2-14-02 CME Minutes
February 6, 2002 Flexible Program
Advisory Committee Meeting – Dr. Charles Malemud, Flexible Program
Concern for the
ability of the faculty to obtain information and assistance in creating
Type A electives from scratch
– The Flexible Program Advisory Committee will get the word out to faculty
to contact the Registrar’s Office for these guidelines.
the CME was a major driving force behind the restructuring discussions
students accountable to performance standards by creating a two-tiered
system of electives—one
type of elective would award credit based only on attendance, the other
type would require writing a paper or passing an exam. At this time, the
ratio of the two different kinds of electives required has not been
Committee is in the process of collecting descriptions for courses
not offered here.
Need to tighter
the system so that credit for each elective is awarded only when the
accompanying evaluation is turned in to the Registrar
Dr. Malemud has an
appointment with Dr. Richard Eckert, chairman of the Committee on
Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure, to discuss acknowledging faculty who
sponsor electives in the promotion process
Dr. Marti Echols drew
up a list of objectives for the Advisory Committee to research as
pertaining to the Flexible Program. Committee members split up to
collaborate on investigating how:
increase their skills in critical thinking and analytical reasoning.
participate in clinical shadowing experiences with members of the
develop an individualized educational plan with assistance from an
Students will have
the opportunity to participate in scholarly research activities either
individually or in concert with colleagues.
pursue areas of concentrated in-depth study and study across traditional
Students will be
exposed to areas of controversy, emerging concepts, issues of social
relevance and changing technology in medical science.
Summary of latest
Teaching Incentives subcommittee meeting – Dr. Terry Wolpaw, chair
Dr. Norman Robbins, who came before the CME to get this endeavor
Merger of efforts by
the Teaching Incentives subcommittee and the faculty development program
approved by Dean Berger and under Dr. Smith’s direction. Dr. Clint
Snyder, who is directing the faculty development program, has
joined the Teaching Incentives subcommittee. Dr. Snyder is an expert
trained to help faculty improve their teaching in varying formats, such as
lecture and at the bedside.
bimodal distribution of faculty: 1) those who may devote much of
their time to teaching, and 2) those that teach only a relatively small
amount in the curriculum, but who may be large in number and impact
greatly on the curriculum. Also, discussion of the teaching effort
representative of the two groups: 1) basic scientists, and 2) clinical
Dr. David Lowenstein, Dean of Medical Education at Harvard Medical
School, and his differentiation of goals: 1) “Greener pastures,”
which encourages pragmatic improvement in what currently exists and
staying grounded and can often be readily accomplished, and 2) “Blue
skies,” which encourages one to dream “outside the box.”
Creation of a
full-day workshop consisting of small groups and didactics where
faculty would be invited to work on a project of their own choosing.
People would be paired with a mentor to assist with their projects. In
spring, the workshop group would get together again to report on the
progress of their individual projects and for further teaching workshops.
academies are already in
place at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) and Harvard
medical schools. Teaching academies have three objectives:
excellence in teaching
integrated approaches to undergraduate medical education
alternative means for distributing financial, educational, and
programmatic resources to support the educational mission of medical
UCSF and Harvard
belong to the National Academies Collaborative, which has
four major goals:
and infrastructure development
scholarship and research
function and dissemination
Advocacy for the
educational mission of medical schools.
Membership in such a
group would be advantageous for CWRU, because we would join a national
structure that will be a major force in looking at educational change.
Conclusion by Dr.
Lowenstein after analyzing the already tight budgets of academic medical
centers that new money dedicated to teaching was needed.
Financial support for teaching academies currently comes from institutions
and individual donors. The UCSF teaching academy has a funding of $7
million. The Harvard teaching academy has a funding of $10 million.
Getting admitted to
the teaching academy is merit-based. The individual applies—completes an
application—for a slot. There is no guarantee that the individual will
receive money. Participants include both full professors seeking a way of
acknowledging their many accumulated hours of teaching as well as junior
faculty beginning their contributions to medical education.
Dr. Smith reminded
the CME that the LCME site visit will take place March
10-13, 2002. He distributed
CWRU’s blue “Liaison Committee on Medical Education Summary Self-Study
Report, January 2002.”
Clinical Cancer Genetics for Vertical Theme Development – Dr. Georgia
Wiesner and Dr. Anne Matthews
Revision Update section.
Return to CME Home Page