step.

 

Send what we did with their feedback from the original items

Send the new activities and point values and ask only about feedback to the new items.

This should be completed by Fall 2001.

Ask Dean about changes in teaching requirements

Research CME Res and scholarly Under EVU??

Report to faculty with 2nd survey

Quality request from departments

The subcommittee identified three general issues that we wish to discuss with the Dean and the EPC: 1) If changes are made in the curriculum that effectively limit or exclude the teaching opportunities of a department or its faculty, how will this be accommodated by an EVU system?   2) How should an EVU scale address activities related to Graduate Medical Education (i.e., teaching residents and fellows)? 3) Should educational research and scholarship be considered in this scale, or should it more properly be considered (and measured) through the Research Policy Committee or the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs?

 

In addition, we will be considering the issue of how quality of educational effort can be included in an EVU system by asking each department how they currently assess quality, as well as by working with the Office of Education and Curriculum to conduct a literature search and survey of available resources about this topic.

 

 

VI.               Future meetings

Will be decided after receiving data.

 

 

 

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.



 

Respectfully Submitted,

Karen L. Reynolds RN, BSN