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

Meeting Information


July 15, 2014


8 PDT/9 MDT/10 CDT/11 EDT/

Call in Number

 USA 1-203-418-3123



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

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call

Minutes were accepted as submitted.

2 Corrigenda update

Valerie noted an error in version 1.0; the id attributes for events, sequence blocks and integration blocks were incorrectly given a datatype of string when they should have used the NonNullString datatype.  The Corrigenda can be used to publish corrections.  The Corrigenda was circulated to this working group and submitted to the MedBiquitous Standards Committee for review and balloting.  They received one comment saying no comments.  If all goes well the Standards Committee will complete their review by August 13.  The public review is forty-five days followed by the public balloting for an additional six weeks; everything should be completed by Christmas.  Susan asked if people will take heed of it and use it.  Terri commented the sooner they start using it the better.  Valerie will post the new schema on the MedBiquitous website.  Terri will send out notification to their list serve and the web developers section of their website.  It can be sent to the CI implementers list and Developers site on the CIR website as well.  Sascha recommend that a blast email be sent to everyone at the vendor meeting. 

3 Discuss proposed definition of Academic Level

Valerie mentioned the proposed definition for Academic level was a result of the conversation with Hugh, Susan and herself.  They struggled with the previous definition because of the changes in the structure for the medical school experience.  Hugh commented he still struggles with the definition but it was the best they could do and it clarifies a lot.  This is a challenging issue with academic levels overall.  The LCME DCI is pre-populated with academic levels, so you cannot eliminate them.  Susan asked Terri if she could share with this with the LCME to get their reaction; she was wondering how it will translate to ASSET?  Hugh commented that LCME uses the  terms year, phase or year, and only give you the option of 4 of them.  Terri added most schools are using 4 levels, others 3.  There is no requirement to upload the complete curriculum.  The AAMC plans to find schools that are hardest to document and work with them. 

4 Discuss draft questions for Academic levels and other findings on their utility

Susan asked to whom the survey would go to?  Terri commented they have a list serve for Deans and curriculum administrators.  Hugh commented it won’t make sense to Deans, but that will not deter them from filling it out. The quality of the data may be suspect.  Sascha recommended asking Deans to describe in a few sentences their definition of academic levels and how they are using them for tracking and reporting.  Susan agreed and added giving them proposed definition to see how close the two are.  Marcus asked if it is worth asking curriculum deans whether their institution has overlapping academic levels and is that useful to the AAMC.  Terri noted it would let the AAMC know how big the problem is; each year five more schools will be added so they need to figure out how to deal with it.  Hugh was concerned about the sampling population of curriculum Deans.   Kristi asked whether vendors could provide data.  Paul commented that vendors may not receive good answers. 

Susan suggested querying the implementer group for answers.  Valerie noted the importance of human relationships building.  If she receives an email from Susan she answers it; wouldn’t other people have the same reaction.  Paul and Sascha agreed. 

Sascha commented that we need to be certain we define this to make sense to people crafting the curriculum.  Susan asked the group whether the topic should be put on hold or a decision made.  Terri liked the idea of sending out to Curriculum Inventory implementer’s list serve to see if they understand it. Kristi asked about the possible variations for academic year.  Susan suggested providing the working group definition and asking people to comment about what modifications they would suggest.  Valerie mentioned using open ended questions as well.  Terri liked the questions.  Kristi suggested developing tools to broaden the focus.  Susan asked the group for their consensus to add the narrative piece as well as the questions.  Sascha agreed with adding questions but was hesitant to include both narrative and questions because it would take more effort to complete.  Valerie suggested structuring survey monkey to include questions about how schools use academic levels and not see further questions till later in the survey.  Terri and Hugh agreed.  Hugh and Valerie will work together to develop the survey.    

5 Review any reports and statistics from AAMC Curriculum Inventory

A PCRS Mapping:

Terri commented that “Other” for each domain is because they have a number of schools that have other related competencies that do not map well.  Hugh is writing a commentary on the topic.      

B Assessment & Instructional Methods:

Hugh asked if there was a graph that mentions the number of sessions. Susan asked if there will be more data to come about the issue of time and data analysis.  Terri commented they could use the number of sessions, bring in the number of hours, and the chart would look much the same.  If we don’t have primary instructional method, the number of events will no longer be valid.  We will probably not publish hour charts, but they will be available on request.  Published CI reports will focus on instructional methods, assessment methods, and competency rather than hours. 

C Resources:

Terri explained this was a new, optional field.  They received less data than they were hoping for.  She believes until the field is required it will remain small.  They can’t require the field until the next iteration of the standard.   Terri suggested Valerie reconvene the subcommittee that looks at vocabularies.  Susan was interested in finding out how they deal with flipped classrooms.  Terri noted there are options for independent learning; instructional methods are no different in flip classroom.  Susan suggested letting the data help inform the conversation about clerkship.  Terri will have preliminary findings on clerkships for the next meeting.  Ninety schools were uploaded, eighty-nine did non-clerkships, seventy-one reported clerkships that were rotations and thirteen reported as integrated.    

6 Open discussion


Action Items

  • Valerie will post the corrected schema and send notice to the CI Implementers mailing list. Terri will inform others through AAMC communication channels.
  • Valerie will send the survey to the CI Implementers list; vendors will pass it on to the schools they work with.


  • No labels