Agenda and Meeting Materials - UConn School of Medicine

Education Council 

Wednesday, August 8 at 4:30pm 

Walker Conference Room, AG070 

Agenda 

1. Approval of the minutes of June 2012 

Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of July 31, 2012 

2. Business Items 

Creation of an ad hoc subcommittee on visiting students (foreign, off-‐ 

shore US citizens and US/Canadian Schools) 

3. Informational Items 

CCESC reports on Inpatient Medicine, Clinical Medicine, Human 

Development and Health 

Grading issues 

Open discussion the role of the Education Council 

4. Standing Monthly Reports 

CUME 

GPC 

GME 

CME 

Next Meeting: 

Thursday, September 20, 2012 

4:30pm – Walker Conference Room 

Note the change to the third Thursday


June 13, 2012 

Minutes of the Meeting 

Present: Adler, A.; Dieckhaus, K.; Guerrera, M.; Huey, L.; Kosowicz, L.; Kream, B; Mains, D.; Mayer, B.; Nissen, K.; Puddington, L.; Rajan, 

TV; Taxel, P.; Tulikangas, P.; Zalneraitis, E.; 

Guest: Dr. Dan Henry 

Topics Discussion Outcome 

Minutes of May 2012 Reviewed. Approved unanimously. 

MD/PhD Grading Policy Dr. Barbara Kream outlined the reasons behind the proposed changes to the 

MD/PhD Grading Policy. 

Approved unanimously. 

• This will effect only how the grades are transmitted to the Graduate 

School for credit 

• Other systems were investigated 

• A subcommittee was gathered: MD/PhD Director, Course Directors, 

students 

• Questions were asked of the MD/PhD listserv – received 35 

responses 

• GPA will reflect the graduate work 

• Performance of the students will continued to be monitored 

• Will need to go to the Graduate School for approval 

Information Only: Revised 

rules and regulations of the 

Academic Advancement 

Committee (AAC) 

Dr. TV Rajan explained the proposed revised rules and regulations: 

• Overview of the Committee and the range of actions that the AAC 

can take 

• Professionalism is not yet delineated in the document due to the 

discussions underway currently in the Professionalism Task Force 

• Suggestions can be sent to Dr. Rajan 

None. 

CCESC Report on MAX-‐2 Dr. Rajan explained the MAX-‐2 report compiled by the CCESC: None. 

1

• CCESC found that courses are well-‐run and well-‐liked 

• Concern that our students will no longer have access to a number of 

good surgeons due to changes in the structure 

GME Report Dr. Zalneraitis provided the standing monthly report of the GME: 

None. 

• First dates for the self-‐studies – 2014 

• Pediatrics – 2020 

• DIO will have visits every 18 months 

• Orientation June 18 

• New exit interview 

• Policy committee is discussing how residents are allowed to go to 

conferences 

• Cost of residency 

• Update in the policy manual 

• Site visit on October 9, 2012 – key visit in terms of standing 

• Meetings between GME office members and the affiliated hospitals 

CME Report No report. None. 

GPC standing monthly Dr. Kream noted that graduate school research day was well received. In None. 

report 

the future, notice of the event will be sent out in an email blast. 

CUME standing monthly None. None. 

report 

Next Accreditation System 

(NAS) presentation 

Dr. Nissen provided an overview of the Next Accreditation System: 

• Timeline of Accreditation 

• Resident duty hour standards – 16 member task force – creating a 

culture of safety that went beyond the debate on duty hours 

• Focus of the NAS – provide accountability to the public, 

communication and collaboration 

• Current impact of the NAS – details on data that is submitted 

• Scheduled site visits replaced by a 10-‐year visit with a self study 

• New common program requirements 

• Explanation of outcome requirements 

• Implementation of NAS begins in 2013 with certain programs, all 

remaining in 2014 

• Milestones will be implemented and milestone data compiled at 

certain points throughout the year 

None. 

2

• Clinical Competency Committee will become crucial – tracking, 

ensuring meaningful and manageable experiences 

• Program Directors must stay current 

• Overview of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) and 

differences between EPAs and Milestones 

• Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) – generate national 

data on program and institutional attributes – Goal: move to a broad 

focus that can deliver a high level of patient care – results of the 

visits 

• Focus of CLER 

• Importance of change 

Discussion: 

• Parallels with other programs (UME, CME) 

• Reasoning behind the change 

• 

Timeliness of evaluation Dr. Dan Henry updated the EC on the timeliness of evaluation data: 

data 

• Doing very well, all within 15 days 

Update on the Third Year Dr. Henry noted that certain changes had been made to the third-‐year 

Curriculum 

curriculum: 

• Curriculum mapping will show the major changes that need to be 

made 

• Some duplication was taken out this past year 

• July 9 is the first day of the 2012/2013 academic year 

• Lottery went well 

• Student Clinician’s Ceremony on July 6 

• Orientation has been changed and improved 

For the next meeting Dr. Zalneraitis will be the acting chair for the next meeting. 

Many thanks to the EC members whose membership period has completed – Drs. Mayer, Kosowicz, and 

With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:41pm. 

None. 

None. 

3


July 31, 2012 

Special Meeting – Minutes 

Present: Aguila, H.; Alerte, A.; Angus, S.; Adler, A.; Dodge-‐Kafka, K.; Huey, L.; 

Mains, D.; Nissen, K.; Puddington, L.; Rajan, T.; Rose, S. (chair); Taxel, P.; 

Wetstone, S.; Zalneraitis, E. 

Guest: Henderson, D. 

Meeting was called to order at 4:32pm. 

• Dr. Rose provided an overview of the changes in the strucuture of the MSPE 

Letter and the LCME standards surrounding the MSPE. 

• Explanation of student evaluations for the MSPE and the requirement (from the 

AAMC) to put students in quartiles or categories 

• Overview of nonacademic honors as they were determined previously at the 

SOM: 

o Admissions Committee 

o Inducted into Gold Humanism Honor Society 

o National member of a leadership organization 

o Combined degree 

• Students objected to the previous pattern for determining honors 

• Time issues surrounding MSPE letters – quick resolution needed as new deadline 

of October 1 

• Students unanimously endorsed the proposal 

• Committee on Undergraduate Medical Education (CUME) did not believe this 

proposal to need a vote as it was not a policy change, only a change in process 

Dr. David Henderson presented the proposal to the Committee 

• This proposal change in the criteria, not in the policy on nonacademic honors 

itself 

o After discussions with students, it seemed reasonable to make changes in 

the criteria 

o 3 categories were created (leadership, scholarship and service) and 

students could apply in two of the three categories 

o Details on the three categories were given 

o The process has been moving forward after the CUME endorsement 

pending presentation to EC and there were 40 submissions in each of the 

three categories 

o Committee was setup to review data in de-‐identified manner – eliminate 

bias on the part of the reviewing faculty 


August 2012, page 4

o Committee has criteria, which is not released, by which to evaluate the 

submissions for each of the three categories 

o Maximum amount of honors = 8 

o Reasoning behind the changes 

o Previously, you could theoretically receive 4 nonacademic honors 

(however, it was very unlikely and the number of students who received 

nonacademic honors was relatively small) but with the changes you can 

now receive only 2 – this lowered so as not to overpower the weight of 

academic honors 

o The graduate school was brought into the discussion on the changes, 

specifically there was a discussion that a combined degree offers the 

benefit of the degree; only the scholarship resulting from the degree can 

be considered in this process (e.g. a PhD with no publications would not 

qualify for non academic honors in the medical school) 

o This proposal/process is thought not be a policy and is not located in a 

handbook 

Committee discussion 

• Discussion on whether or not this is a policy and not a procedure 

• Concern with grading policy 

• EC should be raising issues for the future 

o CUME has a better handle on the day-‐to-‐day operations of 

undergraduate medical education 

• Comments on the collegial environment and competition, as well as rankings 

• Discussion on the grading structure – along with positives and disadvantages 

• Impact of board scores, number of honors and AOA on residency placement 

• Continuous revaluating of what is being done for the students 

• Discussion on how the students can be best assisted 

• Students will be given specific instructions and examples of appropriate things to 

submit 

Motion was made to change this document to a process. The motion was seconded and 

approved unanimously. It therefore did not require a vote but there was general 

consensus to support this. 

LCME Update 

• 15 original citations and 4 areas of transition 

• Currently: completely in compliance, with some areas compliance with a need 

for monitoring 

• Updated information is due to the LCME in December of 2013 

• Each of the areas in need of additional monitoring were outlined 

• Class expansion is paused due to the inability to increase class space 

• Additional educational space will be created under Bioscience CT 


August 2012, page 5

• Curriculum reform – retreats in September and November 

• Requests to involve more faculty at the ground level 

• Curriculum reform planned for January 2013 

• Question as to whether the Education Council is, and should remain, the keeper 

of the curriculum according to the bylaws 

Future meetings: Grading issues. Visiting students (foreign, off-‐shore US citizens, and 

US/Canadian schools). Interactions between departments having to do with financial aid 

and student debt. Discussing what we are doing with Dean’s Council. Bring operating 

guidelines back to the EC. 


August 2012, page 6

Inpatient Medicine: review and recommendations from CCESC 

May 2012 

Course description (adapted from the Blackboard site): 

Inpatient medicine encompasses 4 weeks of the Inpatient Course. At any given time, 12 -15 

students are rotating through the experience. The overall course director for the Inpatient 

experiences is Dr. Catherine Lewis. The Section Leader for Inpatient Internal Medicine is Dr. 

Dan Henry. The two major components are the educational sessions and patient care. 

Clinical Experiences 

The inpatient medicine section of the 'Inpatient Course' is currently a 4 week block. Students are 

placed at THOCC, Hartford Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, or John Dempsey Hospital. Shortly 

before each block begins, students receive information about their sites and all scheduled 

activities. Students are an integral member of a team of one or two R1's and one or two R2/R3's. 

Noon conferences and morning report are optional. Some students have preceptor rounds. Work 

up and write-up of at least two patients per week is required. Required clinical encounters (ED-2) 

include CHF, renal failure (acute or chronic), pneumonia, asthma/COPD and inpatient 

management of diabetes. 

Didactics 

Case based conferences occur weekly for a total of 14 hours. Students have rounds with a 

preceptor for 4-8 hours/rotation. There may also be additional didactics (grand rounds, etc) for 

students at a particular site. 

Case conferences during inpatient medicine cover a range of common topics including acid-base 

disorders, fluid/electrolytes, ECGs, CXR, and interpretation of ABGs. 

Exam 

The Inpatient Medicine exam is a home grown exam. It is administered on the last Friday of the 

rotation. The questions pertain to the eight general learning topics: ID, acid base, renal failure, 

cardiology, pulmonary, GI, fluid and electrolytes, and ECGs. 

Grades 

A passing grade is awarded for receiving satisfactory evaluations on the rotation. An honors 

grade is earned in the discipline of Internal Medicine based on the student's performance in 

MAX (ambulatory) medicine and inpatient medicine. Honors are awarded at the end of the 

academic year based on an algorithm (see Appendix) 


August 2012, page 7

Evaluation of Inpatient Medicine by CCESC: 

In order to evaluate Inpatient Internal Medicine, we followed the course evaluation template 

developed by CCESC (please see appendix A). We collected and reviewed the following 

documents: 

• Lecture schedule (please see appendix A ) 

• Inpatient Medicine Course Director Survey (Appendix B) 

• Clerkship goals, objectives and competencies (please see appendix C) 

• Composite evaluation form (please see appendix D) 

• Structured clinical observation (SCO) form (please see appendix E) 

• Inpatient Medicine 2011-12 student survey (please see appendix F) 

• Algorithm for Honors' designation (appendix G ) 

As mentioned in the course evaluation template, we also interviewed Dr. Dan Henry at a 

regularly scheduled meeting of CCESC. 

CCESC findings and recommendations 

The most recent (AY2011-12) Inpatient student survey reports (appendix F) indicate that the 

students rate the overall experience positively. Thus, 

• 98.5% of students rated their rotation sites as good or excellent 

• 68% of students said that the goals and objectives were discussed thoroughly during 

orientation session (1st day) 

• 83% said that most or all aspects of the experience were well-integrated 

• 97% said that decision-making/responsibility was consistently or mostly appropriate 

and kept pace with increasing skills 

• 98.5% reported having a mid-point evaluation and ~88% said that they had had an 

end-of-rotation evaluation 

• 92% had an overall very good or excellent experience 

• The vast majority of students felt that the patient volume and diversity were excellent 

or good. 

• 94% felt that the level of precepting was appropriate. 

• 91% felt that the didactic sessions were good or excellent. 

Overall, CCESC finds that Inpatient Medicine is well designed and delivered. The 

students’ evaluations of the experience were positive overall. There are minor issues that CCESC 

found: 

Item # Finding Recommendations Action by course 

leaders 

1 Is the number of patients worked New policy to ensure a 

up adequate? 

minimum of 8 patients (2 

per week) is being 


August 2012, page 8

2 It appears that the ED-2 

requirements were not revised 

recently. 

3. Hospitalists have varying 

interactions with students at 

different sites 

4. Alcohol withdrawal was taught but 

appears to be shifting to the 

inpatient psychiatry curriculum 

5 Some faculty/site directors were 

not including adequate objective 

comments in written evaluations 

6 Case conferences are evaluated on 

the end of rotation survey 

implemented along with 

required rounds on 8 to 10 

patients. Is 2 

patients/week adequate? 

Since the LCME is 

particularly interested in 

ED-2 requirements, it 

might be a good idea to 

review the required 

combined clinical 

encounters periodically. 

Continue to monitor 

effect of hospitalists on 

student learning 

Monitor to ensure that this 

area is formally covered 

Bring faculty 

development sessions to 

sites so more affiliated 

faculty (site directors) can 

participate 

Consider evaluations at 

the end of each 

conference for more 

accurate and complete 

feedback to facilitators. 


August 2012, page 9

CMC : review and recommendations from CCESC. 

Course description: (from the CMC Blackboard site): The Clinical Medicine Course introduces 

students to their clinical role as physicians and allows them to develop the knowledge, skills, 

values and attitudes required to successfully interact with patients. The course focuses on the 

patient, the developing physician, other members of the health care team and the special and 

complex relationships between them. It examines the roles of community and family in health 

and illness. It has two major sections: the Student Continuity Practice (SCP) and Principles of 

Clinical Medicine (PCM). The course draws heavily on two major components of the School of 

Medicine: The Clinical Skills Assessment and Community Based Education programs. 

Course organization: 

1. PCM: 

PCM takes place on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons from 1:00-5:00 p.m. Students 

meet in Core Groups of 8-10 students with two preceptors, a physician and a behavioral scientist 

or allied health professional. Physicians are from a variety of specialties including Family 

Medicine, Geriatrics, Internal Medicine, and Pediatrics. Behavioral scientists and allied health 

professionals include nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, social workers, 

psychologists, sociologists and public health professionals. Preceptors are paired in this way to 

give students exposure to the multidisciplinary aspects of health care and to the biopsychosocial 

model. Typically a 4 th year medical student will also be serving as a co-preceptor. 

Students learn and practice clinical skills in these groups and share experiences from their 

practice sites on a regular basis. Each Core Group has an assigned meeting room. The Core 

Group mixes students with SCP sites in suburban and urban practices and in the disciplines of 

Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Pediatrics. Within that Core Group, students pair up as 

partners to learn physical diagnosis with each other. 

Basic principles and introductory sessions developing new topics are presented either in a Class 

Meeting in a lecture hall early in the year (before SCP assignments begin) or in a Team Meeting 

in a large conference room or lecture hall. A Team Meeting is composed of PCM Core Groups 

that meet on Tuesday or Thursday afternoons. 

2. SCP: 

The Student Continuity Practice (SCP) is an important and unique component of the 

medical school curriculum. Students are assigned to work one half day a week for three years in 

a community physician’s office. The fundamental goals of SCP are to expose students to patients 

in a continuity setting and to allow them to become increasingly involved with patient care as 

their knowledge and skills develop and to practice newly taught history taking, physical exam or 

counseling skills. Students interact with large numbers of ambulatory patients with diverse 

medical conditions who receive ongoing comprehensive care at the SCP site. SCP provides the 

opportunity for students to form a mentoring relationship with a physician and to understand the 

practice of medicine in the 21 st century. Students become integral members of the office and are 


August 2012, page 10

expected to work collegially with office personnel. Students also become knowledgeable about 

the communities served by the practice. 

SCP fosters the direct integration of basic medical and social science principles into the care of 

individual patients. During the first two years of medical school, expectations for students at 

their SCP will be linked to those of PCM as well as the basic medical science [BMS] curriculum. 

As a result, by the time students enter the clinical rotations in their third year, they are 

experienced in interacting with patients, they are active learners, and adept problem solvers. 

Students have a better appreciation of the relevance to clinical practice from what they have 

learned in BMS and PCM. 

The Student Continuity Practice continues throughout the third year. However, the PCM Core 

Groups are now replaced by a professional development (SCPIII) seminar that provides an 

informal opportunity to discuss with their peers and faculty the complexities of medicine as 

experienced in their clinical rotations in the third year. At the end of three years, students have a 

comprehensive view of their SCP patients as well as their practice site, providing them with a 

strong foundation upon which to choose an area for postgraduate training or research. 

Student evaluations. 

1. PCM 

• Student evaluations will reflect the student’s level of preparation, participation in Core 

Group discussions, quality of written work, mastery of clinical skills and professional 

attributes. 

• PCM faculty will provide a major portion of the evaluation, giving ongoing feedback and 

periodic formal evaluation. PCM preceptors will provide oral feedback during PCM 

sessions, written feedback of professional journals and other assignments, and will meet 

individually with students at least twice a year. PCM faculty will contact the course 

director of PCM 1 or 2 if a student is not meeting expectations. 

• PCM preceptors complete a written evaluation that is submitted to the Dean’s office and 

becomes part of the student’s permanent file. A copy of this form can be found on 

Blackboard in the Evaluation section. 

• There is a Clinical Skills assessment in the late spring which provides part of the 

information used for final evaluation at the end of each year of the course. Multiple other 

Clinical Skills assessment sessions throughout the year are to provide experience and 

formative feedback for students and preceptors. 

• At the end of the course, students receive a grade of Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, or 

Incomplete for CMC I or II. This grade reflects the summation of the evaluation across 

PCM, SCP, and Clinical Skills. 

• Students must pass CMC I and CMC II to pass CMC as a unit course and progress into 

the next phase of medical education. 

• The “Learning Assessment and Enhancement Program” is available for students needing 

individualized, intensive help in skill development and is described separately at the end 

of this section. 



2. SCP 

• SCP preceptors complete a formative student evaluation at the midpoint each year and a 

final, summative evaluation at the end of years 1, 2 and 3. Preceptors are asked to assess 

their student's motivation, attendance, interpersonal skills, effort and commitment to 

SCP. The evaluation process is an opportunity for students and preceptors to: discuss 

whether or not goals and objectives have been met; to note the evolving role and skill 

level of the student; and to establish new goals and objectives to accommodate increased 

clinical competency within the SCP experience. 

Evaluation of CMC by CCESC. 

In order to evaluate CMC, we followed the course evaluation template developed by CCESC 

(please see appendix A). We collected and reviewed the following documents: 

• Course overview for CMC (please see appendix B). 

• PCM snapshot (please see appendix C) 

• SCP snapshot (please see appendix D) 

• Course direction survey (please see appendix E) 

• Student survey results for PCM 1 (please see appendix F) 

• Student survey results for PCM 2 (please see appendix G) 

• Student survey results for SCP (please see appendix H) 

• Faculty development that is provided (please see appendix I) 

As mentioned in the course evaluation template (appendix A), we also interviewed Dr. Lynn 

Kosowicz at a regularly scheduled meeting of CCESC. 


The last review of CMC by the course and curriculum evaluation committee (in 2003-2004) 

begins with the following paragraph: 

"SCP is a highly successful, rewarding, and cutting-edge experience for medical students. This 

was cited as one of the 5 strengths of the University in the recent LCME visit. UConn is only one of 2 

schools in the country with the required 3-year continuity clinic. The clinical assessment portion of CMC 

course is excellent and extensive. This is also listed as a strength in the recent LCME visit." 

The current iteration of CCESC agrees entirely with the previous review. Committee members 

unanimously felt that under the leadership of Dr. Kosowicz, the CMC course has remained one of the 

signature courses in our school of medicine, one that is often mentioned by prospective medical students 

as a uniquely attractive feature of our curriculum. The course is singled out again in the most recent 

LCME visit (2010): 

“The Student Independent Analysis reflects general satisfaction with the course with 69% 

agreeing that the course was successful and valuable, and 94% of respondents rated it good-to-excellent 

on the 2009 AAMC Graduation Questionnaire. Students are overwhelmingly positive about the Student 

Continuity Practice.” 



The ratings in the 2010 AAMC graduation questionnaire were equally laudatory, with 99% of 

students rating the course good or excellent. 84% of our students rated the CMC course as excellent, 

compared to 57% of students from all schools surveyed by AAMC (please see table below). 

Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean Count 

Uconn 

SOM 

0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 57 

All schools 2.2 8.6 31.8 57.4 3.4 13,449 

Members of CCESC felt that there are features of CMC that make it a model course and that it 

would behoove other course leaders to attempt to emulate Dr. Kosowicz in at least two aspects: 

a. Dr. Kosowicz appears to have her pulse on national trends in clinical education. As a 

consequence, the CMC course has stayed current and cutting-edge. The admirable innovations 

introduced within CMC over the past few years points to the need, on the part of other course 

and section leaders, to participate more extensively in national discourse. 

b. At the last iteration of CCESC, the committee felt that faculty development was insufficient. To 

quote from the review, 

i. "Faculty development is insufficient, primarily due to lack of University 

resources and not to fault of CMC. New faculty need an extensive preparation to 

teach the curriculum in this innovative course – prior teaching experience and 

expertise will not prepare them adequately." 

Perhaps in response to this critique, Dr. Kosowicz has developed a faculty development 

curriculum (please see appendix I). 

The student evaluations of SCP, PCM 1 and 2 by CCESC reveal a fairly consistent pattern of 

positive, laudatory remarks. On Likert scales ranging from 1 to 5, with the latter representing the most 

positive rating, most survey questions received ratings in excess of 4, indicating very positive responses 

(please see appendices F, G, & H). Narrative comments are similarly strongly positive. It is clear that the 

students appreciate the quality education offered by the CMC course. There are, however, some minor 

issues that may merit attention. 


1 Blackboard organization is confusing 

to some students and does not seem 

to meet the needs of the course 

2 "Personal Wellness" learning 

objective does not seem to be covered 

adequately 

Request assistance from FITS to 

organize the Bb site for the course 

and/or look at alternative platforms 

to suit this course. In addition 

resources/software should be made 

available such that the course leaders 

have the ability to adjust the schedule 

or other logistics with short notice 

and communicate this clearly to 

students and faculty in a timely 

manner. 

Some students felt that this objective 

is not met by the course. It is 

addressed, but some feel that it is not 

covered well. This should be 

reviewed and adjusted as able within 

the course. Discuss other places 

within the curriculum to address in 



3 Difficult for students to candidly 

evaluate their SCP preceptors 

Conclusion: 

more detail, i.e. student advising 

groups. 

This is difficult to accomplish. 

Continue to monitor and consider 

alternative ways to provide feedback 

to preceptors (group oral reviews) . 

In summary, CCESC feels that the CMC course remains the signature achievement of our curriculum. 

That is much to be admired in the way that the curriculum is organized and presented. 



HDH: review and recommendations from CCESC 

Spring 2012 

Course description: The course surveys the following subjects which are necessary to practice medicine 

in the context in which patients live and society functions: Health and the Health Care System, Health and 

Behavior across the Lifespan, Health Law and Ethics, Clinical Epidemiology and the Biopsychosocial 

Perspective. Threads which are woven vertically into these 5 topic areas are population health, 

professional health care and personal health themes. 

Course organization: HDH currently occupies 8 weeks of the 2nd year curriculum. Dr. Zita Lazzarini is 

the course director. 

With regard to modes of instruction, the following table lists the distribution of hours among lectures, 

exams/evaluation, and small group discussions: 

Instructional Method Scheduled Hours 

Lecture 91 

Small group discussion (case-based, etc) 33 

Examinations/student evaluation 8 

Total 132 

The curricular content is detailed in the attached appendices (please see appendix ). 

Students are evaluated by 2 exams: one covering the first four weeks of material and the other at the end 

of the course covering the last four weeks. Each examination contains multiple choice and short- and 

long-answer essay questions which stress application of concepts and principles. Exam questions relate 

directly to learning objectives. Additionally the second exam tests clinical epidemiology by asking the 

student to respond to short answer questions based on a journal article provided in advance. In order to 

pass the course students must receive 75% of available points on the 2 exams combined, a 60% on each 

individual exam, satisfactory grade in conferences, satisfactory grade for required presentation in "Topics 

in Human Development and Health Conference" and must complete online training for performing 

research with human subjects. 

The format of the exams is indicated in the following table: 

Evaluation Format Percent of Grade 

Internal written exams: multiple choice, 

true/false, matching questions 

Internal written exams: fill-in, short answer 

questions 

Internal written exams: essay questions 

76% 

15% 

7% 



Evaluation of HDH by CCESC 

In order to evaluate HDH, we followed the course evaluation template developed by CCESC 

(please see appendix A). We also sent Dr. Lazzarini the course director survey instrument developed by 

CCESC (please see appendix B). We collected and reviewed the following documents: 

• Introduction and overview 2011 of HDH (please see appendix C). 

• HDH learning objectives 2011-12 (please see appendix D) 

• Academic year 2011 HLE and CE formative and summative evaluations (please see appendices E 

and F.) 

• Topics in HDH evaluation form 2011 (please see appendix G) 

• Student survey results for HDH Fall 2011 (please see appendix H) 

• Shorter Academic year proposed changes for 2012-13 (please see appendix I) 

We also interviewed Dr. Lazzarini at a regularly scheduled meeting of CCESC. 


Overall, CCESC finds that HDH is very well designed and delivered. 

The primary objective of HDH fits in well with many LCME standards including the following: 

ED-10: The curriculum must include behavioral and socioeconomic subjects, in addition to 

basic science and clinical disciplines. 

ED-20: The curriculum must prepare students for their role in addressing the medical 

consequences of common societal problems, for example, providing instruction in the diagnosis, 

prevention, appropriate reporting, and treatment of violence and abuse. 

ED-21: The faculty and students must demonstrate an understanding of the manner in which 

people of diverse cultures and belief systems perceive health and illness and respond to various 

symptoms, diseases, and treatments. 

ED-22: Medical students must learn to recognize and appropriately address gender and cultural 

biases in themselves and others, and in the process of health care delivery. 

ED-23: A medical school must teach medical ethics and human values, and require its students to 

exhibit scrupulous ethical principles in caring for patients, and in relating to patients' families 

and to others involved in patient care. 

ED-6 : The curriculum must incorporate the fundamental principles of medicine and its underlying 

scientific concepts; allow students to acquire skills of critical judgment based on evidence and experience; 

and develop students’ ability to use principles and skills wisely in solving problems of health and disease. 

ED-7: It must include current concepts in the basic and clinical sciences, including therapy and 

technology, changes in the understanding of disease, and the effect of social needs and demands 

on care. 

Feedback from students in the form of the survey (Fall 2011) filled out by virtually 100% of the students 

(130 students) (see appendix H) is laudatory about the organization of the course, conferences, delivery, 

and evaluation process. 

CCESC did, however, find issues that were discussed with Dr. Lazzarini. These items and the 

recommendations are listed in the table below. 




leaders 

1 PCM and HDH overlap in certain Examine redundancies with . 

areas, but with different focuses. PCM and better refine and 

Planned redundancies with PCM are eliminate as indicated. 

not well communicated to students Communicate planned overlap 

and should be examined to assess 

whether they are beneficial or if time 

can be used in other ways 

with PCM to all students. 

2 Many feel that the 8 weeks devoted to Course will be 7 weeks in Should be 

HDH are too long. 

2012-13 which corresponds to 

a 10% cut in hours. See 

Appendix I for planned 

changes. Additional hours will 

be gained in the afternoon 

from CMPS. 

confirmed that 

dental students will 

be available during 

the CMPS 

afternoon hours 

which are unused 

during the first 

weeks of class 

3 "Special topics" was an area of Consider having deadlines for 

concern since presentations occur at students to confirm their 

the end of the course near the topics, provide resource list 

examination. 

etc. and encourage early 

completion of presentation. 

4 Course survey data should be split so Speak to FITS about setting up 

the medical school and dental school the survey to allow 

can assess their students. 

discrimination between the 

students in each school. 

5 Film about aging was felt to be Discuss with conference 

redundant with a lecture and 

instructors better ways to 

conference and students did not feel 

engaged. 

engage students in the session. 

6 HDH might fit better in the first year The placement of HDH in the 

curriculum. Biostats fits naturally curriculum should be reviewed 

with HDH. 

by CUME. 

7 HDH is a complicated, 

Administrative support for 

multidisciplinary course with many HDH should continue at the 

faculty required. Administrative 

support is critical 

existing level. 

8 Faculty training and development is Increase faculty development 

provided prior to conferences, but in the area of evaluation and 

more is needed for faculty in 

assessing and writing narratives. 

writing narratives. 

9 Narratives provided in conference Correspond with faculty about 

evaluations could be more complete. increasing the quantity of 

narrative provided in 

conference evaluations (also 

see #8) 



Conclusion: 

The committee feels that HDH is full of valuable content some of which is being reduced, along with that 

in other courses in the second year. The course has been seen as too long by students for many years. 

This impression may or not change with the new changes. 



Committee on Undergraduate Medical Education 

Minutes of the Meeting 

July 29, 2012 

4:30pm – Medical Dean’s Extension, L5095 

Present: Thatcher, C. (acting chair); Guerrera, M.; Hand, A.; Henry, D.; Makoul, G.; Oliver, D.; Palma-‐Sisto, P.; Summerer, M.; Rajan, 

T.; Regan, T.; Siegel, G.; Watras, J.; White, S.; 

Meeting called to order at 4:30pm. 

Topic Discussion Results 

Minutes of the previous 

meeting 

Tabled. N/A 

Policy from the CCESC Dr. Rajan provided information on the proposed policy: 

Focus Groups: Motion was 

concerning data gathering • The forming of the CCESC 

made to allow time for 

strategies (T. Rajan) 

• History of the committee 

exploration of feasibility of 

• Details on the surveys currently provided to students on focus groups by reviewing 

individual courses 

multiple areas including 

• Proposal for the different methods for attaining information on expertise to run the focus 

courses 

groups and a pilot program. 

• Focus groups of students – random sampling of students Unanimous. 

• Medical Education Grand Rounds with Dr. Polifroni on focus 

groups in October 

• Faculty (peer) evaluations – two individuals will review a section 

of the first and second year curriculum 

Faculty Evaluations: Motion 

was made to forward this 

proposal to the Academy of 

CUME discussion: 

• Students chosen as part of the random sampling should be 

required to participate as a requirement of professionalism 

• Students should participate in one sampling per year 

• Suggestion for longer intervals between focus groups 

• Discussion regarding how to make this feasible in the third and 

fourth year-‐ need a large enough on for each site. Suggested that 

focus groups for clinical rotations only occur twice per year. 

Distinguished Educators, 

with a request for a specific 

format and action plan for a 

faculty peer evaluations for 

approval, which will then go 

to the Sr. Assoc. Dean and 

then the SAPC. Unanimous. 

1 



CCESC report on Inpatient 

Medicine (T. Rajan) 

CCESC report on the 

Clinical Medicine Course 

(T. Rajan) 

• Proposal would be in addition to what the CCESC is working to 

accomplish 

• Proposal would provide a balanced view of faculty and student 

opinions on the course 

• Discussion on the delivery of material versus the material itself 

(content) 

• Suggestion for CUME to support 

• Suggestion to send it to the SAPC and tie the proposal to 

promotions-‐ dual purpose 

• Purpose is to both improve the curriculum and provide feedback 

to the individual faculty members which may be used in 

promotion and merit review. This would also allow a trigger for 

faculty mentorship. 

• Overview of the course 

• Number of weeks and the locations for placement 

• Overview of the examination and process 

• Well-‐received by the students 

• Suggestions: Further outline the goals and objectives to students 

• ED-‐2 requirements should be examined 

• Improvements enacted this year 

• Overview of the components of the course 

• Course is functioning well 

• Course is continuingly innovational 

• Use of blackboard is a problem 

• Students felt that personal wellness was not addressed 

• Student evaluation of faculty preceptors in the SCP course has 

problems without a solution currently due to the lack of 

anonymity 

• Overall, course is very well-‐received 

• Students have many thoughts on CSAP but they are not reflected 

on the surveys 

None. 

None. 

2 



CCESC report on Human 

Development and Health 

(T. Rajan) 

Proposed changes to 

Mechanisms of Disease 

(D. Henry) 

Discussion by CUME: 

• Discussion on CSAP and suggestion to use the SIM center 

• Recommendation to change the CSAP evaluation – suggestions 

for where the evaluation should focus 

• Usefulness of feedback 

• Overview of the course and the components 

• Issues outlined, some have been addressed 

• Overlap of information between PCM and HDH and suggestion 

made to discuss what can be changed 

None. 

Dr. Henry outlined the changes to the MOD. Motion was made to 

approve the changes. 

Seconded. Approved 

unanimously. 

COSC Dr. Henry provided an overview of the COSC actions and decisions. None. 

CCESC Previously covered. None. 

Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) will be brought before the CUME in the future. Suggestion for a town hall and a transparent discussion 

with the students. Ongoing discussion. 

Dr. Rajan will circulate his paper for the AAMC convention on shortening the number of years of medical school. 

Meeting adjourned at 5:33pm. 

3

Agenda and Meeting Materials - UConn School of Medicine

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?