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

CME AGENDA - October 8, 1998

  1. Approval of Minutes
  2. Announcements
  3. Student CME
  4. Continuation of Discussion of Proposal to Change the Exam System
  5. Curriculum Proposal Development
  1. Chronobiology and Sleep--Drs. Kingman Strohl and Ronald Novak
  1. Other Business
  1. Discussion of Authorization of Additional Curriculum Themes along the Model of    the Public Health Theme
  2. Discussion of CME Role in Defining Teaching Incentives

 


 

Summary of 10-08-98 CME Minutes

 

1. Update on two Henry Ford pilots proposed for the first and second year classes lasting either two or four weeks to be conducted this year. Dr. William Renehan is the contact person for the Henry Ford pilot project (e-mail: wreneha1@hfhs.org). Note that the character following the "a" in the e-mail address is the number "1" not the letter "l." CWRU will select the best time, and Dr. Renehan will coordinate with the proper group at Henry Ford. Focus is presently on identifying an area of the curriculum that will offer a successful piloting opportunity.

2. The first whole school Clinical-Pathologic Conference has been scheduled for Friday, November 20, 1998, from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. for students in all four years of undergraduate medical education.

3. Introduction of Abbie Miller, newly elected year one CME representative.

4. Student and faculty concern over recent changes in the Flexible Program policy made by the Flexible Program Coordinator’s committee that apparently:

a) Require 4 of the 13 Type A electives to be in basic science

b) Restrict certain courses—primarily in the field of Alternative Medicine—to second year students and consider them as inappropriate for first year students. First year students are prevented from signing up for these Type A electives since no first years have declared the required Area of Concentration to take them.

Year two student representative, Ms. Dorsey and students and affected faculty assembled were concerned because these changes seemingly 1) were made without receiving any input from either the students or the faculty teaching these courses and 2) were not brought before the CME prior to implementation. Discussion went back and forth debating the manner in which the CME becomes involved. Opinion varied depending on whether one’s interpretation considered the Flexible Program committee’s action 1) a major policy change, which should involve the CME prospectively, or 2) simply a day-to-day running of the curriculum, which is under the authority of the Flexible Program Committee Coordinator with subsequent oversight of the CME. Ms. Dorsey spoke for her constituents by requesting that the electives program revert to how it has been in the past, since the committee apparently made significant changes without obtaining input from the students and faculty teaching the newly restricted courses beforehand. Dr. LaManna, on the other hand, felt that there is a process in existence and that students and involved faculty should first appeal to the committee that made the decision. The issue of undermining the coordinators’ authority was also raised. Dr. LaManna did acknowledge, however, that timing is a major problem. After much discussion, the following motion and amendment passed: 5 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstention:

That the CME respectfully request that the Flexible Coordinator consider a delay in implementing the new restrictions regarding the Type A electives in the first year so that they are to apply to the class of 2003.

That the Flexible Program Coordinator and her committee make a presentation before the CME regarding these changes.

5. Curriculum Revision Update

6. Discussion of CME Role in Defining Teaching Incentives

Dr. LaManna introduced his handout on "The Role of the Teacher at CWRU." He provided background for his paper and proposed that recognition of the faculty member as a teacher needs to be made more explicit. Dr. LaManna suggested that every faculty member be required to teach 50 hours per year, which amounts to approximately one hour per week. He suggested using the annual review form to document faculty teaching efforts. There could be up to 50 faculty members, excluding coordinators, who teach more than 250 hours annually. They would be making significant contributions in curricular design, administration, and evaluation. Each faculty contributor in this group would receive salary support equal to a 25% effort capped at the NIH maximum. In addition, a $1,000 bonus would be awarded to each of these faculty members at the end of the year. The "fifty" would be peer-reviewed and chosen by a committee. Dr. LaManna deliberately left the teaching proposal flexible. It was his intent to include the entire education effort.

Return to CME Home Page



This page was last updated on 10/27/98 by Colin Richmond.

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