Agenda and Meeting Materials - UConn School of Medicine ...

Approval of the minutes
• February 21, 2013
Consent Items
• None
Business Items
• Revised Appeals Process
Education Council
Agenda
March 21, 2013
Informational Items
• Professionalism Task Force document update
• Update from the ad hoc committee on visiting students
Standing Monthly Reports
• GME
• GPC
• CME
• CUME
The next meeting will be held on
April 18 at 4:30pm
Walker, AG070

Education Council
February 21, 2013
Minutes of the Meeting
Present (voting): Rose, S. (chair); Aguila, H.; Alerte, A.; Angus, S.; Dieckhaus, K.; Dimario, F.; Guerrera, M.; Kream, B.; Puddington,
L.; Taxel, P.; Wetstone, S.; Zalneraitis, E.
(non-­‐voting): Huey, L.; Mains, D.; Nissen, K.;
Excused (voting): Adler, A.; Dodge-­‐Kafka, K.; Guha, A.
(non-­‐voting):
Guests:
Topics Discussion Outcome/Action
Items
Minutes of January Reviewed. Approved.
17, 2013
Unanimously.
Change to the
agenda
Professionalism Task Force document moved to March None.
Revised Grades & Dr. Rose provided an overview:
Motion made to
Transcripts Process • Presently our transcripts are not in compliance
accept the policy
• Transcripts do not reflect true academic history
with the changes.
• Document has been approved through CUME
Seconded and
• Major change in grading systems and culture
approved
• Converts satisfactory/unsatisfactory to pass/fail
unanimously.
• Grade submitted as a Conditional or a Fail
• Includes new grades as a C, P or a CP
• Courses/Clerkships will have uniform grading
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 1

• The C to P or F to P would be a permanent notation on the transcript (not an
incomplete)
• Questions about withdrawals, including withdrawal while failing or
withdrawal while passing
• MSPE has always required accurate history, however, the MSPE is not always
consulted
• Honors requirements – students who receive a C or an F will not be eligible
for honors
• Change to make it more clear that students who get a C or an F (pg. 3 third
line) are not eligible for honors in that individual clerkship (not all clerkships)
• Grade of Incomplete section – make a notation that it is changed to the final
grade, not a P
• Withdrawal issues – some students were failing and only withdrew because
they were failing. Transcript will now indicate that the withdrawal was while
failing – this may require an individual decision based on the student
• Question as how withdrawals effect the timing of graduation
• These new regulations only effect the graduating class of 2017
• Present issues concerning student files – many pieces are stored in different
locations, and a central system is being investigated
• These changes are now possible with new systems and the help of the IT
Department
• Student reaction has been positive
• LCME has had negative reaction to our present transcript system
• Change to the first paragraph so that it includes professionalism
• There are separate passing margins for dental students and medical students
• Issues surrounding dental student education within the medical school
curriculum detailed
• Suggestion to look at other schools with SOM/SDM curriculum – future
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 2

EC ad hoc on
visiting students
EC ad hoc on EC’s
charge
Body Donation
Program Audit
discussion with Dr. Lepowsky
• Founding legislation issues with the SOM/SDM relationship
• Relationships between the SOM/SDM detailed – including the number of
faculty willing to teach
Additional work is being done. Recommendations will be brought back. None.
Meeting on Friday, February 22. None.
Audit was reviewed and approved by the audit committee.
• A new embalmer is being hired
GME audit Issues with IT systems concerning supervision documentation. There is not thought
to be a risk.
GMEC (E.
Zalneraitis)
• Parking issues
• Final RRC old-­‐style reviews (citations and cycles detailed)
• New Program Director for Ob/Gyn
• Emergency Medicine approved for increase in residents
• Some programs have duty hour reports that are not up to date
• Resident salaries will increase
• Dr. Nissen noted that the mission and vision of GME at UConn will be
investigated
• Additional information concerning patient safety and competency
requirements
GPC (B. Kream) • Lynn Puddington elected to the Executive Committee of the UConn Graduate
Dr. Thatcher to
come present the
new Anatomy
initiatives
None.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 3

Faculty Council (Storrs).
• Admissions continuing
• Puddington and Kream to take part in a committee to re-­‐write the handbook
CME (L. Huey) No report. None.
For the next meeting – the professionalism document will be discussed. Document to be reviewed by Jeff Blumenthal. Dr. Christine
Thatcher will attend in April.
Meeting adjourned at 5:21pm
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 4

TO: Members of the Education Council
FROM: Suzanne Rose, MD, MSEd
SUBJECT: Revised Appeals Process
DATE: 3/18/13
CC:
MEMORANDUM
Overview: The current process for students to appeal decisions related to course grades,
remediation programs, promotion and dismissal is overly cumbersome, puts an unfair onus on
the student to move throughout the structure, and permits the Student Evaluation and Appeals
Review Committee (SEARC) to overturn recommendations of the Course Grading Committee
(CGC) without those recommendations going through the Academic Advancement Committee
(AAC). (Current process is reflected in Diagram 1)
We are presenting you with the following:
Diagram 1: current cumbersome process
Diagram 2: proposed streamlined process
Revised appeals process narrative
Office of the Senior Associate Dean for Education
AG050-­‐MC 1922
263 Farmington Avenue
Farmington, CT 06030
(p) 860-­‐679-­‐2385
(f) 860-­‐679-­‐1053
Action needed: Approval of the recommended appeal process – diagram 2 and narrative
Highlights of the New Appeals Process
• Only two levels of appeals in the revised structure
• Second level of appeals process now involves the creation of an ad hoc committee that
combines the CGC and the AAC – this is more fair as there will be representation from
both committees
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 5

Student does not
appeal
AAC agrees with CGC
decision or votes to make
the decision more stringent
AAC denies
appeal
Student decides to
appeal further
Student appeals
AAC decision
SEARC is called to
hear the student’s
appeal
CGC issues a decision on a student’s grade,
promo2on and/or remedia2on to the AAC
AAC grants
appeal
SEARC makes a
recommenda2on to the
Dean of the SOM
CGC denies
appeal
Modified
remedia2on
Student appeals
CGC
Dean issues final
ruling
CGC grants
appeal
Diagram 1
No
remedia2on
Student’s plan
implemented
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 6

AAC ra3fies or makes a more stringent CGC’s plan
Diagram 2
CGC recommends grade and/or
remedia3on program
Student does not appeal
Academic plan or disciplinary
decision is put into ac3on
Student appeals
Ad Hoc Appeals Commi9ee hears the appeal
Decision is modified Decision is upheld
Student does not appeal
Plan put into effect
Disciplinary issue comes to light
AAC makes a decision on a disciplinary ac3on
Student appeals
SEARC makes a
recommenda3on to the dean
Dean makes final dispensa3on
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 7

5.G. Student Appeals
Students may appeal decisions made by the Course Grading Committee (CGC) that are
ratified by the Academic Advancement Committee (AAC) related to course grades,
remediation programs and promotion. Students may appeal decisions made by the AAC
concerning all disciplinary actions and mandates. The appeals process is detailed in
section V. Appeals. The various regulations and rules concerning the appeals process
can be found in VI. Rules on Appeals. Students are urged to make themselves familiar
with the process. If an appeal of an AAC decision is granted, the appeal will be heard by
the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee. The student can appeal a decision of the Ad Hoc
Appeals Committee. Appeals of the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee decision will be
heard/evaluated by the Student Evaluation and Appeals Review Committee (SEARC).
Whether an appeal of the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee is granted is at the discretion of a
three-­‐person committee called together by the Senior Associate Dean for Education.
Each of the levels of appeals is described in the sections below. The Associate Dean for
Student Affairs will guide the student through the process at all levels.
I. Grading/Remediation Decisions
The CGC recommends courses of action on all issues concerning grading and
remediation. These recommendations are then ratified by the AAC, which can endorse
the plan or can make it more stringent. The AAC cannot make the recommendation less
onerous than that suggested by CGC. If the student accepts the plan, the decision of the
AAC will be put into effect (see APP 5.C. Course Grading Committee).
The student is allowed to appeal the decision to an ad hoc appeals committee, as
detailed in III. Ad Hoc Appeals Committee. For additional information on how to
submit an appeal and rules concerning appeals, see section V. Appeals Process.
II. Disciplinary Decisions
The AAC decides on disciplinary action against a student for academic and nonacademic
issues, as well as professional concerns related to a student both within the curriculum
and outside of it. Students are notified in writing of all AAC decisions (see APP 5.D.
Academic Advancement Committee).
The student is allowed to appeal the decision to an ad hoc appeals committee, as
detailed in III. Ad Hoc Appeals Committee. For additional information on appeals, see
section V. Appeals Process.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 8

III. Ad Hoc Appeals Committee
The Ad Hoc Appeals Committee consists of 8 voting members, as detailed below. If a
student appeals decisions made by the CGC and ratified by the AAC, the Ad Hoc Appeals
Committee will consist of:
1. Chair of the AAC
2. Chair of the CGC
3. 4 members of the AAC, as chosen by the chair of the AAC
4. 4 members of the CGC, as chosen by the chair of the AAC in consultation with
the chair of the CGC
5. Senior Associate Dean for Education, or designee (ex-­‐officio and nonvoting)
If a student is appealing an AAC decision that concerns on any issue other than grading,
promotion and remediation, the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee will be made up of:
1. Chair of the AAC
2. 8 members of the AAC, as chosen by the chair of the AAC
3. Senior Associate Dean for Education, or designee (ex-­‐officio and nonvoting)
The student is allowed to appeal the decision of the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee.
Appeals of the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee decision will be heard/evaluated by the
Student Evaluation and Appeals Review Committee (SEARC). Whether an appeal of the
Ad Hoc Appeals Committee is granted is at the discretion of a three-­‐person committee
called together by the Senior Associate Dean for Education, please see the next section.
For additional information on the appeals process, see section V. Appeals Process.
IV. SEARC and Decisions by the Dean
A student is allowed to appeal a decision of the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee by following
the process detailed in V. Appeals Process to the Student Evaluation and Appeals
Review Committee (SEARC). Section 5.E. SEARC of the Academic Policies & Procedures
Manual contains information on the membership and process of this committee. The
SEARC makes recommendations to the Dean of the School of Medicine and the Dean is
responsible for making the final decision. Decisions made by the Dean cannot be
appealed further.
V. Appeals Process
Within seven days after receipt of written notification of an AAC decision, the student
may submit an appeal in writing to the Senior Associate Dean for Education that gives
substantial grounds for an appeal. This appeal should be in the form of an email, or
attached to an email, and give substantial grounds for appeal:
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 9

1. The student must be able to present evidence that was not available to the
AAC when they made the decision
2. The student must be able to present evidence that process was not adhered
to by the AAC in coming to a decision.
The Senior Associate Dean for Education will send the appeal via email to the members
of the Ad Hoc Appeal Committee who will decide whether the appeal will be heard or
denied. Frivolous appeals could result in documentation in a student’s permanent
record and/or a notation on the MSPE.
If the Senior Associate Dean allows the appeal to proceed, it will be heard by the Ad Hoc
Appeals Committee. If the appeal concerns a remediation plan or other decision of the
CGC, the ad hoc committee will consist of 4 members of the CGC and 4 members of the
AAC, including the chairs from the CGC and AAC.
If the appeal concerns a decision of the AAC that has not come from the CGC, the ad hoc
committee will consist of 8 members of the AAC (including the chair of the AAC), chosen
at the discretion of the chair.
The outcome of the appeal could be that the decision is upheld, overturned, or
modified. In any case, if the student does not appeal further, the plan is put into action.
If the student decides to appeal the decision of the Ad Hoc Appeals Committee, he/she
will have 7 days from the decision to submit an appeal in writing to the Senior Associate
Dean for Education that gives substantial grounds for an appeal. The Senior Associate
Dean for Education will call together a three-­‐person ad hoc review committee who will
determine whether or not the appeal will be heard. Participation in the ad hoc review
committee will at the discretion of the Senior Associate Dean for Education. The
student’s appeal should be in the form of an email, or attached to an email, and give
substantial grounds for appeal:
1. The student must be able to present evidence that was not available to the
Ad Hoc Appeals Committee when they made the decision
2. The student must be able to present evidence that process was not adhered
to either by the ad hoc appeal committee in coming to a decision.
Frivolous appeals could result in documentation in a student’s permanent record and/or
a notation on the MSPE.
If the ad hoc review committee allows the appeal to proceed, it will be heard by the
SEARC. SEARC is an ad hoc committee that will be constituted in a case-­‐by-­‐case basis.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 10

SEARC will hear the student’s case, and make a formal recommendation to the Dean,
who makes the final dispensation. Decisions of the Dean cannot be appealed further.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 11

VI. Rules Concerning Appeals
Upon receipt of a written appeal with supporting documents, the Senior Associate Dean
for Education shall notify the appropriate committee members and/or chair and arrange
for the appeal hearing.
It is the student’s responsibility to select and coordinate the appearance of witnesses.
Legal counsel, or other external parties, will not be present during any appeal. A list of
witness selected by the student will be given in advance to the Senior Associate Dean
for Education. If a witness is thought to be inappropriate, the Senior Associate Dean will
communicate this information to the student who will have the option of selecting an
alternative individual. The student is permitted to bring letters or statements written by
external parties that speak to either his/her character and/or the specifics of the
situation.
The conduct of the meeting shall be determined by the chair of the committee. The
office of the Senior Associate Dean for Education shall prepare minutes of the meeting,
and issue all correspondence related to the appeal hearing. In general, the meeting
shall proceed as follows:
• In the absence of the student, the committee shall review the case, and
related background material. At this time the committee may meet with and
seek additional information from individuals with specific knowledge of the
case (e.g., Section Leader, Associate Dean for Student Affairs, etc.).
• The student will then be invited to present the appeal, provide additional
relevant information, call witnesses on his/her behalf, and answer questions
from committee members.
• After all testimony has been heard, the committee will consider the
evidence, recall individuals and seek additional information, if necessary, and
render a decision on the appeal. Acceptance of an appeal shall require a
simple majority vote.
• The decision of the committee shall be communicated in writing to the
student.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 12

Academic Policies & Procedures
(PROFESSIONALISM COMMITTEE)
(DRAFT #8)
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 13

Table of Contents
I. Curriculum Governance…………………………………………………………….. 4
A. Organizations Structure for Curriculum Governance
B. Duties and Responsibilities
II. Combined Degree Programs………………………………………………………. 12
III. Course and Section Place Outs……………………………………………………. 12
IV. Examination Administration Procedures……………………………………… 13
A. Early Takes
B. Late Takes
C. No Takes
D. Location
E. Time of Examinations
F. Conditions
G. Special Allowances
H. Proctors
I. Cheating
J. Securing Examinations
K. Protests
V. Examination Grading…………………………………………………………………….. 16
VI. Course Grades………………………………………………………………………………. 17
A. Grades of Record
B. Honors for Clinical Disciplines
C. Course Grading Committee (CGC)
VII. Academic Advancement……………………………………………………………….. 21
A. Graduation, Promotion and Disciplinary Action
B. Board Failures and Remediation
C. Graduation Requirements
D. Leave of Absence
VIII. Student Appeals……………………………………………………………………………… 25
A. Course Grading Committee
B. Academic Advancement Committee
C. Student Evaluation and Appeals Committee (SEARC)
IX. Student Records………………………………………………………………………………… 29
A. Access to Student Records
B. Examination Profiles
C. Faculty Access to Grades
D. Academic and Career Advising
E. Transcripts
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 14

X. Professionalism………………………………………………………………………………….. 36
XI. Dress Code………………………………………………………………………………………... 36
XII. Duty Hours……………………………………………………………………………………….. 36
XIII. Attendance ………………………………….…………………………………………………… 37
A. Years 1 and 2 Reporting
B. Years 3 and 4 Reporting
C. Residency Interviews
XIV. Student Honor Code…………………………………………………………………………. 40
XV. Visiting Students……………………………………………………………………………… 41
XVI. Impaired Students…………………………………………………………………………. 42
A. Voluntary Confidential assistance
B. Referred Confidential assistance
C. Mandated Confidential assistance
D. Failure of Treatment
E. Appeal Process
XVII. M. D. Enrichment Program……………………………………………………………. 44
XVIII. Eligibility for Summer Research Programs……………………………………. 45
XIX. Clinical Experiential……………………………………………………………………… 46
XX. Procedures for Evaluation of Courses and Faculty Teaching………... 46
A. Student Evaluation of Clinical Teaching
B. Student Evaluation of Resident Teaching
C. Timeliness of Narrative Feedback
D. Collection of Data
E. Dissemination of Data
XXI. Supervision of Students by Healthcare Providers……………………………… 50
Appendix A: Honor Code…………………………………………………………………………………. 51
I. The Honor Code
II. Implementing the Honor Code: The Honor Board Policy Committee
III. The Honor Board
IV. Honor Board Procedures
Appendix B: CHIPS Program……………………………………………………………………………… 60
What is CHIPS?
Why the CHIPS Program
A Few Words about Impairment
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 15

How Do You Use CHIPS?
What is the Cost of CHIPS
How Does CHIPS Work?
The CHIPS Program is Confidential
Failure of Treatment
Web Site
Appendix C: Compact Faculty and Undergraduate and Graduate…………………… 62
Guiding Principles
Appendix D: Code of Professionalism……………………………………………………………. 63
1. Code of Professionalism
2. Reporting Violations of Professionalism
3. Reporting Exemplary Efforts in Professionalism
4. Professionalism Incident Report Committee (PIRT)
5. Professionalism Review Board (PRB)
Appendix E: Professionalism Incident Report……………………………………………….. 68
Appendix F: UConn and UConn Health Center Codes and Policies……………….. 69
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 16

X. Professionalism
Students are expected to maintain high standards of personal and professional integrity and
conduct at all times. The ‘Code of Professionalism’ (see appendix D) addresses appropriate
and acceptable behavior expected of medical students in their role as healthcare professionals.
The document was created as a guide to help invoke appropriate behavior in all areas of
professional conduct and outlines the expected student competencies in professionalism. This
document also explains the process of submitting reports of praise or concern regarding
professional behavior and the mechanism used to investigate any adverse occurance.
Other models for professionalism are found in several Health Center and School of Medicine
documents including the ‘Student Honor Code’ (see Appendix A) and the ‘Compact Between
Faculty and Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Trainees’ (see Appendix C). The
University of Connecticut Health Center also has rules of conduct which students are expected
to uphold (see Appendix F ).
.

Appendix D: University of Connecticut School of Medicine Code of Professionalism Conduct
I. Code of Professionalism
The Code of Professionalism (“the Code”) is a guide for appropriate and acceptable behavior and a model
to uphold the standards of the healthcare professions. While this code cannot fully address every
situation that may develop, it shall serve as a model to invoke appropriate behavior in all areas of
professional conduct as well as to outline the expected student competencies in professionalism. The
codes and policies listed in the Honor Code (Appendix A) provide additional guidance.
The concept of medical professionalism is both an acknowledgement of virtuous values expected in one’s
role as physician and the implementation of appropriate behavior that embodies these values. These values
can be categorized as follows:
Integrity:
• Display honesty and integrity with patients, families, the healthcare team, community
members, faculty, and others
• Maintain appropriate professional boundaries and avoid exploitation of patients for any
sexual advantage, personal financial gain, or other private purposes
• Be able to identify potential conflict of interest arising from the influence of marketing and
advertising, as well as financial and organizational arrangements
Respect:
• Show respect for others, including appropriate grooming, punctuality, courtesy, nonderogatory
backroom discussions, inclusiveness, and use of acceptable language and humor
• Recognize and be sensitive to culture, race, disabilities, age, and other differences in order
to prevent health care discrimination
Altruism:
• Demonstrate altruism and advocacy by a commitment to promote health care needs of
patients and society
• Improve quality and access to care and a just distribution of finite resources
• Display compassion and empathy in words and deeds when dealing with patients, families,
peers, the healthcare team, community members, faculty, and others
Duty / Responsibility:
• Avoid engaging in patient care responsibilities if emotionally or physically impaired
• Complete duties in a timely fashion
• Maintain appropriate confidentiality
• Accept responsibility for errors and evaluate failures in education and patient care

• Recognize and accept personal limitations in knowledge, skill, and behavior, seeking
guidance and supervision when appropriate
• Identify and appropriately respond to unprofessional behavior in others
• Participate in defining, organizing, and evaluating the educational process for current and
future students
• Be willing and capable to work collaboratively and resolve conflicts in a variety of settings
to achieve optimal patient care and educational goals of all involved
Excellence:
• Commit to self-improvement, including being open and responsive to feedback, reflection
and self-evaluation, and actively setting and pursuing learning goals and applying
knowledge gained
• Recognize the role of wellness in the practice of medicine
• Apply legal and ethical principles to patient care, clinical research, and the practice of
medicine
Professional behavior in students is expected at all times, not just in the role of medical student while at
UCHC and affiliated teaching hospitals. Unprofessional behavior both in the personal and professional
setting reflects poorly on the individual, the SOM, and the University of Connecticut. All reports of
unprofessional behavior, including arrests, will be referred to the SOM Professionalism Incident Report
Triage (PIRT) regardless of the location where it occurred (see section II and IV below).
II. Reporting Violations of Professionalism
Any individual can report misconduct including but not limited to medical and dental students, program
directors, deans, faculty, residents and fellows, patients, or public person who has contact with the student.
Moreover, it is expected that students will self report unprofessional behavior. Self reporting
unprofessional behavior will be viewed favorably and can serve as an opportunity for self reflection and
improvement. Students must notify the school in the event they are arrested or cited for violation of Health
Center rules, or local, state, or federal laws (exceptions being traffic violations not involving impaired
driving); failure to do so would be regarded as a professionalism violation.
All incidences of professional misconduct should be reported to Professionalism Incident Report Triage
(PIRT). This is accomplished by completing a ‘Professionalism Incident Report’ (Appendix E) and
submitting the report by any of the following methods:
• E-mail to one of the PIRT Co-chairs
• Health Center mail to one of the PIRT Co-chairs (MC-1922)
• USPS mail to one of the PIRT Co-chairs (MC-1922, Office of Academic Affairs
and Education, University of Connecticut Medical School, 263 Farmington Ave.,
Farmington, CT 06030)
• Directly deliver to the Office of Academic Affairs and Education staff (AG-050)
An individual may not wish to personally submit an incident report and may decide to report the incident
to a member of the Honor Board or the Assoicate Dean of Student Affairs who will then be responsible for
completing a ‘Professionalism Incident Report.’ Although it is recommended that the reporting individual

identify him/herself in case further details are needed, this is not required to submit a report, the exception
being cases that involve protective statutes (eg. sexual harassment, domestic violence, and child abuse).
III. Reporting Exemplary Efforts in Professionalism
In order to fulfill the competency requirements in professionalism, all students graduating from the
University of Connecticut School of Medicine are expected to demonstrate and maintain a high standard
of personal and professional integrity as outlined in the University of Connecticut Medical School Code of
Professionalism (Appendix D). On some occasions, a student may demonstrate unusually meritorious
behavior in professionalism deserving of distinctive praise. For these incidents of commendation, a report
of ‘praise’ may be filed. Although submission of these exemplary accounts is directed towards
course/clerkship coordinators, the Associate Dean of Medical Student Affairs, and the Senior Associate
Dean for Education, any other individual can complete and submit a report of this nature.
This is accomplished by completing a ‘Professionalism Incident Report’ (Appendix E) and submitting the
report to Professionalism Incident Report Triage (PIRT) by any of the following methods:
• E-mail to one of the PIRT Co-chairs
• Health Center mail to one of the PIRT Co-chairs (MC-1922)
• USPS mail to one of the PIRT Co-chairs (MC-1922, Office of Academic Affairs
and Education, University of Connecticut Medical School, 263 Farmington Ave.,
Farmington, CT 06030)
• Directly deliver to the Office of Academic Affairs and Education staff (AG-050)
IV. Professionalism Incident Report Triage (PIRT)
Because of the varied categories of incidents that can occur, having one central depository for
professionalism issues is ideal to decrease confusion regarding where to submit reports. PIRT serves as a
central clearing-house for any matter, either positive or negative, concerning professionalism at the
University of Connecticut Medical School.
A. Membership
The PIRT is composed of 4 individuals chosen for their experience in dealing with matters of
professionalism. These members are:
• PIRT Co-Chairperson
• PIRT Co-Chairperson
• Associate Dean, Medical Student Affairs
• Faculty Advisor, Honor Board
• Medical Student Chair, Honor Board
The Co-Chairpersons shall be appointed by the Senior Associate Dean of Education. These two
positions are held for two year duration with re-appointments made at the discretion of the Senior
Associate Dean of Education. The appointments will be staggered, with the re-appointment of one
Co-Chairperson made each year.
B. PIRT Procedure

The PIRT Chairperson(s) shall review and act upon all reports and, after consultation with other
members of the committee, will determine the final destination of each report; this will be
accomplished within 4 business days of receiving a report. PIRT will consider already established
criteria (i.e. Honor Code, CHIPS referral criteria, etc.) when making this determination. The
destination of each report may vary, but some examples are as follows:
• PIRT student file
• Honor Board
• Confidential Help for Impaired Professional Students (CHIPS)
• Associate Dean, Medical Student Affairs
• Academic Advancement Committee (AAC)
• Professionalism Review Board (PRB)
• Local Law Enforcement
• Course/Clerkship Director
If a face-to-face meeting has not already been performed by the individual submitting the formal
incident report, a face-to-face meeting between the student and a PIRT committee member will be
held for all reports of a negative nature to ensure the student is aware of both the report and the
process of addressing each report. For those reports of a positive nature, a face-to-face meeting
with the student is encouraged but not required.
C. PIRT Student Files
All Professional Incident Reports that are submitted to the PIRT will remain confidential. A copy
of all negative incident reports submitted to PIRT will be placed in the PIRT student files. If a
negative incident report is not acted upon by PIRT, the file will be reviewed to see if the report is
an isolated event or indicative of a pattern of negative behavior. At the discretion of PIRT, if a
pattern is present (i.e. persistent tardiness to class/lab, absence from PBL, etc.), a summary report
describing the concern may be forwarded directly to the AAC.
All positive/exemplary incident reports submitted to PIRT will be placed in the PIRT student files.
Copies of each praise report will be sent to the student as well as to the student’s permanent file in
the office of Student Affairs and may be mentioned in their Medical School Performance
Evaluation (MSPE) as per the decision of the Professionalism Honors Committee.
All PIRT files will be retained in the office of Academic Affairs and Education and will not be part
of any permanent student record. Upon a student’s graduation, all related PIRT student files will
be destroyed.
V. Professionalism Review Board (PRB)
If a negative professionalism incident is determined to be of a serious and significant nature, but is
deemed by PIRT to necessitate investigation beyond the purview or scope of the Honor Board, the
Associate Dean of Student Affairs, or other report destinations, then this significant incident will be
referred to the Professionalism Review Board (PRB).
A. Membership

The PRB shall consist of 5 voting members, one non-voting member, and four alternate members
who shall attend each meeting and who may be designated by the PRB Chair to vote in the place of
absent member. These ‘core members’ are:
• PIRT Co-Chairperson – PRB Chair (voting)
• PIRT Co-Chairperson – PRB Case Officer
• Two (2) Student members (voting)
• Two (4) Alternate Student member
• Two (2) Faculty Member (voting)
• Two (2) Alternate Faculty Member
1. PIRT Co-Chairpersons: The two PIRT Co-Chairpersons shall decide between each
other who shall be PRB Chair and who shall act as PRB Case Officer. These roles
should be alternated with each respective incident report.
2. Faculty Members: Two members of the faculty will be appointed each year by the
PIRT Co-chairpersons, with voting status alternating with each respective incident
report. Each faculty member will serve a two year-term.
3. Student Members: The first year class shall elect one student during October; this
student will ideally serve a four-year term. In addition, during April of the second year,
the second year class shall elect an additional member to begin serving on July 1 st of
their third year and shall complete their term upon graduation. The students from both
the 1 st and 2 nd year class shall serve as alternates. In regards to the students from the 3 rd
and the 4 th year class, one student from each class will serve as alternate while the other
will serve as a voting member; voting status between the two should alternate with each
respective incident report. All elected students will serve on the PRB as long as they
remain members in good standing in their class. In cases of a student leaving
prematurely before the end of their term, supplemental elections will be held as
necessary.
4. Additional Members: At the discretion of the PRB Chair, additional ad hoc ‘non-core’
members may be added to the PRB roster depending on the case being investigated and
may be granted either voting or non-voting status.
B. PRB Procedure
• Any allegation that is brought before the PRB shall be treated as confidential by the
individual completing the formal Professionalism Incident Report as well as by the
members, alternate members, and ad hoc members of the PRB.
• The PRB Chair and PRB Case Officer may decide to assemble the PRB for a formal
investigation, or may choose to initiate a preliminary investigation to determine if the
reported breach of professionalism has merit. If the complaint is determined to be without
merit, both the student and the individual submitting the Professionalism Incident Report
will be notified of this determination in writing and informed that the process has been
concluded. A notation regarding the dismissal of this report will be placed in confidence in
the student’s PIRT file. No record or note of the report will be submitted to the student’s
permanent file in the Office of Academic Affairs. If it is determined that the complaint
indeed has merit, the Chair will assemble the board and determine the schedule of the
investigation. In the event of an absence of a voting member, the alternate faculty or
alternate student member shall serve as a voting member at the meeting. A quorum to
conduct business shall consist of 5 voting ‘core members’ of the PRB.

• The PRB Case Officer will be responsible for organizing the collection of material as well
as contacting witnesses and other relevant individuals.
opposite
C. PRB Investigative Hearing:
• The investigative hearing is scheduled by the PRB Chair at which a quorum of the PRB
must be present.
• Legal counsel or other external parties will not be present during the hearing. However, the
student being investigated may wish to invite a University of Connecticut Medical School
medical student, faculty member, or staff member as a personal advisor. This personal
advisor must agree to maintain strict confidentiality with regards to all aspects of the
proceedings. Although the personal advisor will not be allowed to speak on the student’s
behalf at the hearing, the student can confer with the advisor at any time during the
proceedings.
• If the PRB or student being investigated wishes, a video or audio tape recording or
simultaneous transcript may be made of the proceedings. This request must be made 2
days prior to the proceedings, and provided that the party making or requesting such
recording bears the financial responsibility for such recordings, the contrary party is given
reasonable opportunity to obtain a copy of such recording at his/her own expense, and any
such recordings are maintained in strict confidentiality with respect to anyone not a party to
the proceedings.
• At the hearing, the PRB Case Officer will outline the reasons for the investigation, after
which the student under investigation will be allowed to make a statement. The PRB Case
Officer will then present any evidence or witnesses deemed integral to the investigation.
Following this, the student being investigated will be given an opportunity to present any
additional witnesses or evidence relevant to the case. It is the student’s responsibility to
select and coordinate the appearance of these additional witnesses or collect and present
additional evidence. Both the student being investigated as well as members of the PRB
will be allowed to examine the evidence and ask questions of any witnesses as directed by
the Chair. At the end of the meeting, the student under investigation will be allowed to
make a closing statement, after which the Chair will then close the hearing.
• At the discretion of the PRB, a recess may be called at any time during the hearing. The
recess may be brief for the members of the PRB to consult in closed session, or it may be to
continue the hearing at a later date to allow for further investigation.
• With the formal closure of the hearing by the Chair, the PRB will meet outside the presence
of all parties and witnesses to discuss the investigation and make a final decision.
• In order to find the student guilty of a breach in professionalism, a majority of the voting
members of the PRB must cast votes in favor of such a finding.
• At the investigation hearing, in order for there to be a finding of guilty, the case against the
accused student must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing
evidence is defined as that evidence which convinces the PRB that the facts asserted are
highly probably true, and that the probability they are true or exist is substantially greater
then the probability that they are false or do not exist.
• If the evidence suggests that a violation of professionalism has occurred, the PRB Chair
will be responsible for composing a synopsis of the investigation proceedings and
conclusions, and forwarding this document along with any recommended disciplinary
actions to the AAC. The AAC will then determine final action on the case. The PRB Chair

will also be responsible for informing the student of the Board’s final decision both
verbally and in writing within 7 days after the final PRB proceedings. Both the PRB Chair
and another member of the PRB will be present when the student is verbally informed of
this decision. The PRB Chair is also responsible for advising all involved in the case that
the PRB investigation proceedings are to be considered confidential.
• If the evidence of the investigation does not indicate a violation of professionalism has
occurred, a summary of the investigation will be placed in confidence in the student’s PIRT
file. No record or note of the incident will be submitted to the student’s permanent file in
the Office of Academic Affairs. The PRB Chair will be responsible for informing the
student of the PRB’s final decision both verbally and in writing within 7 days after the final
PRB proceedings. Both the PRB Chair and another member of the PRB will be present
when the student is verbally informed of this decision. The PRB Chair is also responsible
for informing the witnesses and individuals involved that the case has been dismissed and
that the PRB investigation proceedings are to be considered confidential.

Appendix of Terms
PIRT = Professionalism Incident Report Triage
PRB = Professional Review Board
AAC = Academic Affairs Committee
CHIPS = Confidential Help and Information for Professional Students

APPENDIX E:
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Professionalism Incident Report
Type of Report (circle one) PRAISE CONCERN
Subject of Report (Student Name): Date of Report:
Person Submitting Form Date/Time of Incident
(include title and/or role): (time period if longitudinal observations):
Action Requested (circle one) For File Only Referral to Professional Incident Report Triage (PIRT)
I. Statement summarizing the behavior being praised or raising concern:
II. Describe in detail the incident(s) which prompted the completion of this form (attach additional
pages if needed).
III. Describe previous feedback and remediation which took place prior to the completion of this form
(attach additional pages if needed) if applicable.
IV. Summary of attempts to resolve this current issue and report of outcome, if any.
[NOTE: The following to be completed by a Member of Professionalism Incident Report Committee]
Student Subject of report:
I have read this description and discussed it with the individual who filed the report, and/or a representative of the
Professionalism Committee.
Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ___________________
Student signature on this form is intended only to verify that the student has reviewed the form with the individual
who filed the report, and/or a representative of the Professionalism Committee.
Student Comments:
Professionalism Incident Report Committee Member:
I have reviewed this evaluation.
Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ___________________
PIRT Member Comments:

Professionalism Categories
[NOTE: examples of behaviors deserving of recognition in each category are not all inclusive]
Professionalism Behavior deserving of special PRAISE:
Integrity
Student is honest and shows great integrity
Student significantly enhances the learning environment
Student shows superb ability to resolve conflict, respecting the dignity of all those involved
Respect
Student shows exceeding respect for peers and colleagues
Student shows exceptional cultural sensitivity to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability or socioeconomic status
Altruism
Student shows great empathy
Student has outstanding rapport with patients and/or families
Duty/Responsibility
Student can be relied upon to complete tasks and consistently does significantly more then expected
Student function as an invaluable team member
Student demonstrates exemplary commitment to honoring patient’s or family’s wishes
Excellence
Student seeks and incorporates constructive comments and criticism
Student recognizes difficulties and effects self-improvement
Student recognizes and accepts responsibility for errors or mistakes and makes great effort to rectify
Student creates an excellent learning environment
Student excels in communication either in writing (notes, e-mails, etc.) or verbally
Professionalism Incident warranting CONCERN:
Integrity
Student misrepresents or falsifies information
Student is abusive, angry, or critical at times of stress
Student uses his/her position to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients, families, or staff, and does not establish appropriate
boundaries
Student is dishonest
Student does not contribute to a good learning climate
Student is unable to resolve conflict, respecting the dignity of all those involved
Student does not use professional language or uses inappropriate language
Patient does not maintain patient confidentiality
Patient does not present in a professional manner by dress or demeanor
Respect
Student lacks respect for peers or colleagues
Student is insensitive to individual or family needs
Student does not relate well to staff or teachers in the learning environment
Student shows insensitivity to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or socioeconomic status
Altruism
Student is arrogant
Student lacks empathy
Duty/Responsibility
Student does not complete tasks in a timely manner
Student needs constant reminders in order to fulfill responsibilities to patients and to school
Student cannot be relied upon to complete tasks
Student does not accept responsibility for errors or mistakes
Student has inadequate rapport with patients and/or families
Student demonstrates inadequate commitment to honoring patient’s or family’s wishes
Student does not function as a valuable team member
Excellence
Student resists constructive comments or criticism
Student remains unaware of indadeqacies or difficulties
Student resists change

Appendix F:
University of Connecticut and University of Connecticut Health Center Codes and Policies
University of Connecticut Code of Conduct
http://www.audit.uconn.edu/doc/codeofconduct.pdf
UCHC Rules of Conduct
http://www.policies.uchc.edu/policies/policy_2002_03.pdf
Honor Code
http://medicine.uchc.edu/current/honorcode/index.html
Affirmative Action Policy Statement
http://www.policies.uchc.edu/policies/policy_2002_44.pdf
Conflicts of Interest in Research
http://compliance.uconn.edu/conflict.cfm
Drug Free Workplace and Alcohol Abuse Policy
http://www.policies.uchc.edu/policies/policy_2003_39.pdf
FERPA (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act)
http://web2.uconn.edu/ferpa/
Review of Alleged Misconduct of Research Policy and Procedures
http://www.policies.uchc.edu/policies/policy_2003_41.pdf
Sexual Harassment Prohibition Statement
http://www.policies.uchc.edu/policies/policy_2002_48.pdf
Common Space Use Policy
http://www.policies.uchc.edu/policies/policy_2002_50.pdf
Workplace Violence Task Force
http://www.policies.uchc.edu/policies/policy_2004_07.pdf
Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens
http://www.ehs.uconn.edu/Biological/ExCnPl.pdf

Committee on Undergraduate Medical Education (CUME)
Minutes of the Meeting
January 10, 2013
Chair: Rose, S.
Present (voting): Dodge, J.; Gray, M.; Guerrera, M.; Hand, A.; Henry, D.; Makoul, G.; Palma-­‐Sisto, P.; Rajan, T.; Regan, T.; Siegel, G.; Steele, C.; Watras, J.;
Present (nonvoting): Harrison, J.; Henderson, D.; Nestler, E. Thatcher, C.;
Guest: Ms. Barbara Ricketts
Meeting called to order at 4:39
Minutes of the meeting Reviewed. Minutes approved unanimously.
Grades and Transcripts (S. Rose) Dr. Rose explained that our process for grades and transcripts is currently not
in compliance with regulations for grades and transcripts. Dr. Rose noted the
following:
• Details on what the grades would look like on a transcript
• These policies would only apply to the incoming class and future
classes
• The main differences are:
• I will no longer indicate a fail and can only be used for an incomplete
due to illness, emergency or approved (via Student Affairs)
circumstance
• All courses and clerkships will have to determine if not meeting a
requirement of a course indicates a “C” or an “F”
• The C or F will be immortalized on the transcript with either a CP or CF
if completed in that academic year and if not, will remain permanently
• Withdrawals will be defined on the transcript as WF: Withdraw while
failing, WP: Withdraw while passing or WC: Withdraw with some
academic difficulty but the possibility of passing.
CUME Discussion:
• Reverse the last sentence in the document
• Concern that the document is missing a sentence regarding major life
events
Motion was made to approve the
document with the changes.
Unanimously approved.
Suggestion for Ms. Ricketts to go
back to the CUME and show how
the new transcript looks.
This will be presented to
Education Council.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 13

Professionalism Task Force Updates
(T. Regan)
• Suggestion that instead of bottom percentage of class, make it within
the percentage of the pass rate for the class – suggestion to remove it
entirely or else put the terminology: “Marginal Grades are
identified…”
• Passing assessments
• Clarify so that it is not student affairs making the grade – “The grade
should be initiated by the Course Director with the consent of Student
Affairs.”
• Discussion as to the relationship and communication between Student
Affairs and the Course Director
• Add: “GRADE OF INCOMPLETE CAN ONLY BE GIVEN WITH THE
MUTUAL CONSENT OF STUDENT AFFAIRS AND THE COURSE DIRECTOR
AND IS RESERVED FOR SERIOUS EMERGENCIES, ILLNESS OR SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AS APPROVED.”
• Change page 4 to final exam instead of shelf exam
• Registrar commented that this will assist students by defining the rules
The proposed policy includes the revisions requested by the CUME at the last
meeting. Dr. Regan noted:
• Changes included implementing a procedures for meeting with
students immediately and providing an explanation of the process
• Professionalism Review Board (PRB) details
• Details on how the student elections to the PRB will be held
• Small change needed to the number of voting members for accuracy
(5 voting members total)
• Clarification on voting members, alternate voting members with
students – suggestion for chair’s prerogative
• Discussion on the expansion of this group to include residents and
fellows – mechanisms are in place by nature of the PRB
• Voting/nonvoting status is not fixed so that the group can be
expanded if needed
• Comment that residents/fellows have their own mechanism
• Suggestion to lose the flexibility because there is no real need to
Motion made to approve the
policy as written. Seconded and
approved unanimously. Policy will
be moved on to Education
Council.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 14

Meeting adjourned at 5:29pm
expand the group
• Suggestion to leave it as it stands because reconciling these issues may
not be possible
• Comments that an odd number of voting individuals is important but
some discussion that may not matter as a voting member could
abstain
• Suggestion to give special voting privileges to one member of the
committee in case the number is not odd for voting – comments that
if voting is split so clearly than the topic needs more discussion and
then be voted on again or perhaps weighing on the side of the student
• Question as to how CHIPS relates to the triage committee and/or the
PRB – noted that a complaint can be investigated and then referred to
CHIPS but that CHIPS will not refer to the professionalism committee
• Successful completion of mandated CHIPS visit goes into a student’s
file until he/she completes the CHIPS program
• DUI arrest: Any student who is in violation of state or federal laws,
must report to the AAC
• Comments that each case is handled individually
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 15

Committee on Community and Continuing Medical Education
Minutes from the meeting on March 5, 2013 12-1pm, Library conference room
Members Present: S. Brocke, B. Caron, W. Hengstenberg, L. Huey(Chair)
Topic
Discussion Action
Minutes Minutes from the last meeting were previously approved and distributed to Drs.
Torti and Rose.
Office update Dr. Huey notified the committee that the (APA II) position in the CME office
was frozen due to financial deficits at the Health Center. He noted that it was
an unfortunate set of circumstances in that the position was terminated after the
position had been offered and accepted. The CME office is optimistic that this
is a temporary setback.
Journal-based CME
update
Yearly Activity
Director’s Questionnaire
Due to the circumstances, it was noted that though temporary, the CME office
will need to use discretion in what additional projects it undertakes.
Dr. Huey updated the committee as to the current participation of the Journal-
Based CME program: as of 3/1/13 there were 283 participants. It was also
noted that the feedback regarding the program is extremely positive (i.e.,
widespread appreciation in having the 5 required areas for CT physician
relicensure available 24/7 via internet access).
With the CME office needing to focus its efforts on day-to-day procedures, Dr.
Huey noted that expanding the Journal-Based CME into additional topic areas,
will need to temporarily be delayed.
The revised Activity Directors and Administrative Staff questionnaires were
given a final review. Both were approved for distribution.
In the near future, the CME office will look to create the questionnaire
electronically for future distribution.
Next meeting The next CCCME meeting will be held on May 7, 2013.
cc: Drs. Torti and Rose, and B. Schulz
None
None
None
Barbara: Send out final
questionnaires to Activity
Directors and Administrative
Staff. Compile results for next
committee meeting.
Barbara to distribute agenda
beforehand.
Education Council
March 21, 2013
Page 16