Curriculum Inventory Portal (CIP) Education Experts Focus Group Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 Curriculum Inventory Portal (CIP) Education Experts Focus Group Meeting Minutes The Curriculum Inventory Portal (CIP) Education Experts Focus Group Meeting was held at the Fairmont Hotel in Washington, DC on July 9-10, Moderator: Terri Cameron, AAMC Facilitator: Carmie McCook, Carmie McCook and Associates Scribes: Eric Wilkerson and Sara Hunt, AAMC Participants in attendance: John F. Mahoney, MD, University of Pittsburgh Chris Candler, MD, University of Oklahoma Kristi J. Ferguson, PhD, University of Iowa Erica Friedman, MD, Mount Sinai Colleen O'Connor Grochowski, PhD, Duke University Ginny Jacobs, MEd, MLS, University of Minnesota Joshua L. Jacobs, MD, University of Hawaii John Boothby, Virginia Commonwealth University Guest: Valerie Smothers, MedBiquitous Brian Mavis, PhD, Michigan State University Chandler Mayfield, University of California-San Francisco Jamie S. Padmore, University of Maryland David Resch, MD, Southern Illinois University Frank Schimpfhauser, PhD, University of Buffalo James M Shumway, PhD, West Virginia University Hugh Stoddard, MEd, PhD, University of Nebraska Britta Thompson, PhD, University of Oklahoma The general discussion opened with Eric Wilkerson providing an overview of the Continuum of Learning Initiative (CLI). Terri Cameron provided an overview of the Curriculum Inventory Portal (CIP) and explained the purpose of the Focu sgroup to generate ideas and suggestions for building the Curriculum Inventory Portal. Five small group breakout sessions were designed to break the participants up and facilitate intimate discussions regarding how the CIP could best meet the needs of curriculum deans and educational researchers. Questions were posed over a two-day period that targeted specific areas of development with the new portal. The breakout sessions and questions are outlined below, along with a summary of the highlights from the small group discussions. The last section of the document provides the participants top five major points from the Focus Group discussions. 1

2 Small Group Breakout Session 1: What do Curriculum Administrators, Curriculum Committees and Faculty need from a Curriculum Inventory System? Curriculum Administrators and Curriculum Committees need: To compare curriculum based on key features To find the best fit of curriculum maps Enable documentation of LCME standards and curriculum ID gap Raw data needed for custom reports (drill down from summary) The ability to look at curriculum threads To meet LCME needs Standardized terminology Flexible reporting system that enables you to look at assessment, content and objectives The ability to see non-course requirements (USMLE, ACLS, BLS, OSCE, etc) Look at extended curricular programs The ability to view entrance requirements Faculty need: Potential collaboration with institutions look at their learning objects Course discovery Great apps Curriculum development Ed research Comparative data (hours of instruction design) who taught it, when, where and how Techniques/Methods of Instruction Curricular time Outcomes testing mechanisms assessments Scalability # of students Reporting mechanism generated by an unbiased party Look at competencies (framing, learning objectives) Investigate innovative methods and ideas (e.g. TBL) The group suggested we keep the following in mind while developing the Curriculum Inventory Portal: Common nomenclatures Share governance policies around curriculum Faculty needs to be able to allow an applicant view to understand curriculum The longitudinal approach to look over UME, GME, and CME Portal should link to other professional societies Establish criteria for sorting Clustered for purposes of comparison existing clarification system Avoid redundancy in data collection pull from existing data 2

3 Small Group Breakout Session 2: What do educational researchers need from a curriculum inventory system? Learner outcomes Program outcomes Feedback loop Policy implications Comparative data Assessment processes Educational innovations Access to outcome data Access to methods Access to research outcomes Access to Research in Medical Education Access to JRLs Longitudinal AAMC data (centralized) for institutions (e.g. GQ, MSPS, AMCAS,MCAT, Finances, Faculty Information) The ability to define your own comparison report/control groups Individual tracking Learning spaces & technology Data clearinghouse/broker for outcomes data (NBME Subject Exams, USMLE, NRMP, Practice Location/Type) From a scholarship perspective what grants, tools, literature are available Incorporate a social networking component Tools for collaboration/social Networking Searches should include sources, bibliography, references in results (link to PubMed?) Quality Improvement Small Group Breakout Session 3: How do we build the concept of competencies into a Curriculum Inventory system? Define the word competency for the CIP Base on good medical practice (alternative spin on ACGME/difference between isms and behaviors Agree to a common goal set of competencies at the UME, GME and CME practice Link UGME competencies to interprofessional competencies Connection to assessment materials Should be reusable Should be shareable Mobile/Packageable Hierarchy - associating competencies together with the national standard being the hierarchy. Being able to share frameworks with other institutions/include domains/sub-domains Being able to share outcomes with other institutions Link to the innovations portal Learning trajectory Design searches to be top-down and bottom-up 3

4 Small Group Breakout Session 4: What canned reports should the Curriculum Inventory include? What custom reporting capabilities should be included? How should the data be summarized / displayed? Interprofessional Health (IPE) Continuum across IPE US, Canada, Europe, Asia Other designations? Canned Reports Should be simple and clear Based on LCME needs and other key informational needs Example of how this report is useful Based on outcomes/objectives/compete ncies The ability to look at what currently exists Reviewing LCME database Key national reports Custom Reports Require clear definitions Need to clarify permissions Streamline the interface, may not need to see every field listed Quick preview Summarized Reports Export to excel Consider/explore utility of 3D reports Simple graphs for certain types of data All reports should include the following features: Printable Exportable to Excel spreadsheets with active links and PowerPoint Drillable Pivotal The ability to mark reports marked variables, marked variables The ability to filter Ability to sort/pivot/include/exclude delimiter Easily retrievable and sort able Comparison issues Mobile formats Natural language Search engine 4

5 Small Group Breakout Session 5: Big Sky: What would make the Curriculum Inventory so valuable that everyone would want to use it (and keep their data updated)? Wizard option Auto accreditation documentation for LCME Have LCME mandate using the CIP system Can we track the use of the system from other institutions It would facilitate collaboration We want accuracy It needs to be fast Appropriate level of openness Linking across the continuum Low effort system High rate of participation/subscription Customizable Mileage program reward for utilization frequent flyer miles style incentive? Achieve some efficiencies Availability of accurate, comprehensive, comparative reports Integrate with other systems Interprofessional education Promote objective comparisons Integrate and maximize education across the continuum It would facilitate faculty development User friendly What are the BIG POINTS that the group wants us to walk away with? Top 5 points: Need for clear definitions terminology Unit of analysis should be based on and organized around outcomes/competencies User friendly A system that would be inviting Interface easy in and easy out intuitive vocabulary Need critical mass and to set data utility Additional take away points: This should be a staged project based on strategic priorities Leverage existing AAMC information databases Needs to be a flexible system communication outreach Institutional ownership Link to other sources of information Comparative data Integration of various competency systems Inventory of educational resources/policies Ability to profile institution 5

6 Next Steps: Terminology/Technology Focus Group (August?) Discussing standards for transfer for institutionally-built curriculum management systems External Vendors Focus Group (September) Discussing standards for transfer for commercial curriculum management systems; LCME will participate to share ideas with information these systems could/should track to assist schools with accreditation User Focus Group (October) Long-term power users to provide additional input re: reporting/data upload Education Experts Focus Group Follow-up at annual meeting (November 9, Noon) Ideas for Advocacy: Regional Meeting Activities Presentations? (e.g., med school faculty presentations) Updates? (e.g., AAMC updates on process; activity) Receptions? Annual Meeting Activities Presentations? (e.g., med school faculty presentations) Updates? (e.g., AAMC updates on process; activity) Receptions? Website Monthly updates Other? (User Groups, presentations at med schools, etc.) AMEE, Ottawa/APMEC Pitch to COD/GME/CME 6