Child pages
  • 2009-09-18
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

September 18, 2009

Time:

9 AM CDT/10 AM EDT/4 PM CEST

Call in Number

Toll Number :
NETHERLANDS +31-20-718-8593
UNITED KINGDOM
   GLASGOW +44-141-202-3228
   LONDON +44-20-3043-2495
   MANCHESTER +44-161-601-1428
USA +1-203-418-3123

Passcode

1599520

Attendees: Kim Hoffman, Chair; Brownie Anderson, Michael Barbouche, Carol Carraccio, Carol Clothier, Dennis Donohue, Lindsey Henson, Amber Montañano, John Norcini, Morgan Passiment, Valerie Smothers, Claire Tochel

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call

The minutes were accepted as submitted.   

2 Call schedule and time (doodle poll, proposed dates)

Valerie continued with a Doodle update on the proposed dates and times for the next call.  Fourteen people answered and the majority were available both times.  11 AM Eastern is better for a few more people. The next call will be at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time.  Proposed dates found on the wiki, were October 16, 30 November 6, 20, December 4, 18, January 15, 29.  Valerie noted the November 6th meeting may not be well attended due to the AAMC meeting.  Valerie and Kim will come back with proposed dates and times for that meeting.  Lindsay suggested just updating people who would miss the call with notes and continue to move forward.  Valerie will follow-up with Pat O'Sullivan and Kevin Souza to let them know the time changes.

3 Review of Carol's program director scenarios

Kim provided some background to the group regarding the scenarios. On the last conference call the group worked on an excel spreadsheet of the data analysis. Carol had offered to write a few scenarios of how the data could be used at the residency level. These scenarios were posted to the wiki.    

Carol mentioned how the timing of the review process was important.  The review process is different at the beginning of September as opposed to after November.  In the beginning of September, the residency applications begin coming in, but the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE)/dean's letter does not arrive until November. The review of applications begins in September because recruitment cannot wait until the MSPE arrives; they begin making evaluations absent the MSPE data. Carol stated that when they don't have enough data from the initial application and transcript review, the student goes in a "hold" bin which puts students at a tremendous disadvantage.  The E-folio project would put a lot less students in a "hold" bin.    

Kim asked if the data that we are trying to capture in somewhat captured in MSPE but that we are looking for more, namely the extracurricular activity.  Carol commented that if there has been an interruption in study, they need to find out what the issue is before bringing the student in for an interview. The educational trajectory would be helpful in getting to the specifics.  

Lindsey commented that she was currently writing deans letters and that the trajectory information would be helpful to students. She asked if the person screening residency applications would look at the educational trajectory for each student. Carol replied that she thought they would be more inclined to look at trajectory information than the MSPE, which aren't fully read.  If there were a pictorial view that people could easily grasp, people would gravitate to that. 

Kim channeled the discussion to what the educational trajectory uniquely contributes. The transcript captures the coursework. Carol replied that the timing and the way the data is presented would be different. Having the trajectory information before the MSPE would be incredibly helpful.   
 

4 Review of Pat scenario diagram

Kim asked in the transition between medical school and residency what data are missing from the scenario. Lindsey didn't have a sense that anything is missing.  Carol mentioned the possibility of students adding links to significant work projects, such as papers or research grants, as well as any student uploads.  Valerie, Amber and Kim will work on the diagram and add something that indicates whether the data is institution reported or self reported. the missing pictorial reference as to where the data came from.  Kim asked if it needs to be all in one educational trajectory. Valerie mentioned if you start breaking things out, it will be harder for residency program directors to read. She suggested leverage existing work around portfolios for student contributed pieces.  The trajectory provides assistance to link to more information.   

5 Review revised use cases

6 Discuss data analysis spreadsheet*and* application to Pat

Kim noted that we are asking others to add to the data analysis spreadsheet. Please send any additions to Valerie for compilation. 
Kim continued with a discussion on how to organize data that creates a trajectory.  Valerie referred everyone to the revised excel spreadsheet, which includes the following tabs: 

  • Glossary
  • Full academic load
  • Extracurricular learning - formal
  • Extracurricular learning - informal
  • Academic difficulties
  • Gaps in study
  • Other 

Full academic load is a change. Instead of recounting coursework that students participated in, it captures data about what is considered a full academic load for a particular year of study. It was suggested that extracurricular learning - formal have two additional categories, community service and advocacy. For the full academic load, the group was asked what piece of information we are trying to obtain.  Kim explained that the transcript recounts the coursework but does not explain if the coursework represents a full academic load or a partial academic load. Kim added that she wanted to give Neil and Elaine a chance to react and identify any unmet needs.  

Kim asked if there were any changes the group would like to make under formal learning. Those not on the conference call can add to this list. Under informal learning do we need more drill down or are the broad categories enough?  Lindsey gave the example of the student who attended clown school. The leave was approved based on this being an integral part of the student's future practice.   Lindsey suggested an "other" category.   

Kim suggested asking asked Paula and Deb if the international health program would fit into one of these categories.  On the academic difficulties page, Kim asked if there was anything missing or wording changes that needed to be made.  Lindsey suggested adding doing the whole year over or repeating the entire schedule again.  In addition, Carol recommended distinguishing Professionalism issues from academic reasons. She suggested two different categories 1) vote for dismissal professional lapses, vote for dismissal - academic reasons and 2) remediation - academic reasons, remediation - professional lapses. 

The group reviewed gaps in study.  Valerie mentioned they could use more than one category to describe leave.  Claire noted they can review what is proposed and comment based on their experience.   

Valerie and Kim offered to continue working on the spreadsheet. In particular, they will compare the Pat scenario data to the data listed in the spreadsheet and see if there are any gaps on the spreadsheet. The group can then react and iterate further on the spreadsheet.   

7 Open discussion

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie and Kim will finalize the call schedule for the next 4 months
  • Valerie will email Pat and Kevin regarding the time change
  • Kim will ask Paula and Deb if the international health program fits into one of the formal extracurricular learning categories on the spreadsheet. 
  • Claire will review gaps in study and offer comments.
  • Valerie, Amber and Kim will work on the diagram and add student contributed data and links
  • Group members will contribute any missing data types to the data analysis spreadsheet (send contributions to Valerie) 
  • Valerie and Kim will analyze the Pat scenario looking for any gaps in the spreadsheet
  • No labels