Shield of the SOM Committee on Medical Education
Home || New || Search Net || Search SOM

Summary of August 29, 2002 CME Minutes

Capsule Summary:   Dr. Murray Altose opened his first meeting as CME chair by highlighting three topics for consideration during today’s meeting:   1) outlining the specific responsibilities of members, staff, and guests, 2) focusing on the charge to the CME, and 3) establishing the agenda for the CME for this academic year.


1.          Elected and appointed CME members need to have the opportunity to participate and communicate maximally and optimally at the meetings.


2.          Specifically, Article II of the Charge to the Committee on Medical Education (endorsed by the Faculty Council and approved by the Faculty of Medicine on June 13, 2001), delegates to the CME responsibilities for evaluating, reviewing, and recommending goals and policies of the medical education program.  Two significant areas of CME involvement are developing/evaluating new approaches to medical education and CME oversight for overall goals and policies.  Dr. Altose views the CME as the body responsible for encouraging and promoting improvement and innovation in the educational programs.


In addition to elected members of the CME, there are council heads.  Councils represented by their appointed designates on the CME are: 1) Curriculum Leadership Council (CLC), 2) Clinical Rotation Development Council (CRDC), 3) Flexible Program, and 4) Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine (CCLCM) Curriculum Steering Council (CSC).  The Patient-Based Program is represented by its Coordinator.   Dr. Altose asked the various councils/course directors “to develop specific and explicit plans for curricular improvement and to report on their progress regularly during the year.”  Operational issues need to be addressed within the various councils.  


Dr. Altose invited Dr. Lindsey Henson to report regularly to the CME in her capacity as Vice Dean for Education and Academic Affairs.  In this role, she can present issues important to the Dean and the medical school administration.  The CME also solicits her support for those matters requiring the approval and action of the Dean.  Reports from Dr. Henson and Dr. Fishleder, co-chairs of the CCLCM Curriculum Steering Council, will provide the CME with the opportunity for review and evaluation of the new CCLCM curriculum.


During discussion, several issues were raised regarding the responsibilities and authority of the CME.  Dr. Altose views the faculty governance structure as circular in nature: 

The CME is charged by the Faculty Council for the review and evaluation of the educational programs of the School of Medicine.  The Faculty Council is the representative body of the general faculty, and the general faculty is responsible for the curriculum.  The various curriculum councils are made up of the faculty.  They have accountability to the CME, which in turn is accountable to the Faculty Council, the representative body of the faculty.


3.         Special initiatives that the CME could take on during the coming year:

a)      Faculty development and teaching initiative

Decision to design a plan to encourage continuation of the faculty development and teaching incentives initiative under way.

b)      Flexible Program

Need to devise a quality of teaching assessment of faculty sponsors in the Flexible Program.   Requirements for all electives:  1) explicit teaching objectives, and 2) evaluation by each student whether or not those teaching objectives were met.

c)      Student evaluation

Advisory Committee of the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) is emphasizing performance standards in the Dean’s Letter.  Our current Dean’s Letter is a letter of recommendation rather a letter of evaluation as requested by the AAMC.  We cannot change the content of the Dean’s Letter without giving the students ample notice.  Do we want to change the Dean’s Letter?  Dr. Altose asked the CME if the issue of student evaluation is worthy of our attention?  The consensus of members and discussants was “yes.”  The Dean’s Letter has potential for huge impact on 1) our evaluation process (i.e., our other evaluative tools), and 2) the curriculum.

d)      Vertical themes

Issues needing attention:  1) What constitutes a vertical theme? 2) Defining how to initiate the vertical theme. 3) Deciding who is to provide the care and maintenance for the vertical theme in order that it continue and thrive. 4) Promoting some new vertical themes and eliminating those stagnating with no development.

See Curriculum Revision Update section.

Return to CME Home Page


This website is maintained by the office of
Information Systems at the CWRU School of Medicine.