Faculty Development Committee Draft Minutes October 18, 1999 Attendees: Jacquelynn Copenhaver, Symon Satow, Dan Brody, Rosie Cannarella, Kathryn Greenlief, Ralph Utzman, Bob Foster, Norman Ferrari, April L. Vestal, Malinda Turner, Kathleen Bors, Mark Allen, JoAnn Raines, Patti Crawford, Sherri Payette, Helen Baker, Sandra Baker Rosie Cannarella called the meeting to order at 10:10 am. Introductions of those in attendance were made. The morning portion of the meeting was a joint session made up of the Faculty Development Committee and the School Committee. The issue to be discussed by the joint committee was a clarification of the role of the on-site clinical director, a position originally set forth by the Faculty Development Committee. In order to assess the expectations of the school committee, various members in turn spoke about their school's needs, and situations which have arisen in the field since the number of clinical RHEP have been expanded in the recent years. The list generated included the following: 1. Collation of grades if more than one preceptor. One grade per rotation is needed to be reported to the school. Who settles the grade issues if by some chance two grades are generated on an away rotation? Apparently, on campus, the rotation director would automatically collate the grades from various preceptors. 2. Supervision of community service, clinical service and community research/IRB awareness. There was concern that some of the health professional students are being asked to do things in the name of community service that they are not comfortable doing, or without field preceptor supervision. One occurrence, there was a professional in attendance, but she was not in the RHEP program, and was from another facility Shepherd College. 3. Encouraging MDTV use in the field: The school reps felt that there is very poor attendance at many of the MDTV sites to Pediatric and Medicine grand rounds, when there are students rotating in the field that could be benefiting from this experience 4. QA of Preceptors: who is monitoring the quality of the IDS sessions, as well as time spent with preceptors. 5. QA of Field Preceptors who are demonstrating undesirable role modeling behaviors who is monitoring and responsible for feedback to preceptors who are racist, anti-feminist, rude to patients etc.? 6. Assuring IDS sessions are truly interdisciplinary: someone needs to help those who give IDS sessions to make sure all disciplines are included in the discussions, especially if students are attending. Concerns and decisions regarding the above list are as follows: 1. It was decided that the grade/evaluation information should be sent to the respective medical school by the preceptor of record. The professional schools will name ONE preceptor of record, and it will be HERETOFORE stated that the ONE named preceptor of record will be the one whose grade counts. If that preceptor goes on a vacation, etc. then s/he will be responsible for appointing someone else to do the job, and file that information with the school. Helen Baker made a motion to revise TRACKER and put in lead preceptor (three months before rotation) with ability to choose on TRACKER as follows: a. any available preceptor b. preferred preceptor With response from Site Coordinator as follows: a. rotation approved b. preceptor unavailable at this time c. none available at this time A drop down menu of preceptors will be available so that when the school scheduler entered the rotation request in TRACKER, a specific preceptor would be entered. If that specific preceptor was not available there would be a query in TRACKER. "If preceptor is not available, do you still want this site?" The school scheduler would respond yes or no. The site coordinators would then respond back to the school 3 months prior to the rotation as to who the preceptor would be and this preceptor was responsible for the student grade. Motion carried by Dr. Satow and was unanimously approved. The committee discussed that a change in TRACKER may need to be voted on by the Advisory Panel. Kathleen Bors drafted a letter of explanation to go to all RHEP preceptors accepting WVU students, outlining the preceptor of record duties. 2. Site Coordinators are engaging students in community service that may or may not always be in the realm of what the student is comfortable doing. Maybe the student hasn't give flu shots yet, or the professional in attendance at the event is from a school not associated with RHEP. Who is responsible for these students? Care should not be provided without the supervision of a licensed professional, and supervision must come from an approved RHEP field faculty. Students at WVSOM are under the preceptor's malpractice insurance, while WVU has its own insurance. It was decided that the on-site clinical director would work with the site coordinators to approve all community service to see if it falls under the capability of the students. If the OSC director is not familiar with the disciplines "skills" and is not sure if s/he can make a decision, then the OSCD will call the school or the student's preceptor and ask that question. Third year students do not have mandatory research projects at WVU; however, if a research project has been approved and exempt status has been established or an IRB has been issued, proceed with the project, then the students may be affiliated with that project. This is another arena that must have OSCD approval or at least clarification. Site coordinators should take a team approach and use a broad spectrum of resources (i.e. on-site director, preceptors and schools). It was suggested that the Site Coordinators draw up a proposal/list of what students are in the process of doing and that schools draft a proposal /list of what needs to be approved. Protocol is to send to site coordinators, on-site directors, and onto preceptors. A number of sites do not always have students attending MDTV IDS sessions. Although, students on hospital rotations cannot attend the MDTV IDS sessions, it is good for students to attend these sessions while on rotation. Preceptors' point of view must be considered in regards to these sessions. Dr. Satow stated that students learn more from live patients. Kathryn Greenlief suggested that if preceptors have no patients at the time of the MDTV session, they could attend and possibly CME's and CEU's be given. Preceptors could also interact with the students. Making MDTV a requirement is not feasible. Taping is good for resources but not for credits. The goal is to increase the use of MDTV. The OSCD can encourage the use of MDTV sessions to both colleagues and students, but cannot require that the students attend. Maybe think of ways that the use of MDTV can be increased. About half the RHEP sites currently have MDTV access easily available (within one half-hour). 4. One medical school (Marshall) did an initial assessment that shows that a comparison of on-campus students and off-campus students on rotations show a measurable difference in their board scores. Their assessment is that the off-campus students do not have access to lectures and they wonder if that is why they are not doing quite as well. The only mechanism set forth to cover areas covered in lectures at the campus institutions is to provide field preceptors with a copy of the same syllabus as those have on campus. Preceptors have their own way of teaching and do not necessarily follow the syllabus. Are preceptors teaching core subjects to pass the boards? Would on-site directors/chairs be the one to go to regarding these needs? JoAnn Raines takes this up with the clerkship at the school and if there is no time to deal with the problem, the site is pulled. Preceptors need to teach according to the syllabi. This issue was not resolved and will need further evaluation and input from the RHEP leadership. FYI -- other schools report no known differences in on and off campus with their board scores. Dental and Nursing - fine Physical Therapy has not changed significantly - drop is due to computer based testing Medicine and Pharmacy - no data Core knowledge versus practical based knowledge that is learned in rural areas is not tested on the boards. The strongest part of RHEP is clinical areas. It was brought up that maybe some of the rural rotations should be done in 4th year as electives when the core bases have been covered in the third year. At Marshall University, students fill out a site evaluation and a preceptor evaluation. A computer based evaluation system may be used. Barry Linger may be able to help. Also, to make it easier for community preceptors to include core material to the students, maybe a brief outline of the core requirements (in lieu of a multi-page syllabus) could be provided by the schools to the field preceptor along with the students introduction papers. 5. There are no policies set forth for behavior except that nursing has a policy for students' behavior and pharmacy has a policy for students and preceptors at every site for every rotation. Do policies need to be set for preceptor behavior? There was no agreement on the responsibility role for monitoring preceptor behavior. Feedback should be done by the person who knows the preceptor the best, or the person who selected that professional to be an RHEP preceptor in the first place. It appears to the Fac. Dev. Committee that this is a school issue (or should be). Site Coordinators and campus coordinators are caught in between as they can address a situation but cannot resolve it. There needs to be RHEP leadership input on this issue as well. 6. The issue of IDS sessions was discussed. Many sites do not have enough students to have IDS. These sessions need to be truly interdisciplinary working as a team. Consensus of the group was that the site coordinator could elicit support from the OSCD to ensure that preceptors would be available to make IDS meet interdisciplinary requirements as this is part of their duties (See Policy 96-06 section b: providing clinical leadership, curricular aspects, interdisciplinary sessions, research and community service). OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED Imogene Foster read the task force goals for WVRHEP faculty development and they are as follows: 1. Improve Faculty/Preceptor skills in teaching and education administration 2. Improve Field Faculty knowledge of Program goals and policies 3. Provide feedback from Field Faculty to Program leadership 4. Provide interaction between Field Faculty and campus-based faculty/administration 5. Facilitate interaction among Field Faculty It is not clear if Field Faculty are beholding to their local board or to the school. This is a gray area. Part of the confusion here is that the campus faculty does not want to offend someone in the community if the "preceptors" are hired by the boards, and the site coordinators. The OSCD do not want to reprimand someone, if the school is really relying on that person to do a job for the school. Thus, the problem here is that maybe the leadership can reflect on that issue, and decide to whom the field faculty should "answer to". FAC DEV DAY REPORT: Mark Allen reported the Faculty Development Day was great. He felt that a portion of technology should be offered at each Faculty Development Day. Bob Foster and Helen Baker agreed. The technology petting zoo could be repeated. A suggestion of having a reception only and no dinner was made to cut down on costs. Helen Baker passed out a Field Faculty survey, which was reviewed and changes made by the Faculty Development Committee. When this survey is corrected and finalized, April will check with Hilda in regards to sending it out to the RHEP Field Faculty list for feedback. Sandra Baker gave an overview of sites available for the next Faculty Development Day. Snowshoe was available for any weekend in September and October except the weekend of October 14th and Canaan Valley was available for only one weekend. Glade Springs and Oglebay were unable to accommodate the committee on Friday through Saturday. A discussion on changing to Friday through Sunday was held. This would enable the committee to have more choices for FDD. Sandy will put a tentative hold at Snowshoe for October 6-7, 2000 until a decision can be made. Place will be decided on with communication over the discussion list. Jill Cochran has not been replaced on the committee. Recommendations for a replacement should be sent to the Vice Chancellor. It was suggested that Mary Boyd, a Pediatrician, be on the committee. December 1, 1999 is the set date for MDTV session. Sandy will apply for CME's and CEU's for this session. Next meeting will take place in Morgantown on December 2, 1999, 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM Imogene Foster will procure a meeting room. Meeting was adjourned at 4:10 PM.