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

Overview of 1999-00 CME Meetings

Arranged Chronologically by Meeting Date and Issues Discussed
(Detailed Digest Available Upon Request)

 

July 22, 1999

  1. Dr. LaManna welcomed the newly elected CME members:  Dr. Keith Armitage and Dr. Joseph Miller.

  2. Distribution of the Flexible Program Annual Report, 1998-1999, prepared by Dr. Tarvez Tucker, Flexible Program Coordinator

  3. Discussion of the recently instituted online versions of the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2

  4. Discussion of projected major tasks for the CME in the coming year

  1. Coordination of the vertical themes into a four-year curriculum

  2. Evaluation of the curriculum in quantitative terms

  3. Handling the development of pilot projects

September 9, 1999

  1. Dr. LaManna welcomed newly elected CME member Dr. Alan Cohen of Neurological Surgery.

  2. Distribution of brochure on the Masters in Education Program in Medical Education offered to both students and faculty through the joint efforts of the John Carroll University Department of Education and Allied Studies in conjunction with the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.  Contact John Carroll University, Department of Education and Allied Studies, phone (216) 397-4331 or (216) 397-4389, or e-mail crosemary@jcu.edu

  3. Student CME Report expressing dissatisfaction from a perceived loss of computer department services coupled with an increase in fees that the students are required to pay

  1. Closing of computer lab

  2. Discontinued free access to printing

  3. Additional $100 increase in computer fee used in part to fund the paper curriculum

  4. Reluctance to rely on the electronic syllabus as the sole curriculum

  1. Dr. Nosek’s reply

  1. Dean’s giving every student a computer eliminated necessity of spending $20,000 to replace all nonfunctioning IBM compatible computers in the 24-hour computer lab.

  2. Curricula for both first and second years are now upgraded regularly.

  3. Students can now download the portable syllabus onto their computer’s hard drive so that they do not have to rely on modem lines when they go home.

  4. Availability of computers in School of Medicine for residency application use and also for access to the electronic curriculum

  5. Dr. Nosek to disseminate a letter to each class via the ListServ containing a specific listing of computer services received by the students

  1. Curriculum Revision – Year Three Curriculum Project – Dr. Marjorie Greenfield

  1. Emphasis on overview of the third year to come up with 12-month structure outline by second retreat

  2. Retreats September 24, 1999 and November 12, 1999

  1. Curriculum Revision – Vertical Themes

  1. Representatives of 3 CME-approved vertical themes—Public Health, Geriatric Medicine, and Chronobiology and Sleep—have met with Drs. LaManna and Nosek to pursue integrating their material into the electronic curriculum.

  2. Guests Dr. Jerome Kowal, Dr. Amasa Ford, and Ms. Karen Ishler represented the Geriatric Medicine vertical theme, which is now online.  Its content outline will have multiple links indicating where that particular topic is dealt with in our curriculum.

  3. Discussion of how best to incorporate vertical theme material into CWRU curriculum—key contacts, resource tools, etc.

September 30, 1999

  1. Dr. LaManna welcomed Scott Walker, newly elected Year One CME student representative.

  2. Dilemma of CWRU early match students presented by Mr. Joseph Corrao, Registrar

  1. Dean’s Letter containing grades is not released until November 1

  2. CWRU School of Medicine transcript contains no grades

  3. Tentative temporary solution—Associate Dean for Residency and Career Planning to write cover letter listing core clinical rotations, clerkship sites, dates and grades

  4. Interest in re-examination of medical school transcript

  1. Identification of Potential Quantitative Evaluation Data for CME Review – Medical Students in Dual Degree Programs – Mr. Joseph Corrao

  1. “Bookkeeping” issue in determining number of CWRU students enrolled in joint degree programs—need for better ways of obtaining more complete data

  2. Need for ability to determine in advance exact numbers of M.S.T.P. (M.D./Ph.D.) students returning from a leave of absence

  3. Evaluation of joint degree students with respect to identifications on pre-clinical exams and number of “honors,” “commendation,” and “unsatisfactory” in clerkships; National Board performance assessment a possibility

  4. Some graduate courses have components that can satisfy Type A electives—graduate courses have department oversight; Type A electives are not overseen by anybody—potential to upgrade quality of Type A electives

  5. The Registrar to come up with a standardized annual report format based on today’s discussion

  1. Curriculum Revision – Year One and Two Curriculum Project – Dr. David Katz

  1. Curriculum Leadership Council to focus on Year Two

  2. Council’s work on examination policies to be formalized into a proposal that will come before the CME

October 28, 1999

  1. Proposal for End of Third Year Class Exercise – Dr. Jay Wish, Patient-Based Program Coordinator

    2. The following motion passed unanimously:

    That the last week of the last clerkship in the current third year be used as a whole-class weeklong curriculum to cover areas not addressed in the current core clerkships.  The Patient-Based Program Coordinator will provide oversight.  Students will be accountable for the content of the weeklong curriculum.

  2. Identification of Potential Quantitative Evaluation Data for CME Review – Medical Students in Dual Degree Programs

Distribution of updated table stating number of students, designated by class, participating in each dual degree program for fall 1999

  1. Analysis of performance of current third year class on the USMLE Step 1 that has just been completed

  1. Average score for 141 CWRU first-time test-takers from the class of 2001 is 220.5.

  2. Passing score is 179.

  3. This group of CWRU students had a 96.5% pass rate.

  4. Discussion about Year One Comprehensive Examination as a predictor of USMLE performance

November 11, 1999

  1. Student CME issues

  1. Suggestion that health care financial management be integrated into the curriculum

  2. Discussion of positioning of weeklong whole-class third year curriculum exercise

  3. CWRU students do not have the opportunity to take core clerkships elsewhere because of the need for accountability—quality oversight of all clerkships and LCME regulations stipulating that the clerkships must be equivalent at all sites.

  1. The Curriculum Content Group is composed of a varied group of individuals charged with systematically collecting the content of our curriculum (currently existing in a variety of formats) and indexing the curriculum using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings).

  2. Gates Mills Medical Education Retreat to be held Friday, February 11, 2000

  3. Identification of Potential Quantitative Evaluation Data for CME Review – Fourth year students’ matching profiles – Dr. Richard Aach

  1. There has been a sustained gradual fall in the numbers of CWRU students choosing Primary Care.  This year 42% of our students chose Primary Care

  2. This year’s graduating class is distributed in almost every specialty.

  3. At a future meeting, Dr. Aach will discuss match placement of CWRU students in the “top” residency programs taking into account response from CWRU residency directors and department chairs, 13-school Consortium response to a questionnaire, and U.S. News and World Report rankings.

  1. Curriculum Revision – Years One and Two – Dr. David Katz

  1. The following motion passed unanimously:

To approve the Curriculum Leadership Council’s policy on the grading of interim examinations as an accurate expression of current CME policy.

The subject committee chair has the following responsibilities:

  • Setting the prospective pass mark of the interim exam

  • Selecting examination questions

  • Having the sole authority to delete or change answers to a question that has been flagged in the technical analysis

  • Having sole authority to change a passing score after the exam has been graded.

The Committee on Evaluation and Standards (CES) serves in an advisory capacity to the subject committee chair.

  1. Outcome of revised Year One curriculum:  subject committee chairs, working together to provide a better coordinated and integrated curriculum, are making more efficient use of their time and have a structure in place to achieve true integration of basic science and clinical science.

  2. Plans for Year Two revised curriculum

  • Submission of a proposal to revise teaching of cancer biology and oncology

  • Curriculum Leadership Council to determine how much restructuring of Year Two will be necessary

  • CLC to examine issue of poor class attendance by students occurring after February in Year Two, when students opt to study for the USMLE Step 1

  1. Discussion of steps taken to address the problems in histology

Year Three

Dr. Greenfield has circulated a preliminary draft of the 12-month third year prior to tomorrow’s retreat of the Year Three Curriculum revision November 12, 1999

December 9, 1999

  1. Student CME

  1. Inconsistencies in legibility of graphics in hard copy of syllabus

  2. Reaffirmation of responsibility of subject committee chair to review syllabus before the students receive it

  1. Curriculum Revision – Year Three – Dr. Marjorie Greenfield

  1. Presentation of Proposed 12-Month Structure for Revised Year Three Curriculum Revision

  2. Maximum flexibility obtained with interchangeable rotations of equal length

  3. Three sixteen-week blocks can be done in any order.

  4. Abundant opportunities for collaboration between clerkships

  5. The following motion passed unanimously:

The CME endorsed the proposed twelve-month Year Three schedule presented by Dr. Marjorie Greenfield for the 2000-2001 academic year.  Dr. LaManna wished to indicate for the record that the CME approved the process by which the twelve-month schedule evolved and enthusiastically endorsed passing it along to the Faculty Council for the next step in the implementation process at its December 20 meeting.

Year One – Dr. Elizabeth Patterson and Ms. Kathy Cole-Kelly, ICE co-directors

Update on the Integrated Clinical Experience (ICE)

  1. August 1999 implementation of the newly merged Core Physician Development Program (CPDP) and Clinical Science in the Year One required course, the Integrated Clinic Experience (ICE)

  2. Deliberate effort to coordinate with concurrent basic science subject committees

  3. 36 volunteer faculty preceptors for the 18 groups that meet every Tuesday morning through May

  4. Student attendance at Monday morning 8:00 a.m. lectures needs attention.

January 13, 2000

  1. Accidental release of secure exams with their answers included to some students for study purposes prompted recognition of the error; question-by-question review of the cardiovascular exam affected; and discussion with regard to exam security, diminished pool of high-caliber secure questions, and efficiency of the current system for administration of exams.

  2. Identification of Potential Quantitative Evaluation Data for CME Review – Analysis of CWRU School of Medicine Graduates and Top Residency Programs over the 1995-1999 Time Period – Dr. Richard Aach

  1. The trend has been declining in the proportion of our graduates that go to CWRU-affiliated residency programs:  32.6% of graduates from the Class of 1995 entered CWRU-affiliated residencies, while 20.7% of graduates from the Class of 1999 entered CWRU-affiliated residencies.

  2. “Top” residency programs nationally were determined using two sets of criteria, neither of which is perfect

  1. U.S. News and World Report, which provided annual rankings of top medical schools, hospitals, academic, and clinical programs

  2. CWRU-affiliated program directors and chairs of each clinical department were surveyed—15 of the 20 CWRU-affiliated specialties responded

  1. CWRU graduates have trended in a positive direction, increasingly gaining entry into more top residencies during the last five years

  1. In 1995, approximately 18% of CWRU students gained entry into the top 20 residency programs (number includes CWRU-affiliates).

  2. In 1999, 30% of CWRU students gained entry into the top 20 residency programs (number includes CWRU-affiliates).

February 10, 2000

  1. Year II Examination Proposal

The following proposal, passed unanimously by the Curriculum Leadership Council January 12, 2000, was passed by the CME at the February 10 meeting by a vote of 5 in favor, 1 opposed:

  1. Students must pass all Year II subject committees in order to advance to Year II.

  2. Identification on a Year II interim examination must be remediated.   Students must successfully complete remediation prior to beginning their Year III clerkships.

  3. Remediation must be evaluated by an examination.  The content and format of the examination will be determined by the subject committee chair.

  4. Failure to remediate successfully will automatically require that the student appear before the Committee on Students for evaluation.

  5. Students remediating a Year II subject committee identification should be given credit, equivalent to one Type A elective, for their remediation effort.

For the record, it was stipulated the dissenting CME vote opposed giving elective credit for remediation.  One of the CME members who voted in favor of the proposal also expressed his opposition to stipulation #5.

Proponents of point 5 felt this policy change would:

  1. Acknowledge the student effort required for remediation

  2. Unload some of the requirements for a remediating student

  3. Be in line with precedents existing in the Flexible Program for giving students elective credit on material that is intended to enhance performance on the core

Opponents of point 5 disagreed with the policy change based on these issues:

  1. CWRU philosophy views the Flexible Program and the core as two distinct domains

  2. Logistical problem—elective periods do not coincide with the subject committee schedule

  3. Purpose of the Flexible Program is for student to excel, not to review core material

  4. Concern for anonymity of students remediating in elective courses

  1. The Curriculum Leadership Council strongly endorsed, by a vote of 11-2, the following recommendation to the Committee on Students:  That the threshold for considering whether or not a student will repeat Year II be lowered from 4 to 3 failures of Year II interim examinations.  This threshold obtains regardless of the outcome of any remediation.  This last recommendation was not voted upon by the CME.

  2. Curriculum Revision
    Geriatric Medicine and Aging vertical theme

Dr. Jerome Kowal, Dr. Elizabeth O’Toole, and Ms. Karen Ishler returned with a midyear demonstration updating their progress.  The Geriatrics vertical theme went online in September 1999.  By June 2000, it is projected that the Geriatrics theme will link to the newly revised Year I curriculum.

Geratrics Web site contains:

  1. Content outline developed in detail with links to horizontal components of the CWRU curriculum and links to additional Web-based resources

  2. Content areas broken down into basic and enhanced material

  3. 13 learning objectives to be mastered by graduation

  4. Links to various relevant educational offerings

  5. Seamless integration of basic biomedical and clinical content

February 24, 2000

  1. Student CME applauds prosections done for Gross Anatomy and desires funding to continue this activity.

  2. Continuation of discussion of Year II examination proposal

Divided support for the “fifth point”—awarding credit equivalent to one Type A elective for a successful remediation effort.  Points of discussion

  1. Waiving the requirement for elective credit during the period of remediation

  2. When remediation should take place

  3. Whether or not to prevent remediating students from taking an elective during the remediation period

  1. Update on Physical Diagnosis pilot and proposal to expand new course format to entire Year I class in fall of 2000 – Dr. James Carter, Dr. Baha Arafah, Dr. Ted Parran, Ms. Teri Novak

Dr. Arafah’s presentation

  1. Background on traditional PD, update on PD pilot currently offered to all first year Primary Care Track students, and desire to expand new course format to entire Year I class in fall 2000 – Dr. Arafah

  2. Traditional Year II Physical Diagnosis requires approximately 60 preceptors over the two semesters, calling for an approximate 40-hour commitment from each preceptor for one year.

  3. Year I PD pilot, incorporating fourth year student preceptors and standardized patients, began in September 1998, involving as many as 34 first year Primary Care Track students.

Ms. Novak’s presentation

  1. PD pilot owes its design to former PCT student Daniel Stadler who developed the model for his senior project.  Dr. James Carter and Ms. Teri Novak implemented it.  Fourth year students get one Type B elective credit.  Standardized patients are paid.

  2. Positive results from the PD I pilot

  • Focuses on mastery of basic interviewing/Physical Diagnosis skills and normal physiology

  • Provides a venue for fourth year student preceptors to sharpen their PD skills, prepare for the teaching requirements of residency, and learn to give constructive on-the-spot feedback

  • Fosters very positive collegial relationships between fourth- and first- year students

  • Addresses consistency of teaching problem inherent in the traditional Year II PD course where 60 busy faculty serve as preceptors

  • Coordinates with basic science so that core committees can provide students with background information in advance

  • Already developed a highly popular Clinical Skills Reference Library of videotapes, CD-ROMs, and texts

  • Encourages senior projects such as the Cardiac Exam Web site to enhance a particular PD component

  • Complements core material and helps first year students with gross anatomy

  • Re-energizes first year students—“the best part of the week”

  • Provides first year students with confidence to venture out into the community to work with practicing physicians

The PD pilot course runs from late September to winter break.  The current PD pilot meets Monday evenings from 5:30 to 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. in clinical space, when patients are gone.  The ratio of 30-to-34 students to one doctor is manageable with 5-6 standardized patients and 12 fourth-year student preceptors per night.  If expanded to the entire Year I class, four nights a week could be used for the PD course.

  • Objections centered on satisfying the following issues:

  • Is there sufficient faculty manpower to expand the pilot to the entire Year I class?

  • How would funding for the standardized patients be generated?

  • How would the evening requirement impact on first year students with families?

  • Are we comfortable adding something to a revised Year I curriculum whose outcomes are not yet known?

  • Desire to examine academic performance anonymously of those participants in the PD I pilot

March 9, 2000

  1. Role of the electronic curriculum – Dr. Tom Nosek

  1. Purpose:   to seek CME endorsement of the electronic curriculum (everything we have in electronic format—exam system as well as electronic syllabus)—and of the procedures relating to it

  2. Five points for endorsement

  1. The content of the Electronic Curriculum is the official syllabus for the medical curriculum.

  2. The Print Syllabus will be made from the Electronic Curriculum.

  3. The Electronic Curriculum will contain for every faculty/student interaction throughout the four-year curriculum

  1. The title of the interaction

  2. The name of the professor with a link to the professor’s home page if available

  3. The e-mail address of the professor

  4. A list of learning objectives for the interaction

  5. The resources that are needed for the student to achieve the learning objectives (either as original material, links to web-based resources, or references to other resources or exercises:  ex. books, labs, small groups, etc.)

  1. In order to provide feedback to the students, faculty will provide for each interim exam question:

  1. A short descriptive phrase

  2. The location in the Electronic Curriculum where this topic was introduced

  1. The procedures described in the October 20, 1999 memo from Dr. Nosek re:  “Electronic and Print Syllabus” will be the procedures used to create and update the Electronic and Print Syllabus and to create the interim and first year comprehensive examination.

  1. Procedures memo categorizes

  1. What is needed from the faculty for the electronic and print syllabus

  2. What the Syllabus Office will do

  3. What MD Labs will do

  1. Students expressed desire for a hard copy of the syllabus superior in quality to what is currently received when the material prepared for the electronic curriculum is printed out.

  1. Revisitation of Alternative to Elective-Credit-for-Remediation Component of Curriculum Leadership Council Proposal – Consensus could not be reached

  1. Division over awarding credit for remediation

  2. Divided opinion over requiring as opposed to encouraging students to drop electives when remediating

  1. Curriculum Revision – Year Three – Contemporary Learning in Clinical Settings (CLICS) Continuity Groups – Dr. Marjorie Greenfield

  1. Clinical Rotation Development Council’s (CRDC) support for introducing continuity learning groups during the third year to deal with “unowned” core topics (“orphan” topics)

  2. CRDC projects

  3. Sources for CRDC data collection

  4. Goals for CRDC projects

  5. Principles and priorities

  6. Resources available

  7. Decision to integrate discipline-specific objectives (such as Ophthalmology, ENT), some communication topics, some vertical themes and some ethics into the clerkships

  8. Decision to meet other goals, such as professionalization and continuity of relationships via the continuity learning groups

  9. Composition of each CLICS group:  2 faculty preceptors, 1-to-2 fourth year students, 10 third year students

  10. CLICS groups to meet every third Tuesday of the “month” from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., once per 4-week block for 12 times across the year

  11. Students to bring their own personal experiences to discuss rather than using pre-planned cases

  12. Pros and cons of implementing CLICS as separate from the clerkships

  13. Desire for a flexible enough program so that Henry Ford affiliates could take CWRU students

March 23, 2000

  1. Year I class opposition to making the electronic syllabus the official syllabus to be addressed by Dr. Nosek

  2. Recommendation that Physical Diagnosis, as currently implemented in the Physical Diagnosis I pilot of the Primary Care Track be expanded to include the entire Year I class beginning for the class of 2004 entering in August 2000.

There were none opposed and one abstention.

  1. Existence of certain Type B electives in the Flexible Program recognized as precedents to reach the consensus that giving elective credit for remediation may be unfair to students deserving enrichment, but it is not inconsistent with existing policy.

Motion to let the fifth component of the Curriculum Leadership Council’s Year II Exam Requirements for promotion to the third year stand as originally passed by the CME February 10:  “Students remediating a Year II subject committee identification should be given credit, equivalent to one Type A elective, for their remediation effort.”

Recommendation that this issue be reconsidered when the Flexible Program is re-evaluated.

April 27, 2000

  1. Curriculum Revision –Update on the Initiative to Incorporate CLICS (Contemporary Learning in Clinical Settings) Continuity Groups into the 12-Month Third Year – Dr. Marjorie Greenfield

  1. Plan:   to take all students off the clerkships for a fixed late-afternoon two-hour time period (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) every third Tuesday of the four-week block for a meeting at a central site—either the School of Medicine or a combined UH/School of Medicine site

  2. Composition of each CLICS group:  8-10 students, 1-2 faculty members, maybe 1 fourth-year student

  3. 12 curricular modules are planned throughout the year—one to be done at each CLICS session

  4. Advantages offered by the CLICS groups

  1. Continuity of relationships between students and faculty and between students with their peers

  2. Time for students to reflect on their individual experiences

  3. Acceleration of student improvement early in the year

  4. Improved student relationships with their patients and with the staff

  1. The motion that the CME endorse the CLICS (Contemporary Learning in Clinical Settings) continuity groups for the third year beginning the third week in July 2000 passed unanimously:  6 in favor, 0 opposed.

  1. Perception of the CME’s role in light of the report from the Dean’s Committee for Restructuring the Governance of the Educational Program, chaired by Dr. Martin Resnick

  1. Dr. Resnick’s committee is officially called the Committee for Planning, Evaluating, and Administering the Curriculum.  New structure approved in March 2000 calls for CME with primarily an evaluative role and creation of three curriculum leadership councils for Basic Science, Clinical Clerkships, and Flexible Program.   In preparation for meeting with the Committee to Review the Standing Committees that convenes every five years, Dr. LaManna requested input from CME members and other regular discussants.

  2. Suggestions/comments as to the role of the CME

  1. “Conscience” of the curriculum—Without the CME, there is no faculty group responsible for balance in the four-year curriculum.

  2. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the curriculum on a regular basis—longitudinally over all four years and compared with other medical schools

  3. CME represents the faculty as a whole.  It ensures excellence of the curriculum via content, delivery, assessment and evaluation.

  4. Problem raised:  possibility for a bias to occur within any of the three specific curricular councils—how is a conflict resolved?  There is a need for checks and balances with a faculty committee charged with examining the balance and evaluative overall performance of the curriculum.

  5. Need for CME to have power to implement the many and interesting tasks it can initiate

  6. CME tasks to impact on the School of Medicine’s

  1. Competitiveness in attracting students

  2. Evaluation of our own students compared to the rest of the world’s medical students

  1. A forum to raise major objections, divergent views—If the CME did not exist, how would information get disseminated?  Nobody can just go to Faculty Council.  The CME reports to the Faculty Council, which has the power to make issues known to the greater faculty.

  2. The three councils of the Resnick report have a responsibility to keep the CME informed of evaluation of their outcomes.

  3. Facilitation of the educational process, oversight of the curriculum “process”

  4. Recap of some responsibilities of the CME

  1. “Conscience” of the curriculum

  2. Competitiveness for students coming in

  3. Competitiveness for students going out

  4. Vertical themes

  5. Charge to do pilot programs, solicitation of pilot programs

June 8, 2000

  1. Results of the Year I comprehensive examination:  mean 73.4%, reliability coefficient 0.95, 8 identifications

  2. Report from the Dean’s Committee for Restructuring the Governance of the Educational Program—the Committee for Planning, Evaluating and Administering the Curriculum—by Dr. Martin Resnick, chair, with clarifying remarks by Dan Anker, Ph.D, J.D., Associate Dean for Faculty and Institutional Affairs

  • Dr. LaManna has been meeting with the Committee on Committees that examines the various committees to see if their charges need updating.  The new document described by Dr. Resnick, Responsibility for the CWRU School of Medicine Curriculum, and discussed as an hour-long component of the educational retreat agenda at Landerhaven February 11, 2000, and passed at the March 13, 2000 Faculty of Medicine meeting modifies responsibility for the curriculum and the CME’s role.  In the fall, the Faculty Council will give the new charge to the CME based on the feedback from the Committee on Committees.

  • The Vice Dean of Academic Affairs, a full-time position, has direct supervisory responsibility over the three curriculum councils, the day-to-day implementation of the curriculum, the CME, the Faculty Council.

  • The major change indicated by the new document is that the day-to-day operations of the curriculum are handled by the Vice Dean. The CME, however, will continue with the strategic planning.

  • There are three curricular councils each with its own chair—basic science, clinical clerkship, and Flexible Program.

  • There was discussion whether it had really been the committee’s intent to require a full-time equivalent position to lead the basic science leadership council, although this had been brought up initially.

  • The Vice Dean will have supervisory responsibility over “day-to-day” implementation, but not over the content of the curriculum.

  • The CME needs to be kept apprised by the curricular councils, especially where areas overlap, even if the Vice Dean will make the final decision.

  • The CME has the perspective of four years.  Vertical themes come through the CME.  The individual chairs of the three curricular councils would respond to CME recommendations concerning the vertical themes.

  • Two divergent viewpoints on CME faculty membership

  1. Requiring at least some elected CME faculty members be either current or former subject committee chairs or clerkship directors, because they possess longitudinal perspective and expertise in the curriculum, which is important for making informed policy decisions.

  2. Opposition to restrictions on membership that would create a hierarchy requiring service in one group before being able to serve in the second group.  This could lead to a biased approach.  Also emphasized was the ability to be “out in the trenches” seeing the students on the wards without having served in either of the aforementioned capacities.

June 22, 2000

  1. Discussion on disappointing student turnout for the required Third Year Whole-Class Exercise which involved significant faculty effort to cover topics not addressed or mentioned briefly during the year

  2. Dr. Jay Wish, Patient-Based Program Coordinator, presented highlights of the 1999-2000 Patient-Based Program Annual Report.

  3. Distribution of Physical Diagnosis Director Dr. Baha Arafah’s 1999-2000 Physical Diagnosis Annual Report

  4. Dr. Ted Parran, Jr., Co-Director of the Integrated Clinical Experience (ICE) gave an overview of the program for 1999-2000.  ICE, the result of merging Year I Clinical Science and the Year I Core Physician Development Program, will be renamed Introduction to Clinical Medicine (ICM) for the coming year.

  5. Dr. Charles Malemud, Core Academic Program Coordinator, completing his term of service, presented his 1999-2000 Year II CAP Annual Report.

Return to CME Home Page


This page was last updated on 8/14/00 by John Graham.

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