Child pages
  • 2016-10-11
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

October 11, 2016

Time:

9 PDT/10 MDT/11 CDT/12 EDT/18 CEST

Attending: Susan Albright, Hugh Stoddard, Co-Chairs; Terri Cameron, Sascha Cohen, Kristi Ferguson, Cindy Lybrand, Tina Redd, Paul Schilling, Jenny Shaw, Matt Simpson, Valerie Smothers and Christos Vaitsis

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes

The minutes were accepted as submitted. 

2 Review results of multisite clerkship survey

Valerie reviewed the responses from the survey with six schools responding.  The first question was “to report your own school's data, which would be the most accurate and reasonable method to represent each clerkship for upload to the CI?” Five individuals replied “Report a ‘representative hypothetical’ clerkship that presents all clerkship objectives and a representative set of activities (even if specific activities and assessments reported may vary slightly at different clerkship sites).” One replied “Report each site independently of the other sites used for a clerkship, with the unique activities and assessments at each site.”  Question two asked about methods used to report other schools data, with the same results.  Susan commented the majority of respondents were in favor of continuing the status quo, and Terri agreed.  Currently, accreditation materials want a range or average of data and at the national level there is no real need for multi-site data.  Valerie was concerned about schools sending information both ways.  Terri mentioned if they didn’t adjust the data it would be difficult to use.  The group motioned to leave data as is. 

3 Discuss API proposal status and approach to documentation (see xAPI documentation and VP profile)

Valerie mentioned the Executive Committee asked the Technical Steering Committee to review the Curriculum Inventory API proposal.  The Technical Steering Committee’s recommendation was favorable.  It will be discussed on the Executive Committee tomorrow and will most likely be balloted soon.    

She continued with a discussion on documenting API.  The Learning Experience Working Group is recommending use of GitHub for documentation. That provides a way to vet modifications and versioning.  There is also a benefit of being able to download all at once. The group agreed this was a great approach.   Susan asked who was working on Virtual Patient profile; Valerie answered the Co-Chairs, Ellen Meiselman and David Topps, are contributors.  She explained the process of creating a GitHub account and the requirement of editing privileges.  Cindy asked if vendors were able to access.  Valerie was happy to provide access to any interested vendors.  She will work with vendors to keep them informed.  Terri reminded Valerie of the vendor retreat next week to discuss topic further.  Valerie will send a note requesting feedback on what the documentation should look like for the specification.    

Roadmap update

Valerie provided an update on Roadmap progress.

  • Academic Levels: They added when academic levels start and end and the ability to represent flexible scheduling.
  • Modeling clerkships: No specific changes were indicated.
  • Best practices for documenting flipped classrooms: The Vocabulary subcommittee discussed and noted that many different instructional methods may be used within a flipped classroom.
  • Comprehensive reports in every academic level are possible due to the enhancements to Academic Levels. 

She asked the group for feedback as to what needed to be addressed. 

Cindy inquired about the definition of phases of curriculum.   Terri mentioned it was originally a way to discuss academic levels that weren’t exactly a year.  Terri felt it was outside the scope of their work but should be documented.  She volunteered to discuss this with Dr. Cantonese.  Cindy will send information from Dr. McGowan as background.  Hugh agreed with Terri that academic level is a generic term and phase is commonly used for Academic Level that is not twelve months.  Our definition is consistent with what the LCME is expecting. 

Valerie mentioned that Competency-based Education had been on the roadmap as well; however, accreditation requirements and the way schools operate in general may not allow for a truly competency-based curriculum to exist.  Susan questioned whether any schools practice 100% competency-based education.  Hugh added no schools are there yet, and he agreed with proceeding with version 2.0.  Terri noted Ohio and San Francisco are looking at it and planning for it but have not actually done it.  Terri suggested waiting to see how Competency Framework implementation goes.  Valerie noted no changes have been made to the Competency Framework specification, but they have created guidance illustration on how to represent milestones and EPAs using the Competency Framework.   A recommendation was made for a category for competency object.   

Terri suggested preparing a category level to determine the flexibility for milestones and EPAs to discuss at the next meeting.  Valerie suggested there were two questions: what needs to be in the specification to support competency-based education and what the AAMC business rules are.  We can discuss illustrations and how competency objects are tied in to the current specification and whether that is sufficient.  Susan summarized the discussion that version 2.0 won’t be published yet but the group will discuss competencies on the next call.  

5 Report from Terri on uploads and clerkship definition

Terri briefly provided an update that as of September 30, there were 127 schools uploaded data with potentially 144 schools verifying after she follows up.

Terri mentioned no progress has been made on defining clerkship and she was waiting to hear back from Jennifer, the chair of the Association on Clinical Education.  She will report at the next meeting. 

Decisions

We will stick with a representative hypothetical approach for multisite clerkships.

Action Items

  • Valerie will send a note requesting feedback on what the documentation should look like for the specification.
  • On the next call, the group will discuss EPA and Milestone illustrations, how competency objects are tied in to the current specification, and whether that is sufficient.
  • No labels