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

Summary of 4-26-01 CME Minutes 

  1. Amendment to minutes of April 12, 2001

On page 2, second paragraph, second sentence, amended words are underlined:  Dr. Nosek said, The official curriculum is the electronic curriculum.  There remains contention over this issue, and it was pointed out that neither the Committee on Medical Education nor the Curriculum Leadership Council voted to endorse this stance.

  1. Student CME

The first year class had its elections for the Committee of Student Representatives (CSR).

  1. Report from the Committee to Review the Standing Committees presented at the April 23 Faculty Council Meeting

The Faculty Council did not take action on the report, tabled it, and requested additional information for the June 11 Faculty Council meeting, which is immediately followed by a meeting of the General Faculty.  Clarification of the new CME role will need to be approved in Faculty Council and then by the faculty-at-large.

(Background:  Dr. Martin Resnick, chairman of the Committee for Planning, Evaluating, and Administering the Curriculum, presented a new draft governance at the February 11, 2000 Landerhaven Medical Education Retreat.  Recommendations included that the CME 1) be removed from the day-to-day running of the curriculum but retain its hand in strategic planning, 2) take on an advisory role in overseeing and evaluating the curriculum, 3) review student performance on the NBME exams, and 4) be viewed as an independent group to evaluate all aspects of the curriculum and not as a legislative group.  The resulting document, Responsibility for the CWRU School of Medicine Curriculum, modifying the CME’s role for responsibility for the curriculum, passed at the March 13, 2000 Faculty of Medicine meeting.  The Faculty Council will ultimately issue what constitutes the new charge to the CME based on the feedback from the Committee to Review the Standing Committees.)

The CME has been criticized for “soft” agendas and unregulated discussion by the Committee to Review the Standing Committees.  (The CME has been in limbo for over a year since the Resnick report.)  However, the conclusion of the Committee to Review the Standing Committees was that there needs to be a CME to ensure that the faculty is still running the curriculum.

The CME is perceived as a policy board as opposed to an operations or administration branch.

The Committee to Review the Standing Committees recommended adding the chairs of the Curriculum Leadership Council (CLC), the Clinical Rotation Development Council (CRDC), and the electives program to the CME as voting members.  These three “councils” are not faculty committees.  Although they consist of faculty, they are created by the administration.  Therefore, to preserve the proper balance of elected CME members, it is suggested that the CME expand the portion of its elected members.  The Committee to Review the Standing Committees favors expansion of the number of elected CME members.

Dr. LaManna next presented his own DRAFT organizational chart.  All entities would be under the authority of the Dean of the Medical School, who has overall responsibility, the final say-so.  On Dr. LaManna’s chart, the base of the model is the curriculum, which encompasses 1) policy and evaluation, 2) content, 3) operations linked with 4) administration.  Dr. LaManna acknowledged that these four areas can overlap, but he is using them as “markers” to indicate where specific constituencies exert their influence on a particular area.  Subsequent to CME discussion, it was decided to make operations and administration one area.

The CME is the educational arm of the faculty.  The CME has responsibility for policy.  The CME reports to the Faculty Council, which reports to the general faculty of the School of Medicine.  Later in the meeting, it was suggested that we add the Student CME in a block immediately to the left of the CME.

Next mentioned was the Vice Dean for Education.  There will be a new Vice Dean for Education.  The Vice Dean appoints the chairs of the three councils:  The Curriculum Leadership Council (CLC), the Clinical Rotation Development Council (CRDC), and the electives program (which has not yet been renovated).  The CLC is involved with the Core Academic Program and the Introduction to Clinical Medicine in the first two years of undergraduate medical school.  The CRDC deals with the third year and includes the clerkship directors.  The electives program, currently called the Flexible Program, deals with enrichment and consists of Type A and Type B electives.  According to Dr. LaManna’s draft, the Vice Dean is in charge of the CLC, the CRDC, and the electives program, and all these determine content, or, “product,” as coined by Dr. Joe Miller.

The Vice Dean is also over the Medical Education Office and Coordinators.  This block has a link to the Dean’s Office and is in charge of operations and administration.  The Medical Education Office includes the Patient-Based Program Coordinator and the Director of Curricular Administration.

The Associate Dean for the Office of Biomedical Information Technologies reports directly to the Dean and, like the Medical Education Office and Coordinators, is responsible for operations and administration.

The content of the curriculum is defined by the faculty groups whose heads are appointed by the Dean/Vice Dean’s office and by the faculty involved in the day-to-day teaching in the subject committees and clerkships.  The CLC appoints the subject committee chairs.  The new suggestion that the appointed chairs of the three content committees (CLC, CRDC, and electives program) sit as voting members on the CME gives them a means of communicating their influence on content to the Faculty Council.

The CME adjudicates conflicts of the three groups (CLC, CRDC, and electives).  Dr. LaManna emphasized that his diagram is a cooperation diagram, one based on collegial relations.  The Dean has the final say-so when there is an irresolvable conflict.  Dr. LaManna’s diagram gives the spheres of responsibility and sets up a balance.  Every group has a place to register their input.

The CME is the only committee with student representation on the education diagram.  (Also, the CME is the only education committee with defined department chair membership.)

Dr. LaManna turned to the second page of his April 27 Draft of the Proposed Plan for 2001-2002 for the CME.  The CME plans to have regular monthly meetings (instead of bi-monthly) supplemented by ad hoc meetings as deemed necessary.  Regular agendas would consist of announcements, approval of minutes, Student CME, regular reports, CME subcommittee reports, and issues raised from the floor (time permitting).  All reports would provide a written report prior to presentation.  Dr. LaManna’s draft of reports listed the following:

  • Beginning and end-of-year reports from the CLC, CRDC, and Flexible Program directors

  • A yearly report on the electronic curriculum from the Associate Dean for Biomedical Information Technologies

  • A medical education report from the Vice Dean describing the CWRU School of Medicine’s relationship with affiliated teaching hospitals, the university, the 13 school consortium, and the national scene

  • An end-of-year report from the Associate Dean for Residency and Career Planning on residency match

  • A report twice a year on the dual degree programs

  • Regular reports on CWRU student performance on the USMLE Step exams

  • Entering class statistical profile from the Associate Dean of Admissions, and

  • A periodic review of the data from course evaluations of the subject committees, clerkships, and electives (as they become available electronically).

Dr. LaManna presented his list of suggested CME subcommittees.  He would like to establish the following topics as focused narrowly within CME interests as official subcommittees of the CME:

  • policies and standards of evaluation

  • vertical themes that span four years

  • faculty development that affects delivery of the curriculum

  • ad hoc subcommittees as needed

  • credentialing:  It is the goal of the CME to be the body representing the value of teaching to the faculty.

By May 10, 2001, Dr. LaManna would like agreement on his two-page draft handout so that it can be submitted at the Faculty Council meeting on June 11.  Please call Dr. LaManna with your ideas at 368-1112 or e-mail him at

See Curriculum Revision Update

Return to CME Home Page

This page was last updated on 5/4/01 by John Graham.

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