West Virginia Rural Health Education Partnerships

Joint Outreach/Curriculum & Schools Committee Meeting

Monday, March 13, 2006

In Attendance: April Vestal, Elizabeth Richmond, David Brown, Haylee Heinsberg, Dan Brody, Sharon Giles, Richard Meckstroth, David Bowyer, Carla See, Sarah Miller, Hilda Heady, JoAnn Raines, Amber Crist, Kathryn Greenlief, Anna Reno, Kathleen Bors

Approval of Minutes – The September 12, 2005 Schools Committee Minutes were approved with the addition of Haylee Heinsberg in attendance.

Dan Brody discussed the work of the FDC on the components of the interdisciplinary session. The outcome of the joint outreach/curriculum and schools committees would be to reduce the number of negative complaints regarding interdisciplinary sessions by 50% within one year. There would be a set of learning objectives in place for IDS that students would have. The committees will be meeting jointly until a product or agreed upon approach is reached for this curriculum piece.

It was noted that the joint committees (Outreach & Schools) would give serious consideration to what the faculty development committee has done already. Dan gave an overview of the meetings held with school representatives regarding IDS feedback. Value to program in terms of IDS/service learning. Students have concerns with travel and time. Student evaluations show that there are a lot of good things mixed in with the negative comments. Suggestion to make sure Healthy People 2010 is used to address objectives around IDS experiences

Example: Show a PowerPoint presentation of objectives to deal with a project. Learning objectives would be developed to assure students see a connection with their curriculum to the session. The FDC is working on identifying different types of objectives to use them for the IDS’s statewide. Everyone would be focusing on the same disease state across the state (Ex: Feb. Breast Cancer). IDS/IDE would center around these objectives. We would still be leaving local decisions about how to handle the cases specifically up to the preceptor. There would also need to be an evaluation piece. This could be a way for field faculty to obtain the same respect, participation - this comes about by the student knowing that they will be evaluated and graded.

Travel is another issue - possibility of smaller and more localized sessions - this would take more resources but the quality would be better. This might mean that the number of sessions might be one per month rather than one per week. FDC is meeting April 20 and will be finalizing recommendations on policy changes.

Service learning would be set up the same way with learning objectives and reflection. On-line modules are being developed that sites could use.

Hilda asked the question about the role of consortia boards and prioritizing needs - they are to guide the types of projects within areas. If we go to the monthly goals - how does this affect the local goals that boards set? What is being proposed would have impact on this policy and that would need to be reviewed?

Dan - health issues are very similar or similar enough that many can be duplicated everywhere.

How do you deal with the highly motivated student who wants to do something different than the proposed project? Dan indicated this would not be a problem as long as they develop learning objective with their preceptor. This is a system for 80 percent of the students - the other 20 would have the option to decide what they would focus on.

Suggestion to use IOM recommendations - this will be part of the project

Whatever we come up with, move toward team approaches and team based projects as the focus of curricular activity.

There are problems with this, but we know this is the model that works best and we should be moving in that direction.

There is a lack of communication. This needs to be improved.

Dick said he is struggling with the difference of the sites and how it could be mandated, especially when many preceptors are not paid. There are not Dan Brody's at every site, so how are you going to deal with this? Reducing the quantity and going more with quality. The larger the consortia have become, the more travel students have to do.

Hilda said there needed to be a re-examination of the graduate outcomes developed in 2000 in the Visions Document.

Deadline/goal

IDS projects should be developed by July. These would be assigned to members of the faculty development committee. April will discuss with sites and get volunteers to pilot this project. Hilda asked that sites be picked that are going to give the best test. Sites that have good OSCD’s that can see it through should be considered for the pilot.

Project referred back to FD for work and then report back to committee.

Carla and Dave agreed to co-chair the meetings of the joint group.

Levels Policy - Date when schools would like to change the review date. It was decided that 4 years would be the cutoff. Beginning July 1 2006 the designation would be for 4 years. When there is going to be a change, the schools need to know in November, so that they can get information out to the students.

New designations would go out by November 2009 and be in effect July 1, 2010. Before a final decision was made, the committee agreed to poll site coordinators about this and get their feedback. This will be discussed at the next meeting.

There are drug screen requirements at some sites. What schools are requiring this?

Some hospitals are requesting a copy of the results or the student cannot rotate. Tell students that if they want to go to sites such as ARH, that the student will have to do this. Two sites such as this are in WV. The suggestion was to put this on the website and tracker when a student requests this rotation.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.