Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Current »

Meeting Information


July 30, 2010


8 PST/11 EDT/16 BST

Please note: the conferencing service will ask you to enter the pound sign. Press # for pound.
To mute, press *6.

Attendees:  Kim Hoffman, Chair; Valerie Smothers, staff; Michael Barbouche, Bob Galbraith, Linda Lewin, Chandler Mayfield, Neil Mehta, Amber Montañano, Pat O’Sullivan

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call

Kim began the meeting with a review of the prior minutes.  The minutes were accepted as written.

2 Clarifications to specification based on lessons learned (diagram , document )

Recommended list of primary degree names

Valerie posted two documents, a power point presentation and a word document on the wiki for review.  She walked through the power point diagram to discuss the issues. During the pilot with AAMC, the group had identified a need for consistent degree names. Upon looking at the specification, Valerie realized that the title was intended to capture the nuances of how each program represents itself, the full name of the program including the institution.  Valerie asked the group if they wanted to include a separate field for degree names, which could be a recommended list, or just use the program listing as it appears in the second slide.  Kim thought the data referring to the md degree was obscured if it was embedded in the full title of the program.  Jason, who analyzed the data at AAMC, asked that we standardize the degree names.  Valerie asked the group if they wanted separate fields for degree name and institution. Neil suggested adding a field after the degree describing how long it takes to obtain the degree; some might be 5-6 year programs.  Kim favored reading the md degree and institution separately especially with international usage.  The group approved adding length of program to specification.

Clarification of graduation date when student has not graduated

Valerie shared that pilot participants felt projecting an end date for students who had not yet graduated wasn’t reasonable.  Omitting the end date would assume the activity is ongoing  The exception to that is when there is a withdrawal, dismissal, or leave of absence, it would also indicate that the activity had stopped, at least for a period of time.  The alternate would be to use a target date for graduation. Linda commented that on the ERAS application they indicate anticipated graduation date.  From her perspective the confusion came because it wasn’t clear whether it was a projected or actual date. Neil thought if we have program length in the data, that would predict the projected end date.  Kim added it can be unclear with students who step out of the curriculum either because of a leave of absence.  Chandler suggested making the anticipated date optional but not a required field. That would provide clarity when necessary.  Valerie agreed to discuss this with Simon to see how best to make it work within the existing structure. 

Representation of joint degree students

Valerie continued with the issue of how to represent joint degree programs. She referenced the power point slide on the USCF Joint Medical Program, noting the first three years of the two programs are closely intertwined, and only the md clinical work is left in last two years.  Pat agreed that was correct, provided the student finishes the preclinical work in three years.  Valerie commented that to represent this, the black bar indicating the MD program and the green bar indicating the MS program would overlap in the first three years. For programs where the MD degree and the secondary degree are not closely intertwined, the visual diagram would show bars that do not overlap. That would require the MD degree being broken into two separate parts, which is often what happens in joint degree programs. Linda agreed that the presentation is fairly clear but it would be nice to have degree names instead of numbers on the bars. Kim was happy with the way it was displayed in the document.  Valerie asked Michael if he saw any technical problems with the design and he thought it made sense and could be used in a practical way.

Examples of coursework beyond primary degree

The last change Valerie described was on slide 10 in which she removed case report from the description of presentation. She has also made that change on the actual specifications which are online now; the specification sent with the initial agenda did not have that correction. 

The only other change is that coursework beyond primary degree has additional explanation and the same changes made to the end date that were made for the primary degree.   

3 New version of Leap2A

Valerie reviewed the most recent version in July of the Leap 2A specification with the MedBiquitous Technical Steering Committee. She also sent the page that described the changes to UCSF because they are familiar with using Mahara, a system that implements Leap 2A. The feedback was mostly positive. UCSF recommended moving forward with the update.  The Technical Steering Committee recommended that we clarify the description of authors for publication entries. Valerie planned to discuss with Simon to see if he is willing to change that based on the feedback.  The group also agreed to stay up to date with the most recent version.  Valerie replied that once she spoke with Simon, she would do a sweep thorough the technical specifications and make the necessary changes.  This won’t impact what is now seen on the diagram, as all functionalities are still there.  Kim ask if there was any concerns with proceeding with Leap 2A.  Chandler agreed it was good.  Michael hadn’t had a chance to look at the changes but commented that anything that continues to push innovation is good.  Valerie will send him the information to review and comment. 

4 Open discussion

Bob will talk about new specifications work on the next call. 


Action Items

Valerie will make the following changes to the specification

  • Add fields for institution, degree, and length of program.
  • Discuss with Simon indicating the anticipated date of graduation. Add language noting that withdrawal, dismaissal, and leave of absence imply an end to the activity.
  • Valerie will follow up with Simon regarding the most recent release of Leap 2A
  • Valerie will send Michael the list of changes to Leap 2A.
  • No labels