rowansom outcomes assessment plan - rowan university · 2020-04-08 · the outcomes assessment plan...

RowanSOM Outcomes Assessment Plan

Office of Assessment and Evaluation

& Program Evaluation and Student Assessment (PESA) Committee

Revised January 2018

2

Introduction RowanSOM is dedicated to providing the highest quality medical

education, research, and health care services. The guiding principles of Diversity, Service and Quality & Excellence inform all elements of the institution’s mission. An underlying emphasis on primary health care in all areas of our mission reflects ties to an osteopathic philosophy. The school is committed to developing compassionate physicians from the broadest spectrum of backgrounds, who are dedicated to becoming leaders in their communities and in clinical and academic medicine. In fulfillment of its mission, the school engages in ongoing assessment in search of evidence for congruence between the institutions’ stated mission, goals, and objectives and the actual outcomes of its academic program in order to improve the quality of its education.

The Outcomes Assessment Plan serves as a blueprint for the assessment

of the institution’s education mission. The plan encompasses Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation 1) reaction, 2) learning, 3) behaviors and 4) results in the assessment of three core areas:

1) Curriculum/Program Effectiveness 2) Student Performance Outcomes 3) Academic Performance Outcomes

Each of the core areas of assessment includes a continuous quality

improvement process in which data are used to inform institutional change and curriculum reform. This process and its components are published on the Assessment and Evaluation website: http://www.rowan.edu/som/education/assess/index.html

A curriculum management software (one45) is used to support data

collection across all four years of the curriculum and to enhance the accessibility of data to key stakeholders. Refer to the Appendix for a summary chart which outlines the assessment targets, outcomes measured, assessment level, data sources, timelines and individuals involved in the CQI process in each of the three major areas.

A a series of Institutional Effectiveness reports is provided to the school’s

leadership by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation; the report series serves to elucidate trends, analysis and outcomes for each of the core areas of assessment. Reports in the series address national board trends, competency tracking, clinical skills capstone performance, mission-based trends, and post-graduate residency evaluation among RowanSOM students, and across time.

In an effort to promote greater transparency of information to all

stakeholders and better support student performance tracking, a new Assessment Dashboard called SOMetrics is currently in place. The Assessment Dashboard streamlines the process of relaying information to key stakeholders, and analyzes key performance indicators (KPIs) on students such as:

What is assessment?

Assessment is the

systematic collection,

interpretation and use

of information about

the effectiveness of the

institution and its

educational programs

in an effort to improve

student learning and

achieve targeted

outcomes. The

assessment cycle begins

with defining the

desired outcomes which

subsequently drives

curriculum delivery and

provides the

foundation for the

assessment process.

http://www.rowan.edu/som/education/assess/index.html

3

• National Benchmarks • Risk Factors • Performance Measures (Grades, OSCEs, COMAT, COMLEX) • Competencies/EPAs • Curriculum Effectiveness/Comparability • Graduate Outcomes (Match, Residency Performance, Board Cert.)

Several distinct dashboard modules have already been released, while other modules are still under development.

The released modules include: 1) Student Performance Profile - Includes individual student grades, board exam scores, pre-medical

school history and performance, and history of changes in a student’s academic status. 2) School Profile - Includes geographic, demographic and performance of entering students, grouped

by academic year of admission. This also includes enrollment trends by academic year. 3) National Benchmarks / Institutional Metrics - Includes comparisons of Rowan SOM vs. national

averages of COMLEX & COMAT performance with trends by academic year. This also includes trends of student feedback to national AACOM surveys as part of the Rowan SOM Institutional Effectiveness Series reports.

Modules under development include: 4) Curricular Analysis - This will include breakdowns of Curricular Mapping (i.e. Competencies, EPAs,

Organ Systems, etc.), student feedback of course/clerkship and instructor/preceptor performance, and course grade histograms and trends.

5) Alumni - This will include student match information, practicing information, and alumni survey results.

6) Other reports - TBD

Curriculum/Program Effectiveness: Courses and Clerkships New curriculum competencies were adopted by the Curriculum Committee in 2017. The school has

identified 37 specific competencies across six domains which are aligned with national standards established by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM). Osteopathic manipulative medicine, often separated as a 7th competency, was integrated into each of the six core domains to elevate its importance in the curriculum and ensure integration in all the areas of instruction. Each course, module and clerkship in both the traditional and the problem-based learning curricula is expected to address and provide learning opportunities, which are linked to the established competencies, to develop effective measures to assess student performance, and to ensure satisfactory achievement. Following initial mapping efforts by the Curriculum Committee and Academic Affairs, the Dean for Curriculum has embarked on a comprehensive curriculum mapping project, utilizing one45 to ensure that all the required competencies and course learning objectives are addressed and assessed in the curriculum.

RowanSOM’s curriculum assessment plan examines the effectiveness of its traditional and problem- based learning (PBL) academic programs in the context of the expected competencies and includes distinct strategies for 1) Courses and 2) Clerkship education. As the number of students enrolled in the Problem-Based Learning Curriculum increases, additional distinct strategies are likely to evolve in order to sufficiently monitor and continuously improve PBL performance standards and outcomes. Initial methods to assess PBL include existing strategies for the traditional curriculum. Outcomes that are measured as part of the overall assessment of the curriculum include reaction and performance measures:

4

1) Course and Clerkship Evaluation – students rate each course and clerkship on learning objectives,

content, instruction/learning experiences, administration/organization, feedback, and overall quality through an online survey administered at the end of each course/clerkship (see Appendix). Mean course and clerkship ratings are reported and tracked over time and compared to overall mean ratings as a component of the annual curriculum review process. Similarly, students evaluate the Problem Based Learning on effectiveness of case-based learning modules, and courses (On Doctoring and OMM), as well as the overall effectiveness of PBL program in terms of program objectives, program content, learning resources, feedback, assessment, program administration and overall experience.

2) Instructor, Preceptor, and Facilitator Evaluation – students rate each faculty instructor and preceptor on preparation, content, teaching skills, teaching environment, student participation and feedback, as well as overall effectiveness (see Appendix). Instructor and preceptor evaluation are new components of the schools’ evaluation process. Mean faculty performance is compared to overall mean performance. Problem-Based Learning and Small Group Facilitators are evaluated in a similar fashion, on a number of skills and traits related to effective facilitation of learning.

3) Course and Clerkship Performance – mean final grade performance, pass rates, and trends in grade distributions are analyzed to evaluate the overall effectiveness of courses and clerkships. Trends in COMAT and COMLEX performance by discipline and content area are compared across years and to national benchmarks. PBL students performance are also tracked and compared across years to both traditional students and national benchmarks.

4) Comparability Analysis (Clinical Education Plan only) – a detailed analysis of key performance indicators for each of the major clinical hubs is conducted annually. The specific indicators that are compared include student survey mean scores, clinical evaluation mean performance, national exam performance (COMLEX, COMAT), and departmental assessments (written exams, OSCEs). Differences by hub are compared for statistical significance. An overall analysis of these differences is summarized by clerkship.

5) AACOM Graduation Survey- annual graduation survey results are examined for trends in satisfaction with amount of content by subject area, satisfaction with clinical training, and self-reported confidence among other indicators. School data are compared to national benchmarks to identify areas of relative strength and/or weakness.

Curriculum Review Process

RowanSOM has a Course and Clerkship Review Policy and Procedure, which provides an in-depth

explanation of the process and the forms that are used. Following is a brief summary of the components of the annual and comprehensive reviews that are completed.

An annual review of individual courses and clerkships for both the traditional and PBL curricula, is conducted at the end of each academic year. The Office of Academic Affairs completes a detailed review of all courses and clerkships, as well as instructors and preceptors based upon student survey data. The results are individually reported to the Directors, Department Chairs and faculty. In addition, the Office of Assessment and Evaluation prepares an annual report on the curriculum based upon a focused review of survey results, grade distributions, COMLEX and COMAT results and PESA findings. The report includes recommendations to the Assistant Dean for Curriculum, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the Curriculum Committee.

A comprehensive review is conducted on all required courses and clerkships once every three (3) years by the PESA committee. The review is conducted by PESA members who utilize a standard checklist. The comprehensive review process is designed to be an in-depth holistic evaluation of course/clerkship performance based upon multiple data sources including program data, student performance data, and student feedback as described below.

Program Data

1) Syllabus [Source- Course Director or Learning Management System]

5

2) Learning Management Site Materials [Source – Course Site] 3) Prior PESA Review [Source – PESA]

Student Performance Data (Past 3 years)

1) Grade Distributions [Source – one45] 2) Clinical Evaluation Scores [Source – one45] 3) Exam results – Mean Scores [Source – one45] 4) OSCE Results – Mean Scores [Source – one45] 5) COMLEX Subject-Specific Results [Source – NBOME, Assessment Office] 6) COMAT Performance [Source- Assessment Office] 7) Competency Performance – Mean Scores by Domain [Source – one45]

Student Feedback Data 1) Student Evaluation of Course Report and Mean Rating – Past 3 years [Source - one45] 2) Student Evaluation of Instructor Report and Mean Ratings – Instructors & Course Director -

Current year [Source - one45] 3) Student Evaluation of Clerkship Report and Mean Rating– Past 3 years [Source - one45] 4) Student Evaluation of Preceptor Report and Mean Ratings - Preceptors & Course Directors -

Current Year [Source - one45] 5) Student Reports (Class Reports to Curriculum Committee) – Current year [Source – Academic

Affairs] The PESA lead reviewer presents a summary report with recommendations to the full committee for

discussion. Based upon the results of the comprehensive review, a course receives an overall rating of: met standards, met standards in some areas, or did not meet standards; each overall rating is further distinguished with commendations, recommendations or required actions. A rating of ‘did not meet standards’ is given if required actions from the previous PESA course review are not met, or if there is a required action in each of the three domain areas reviewed (Course Content, Student Performance, Student Feedback). Item Review Process

PESA also conducts a post-hoc exam item review for internally-developed exams on a scheduled basis. A

designated PESA reviewer evaluates the effectiveness of sample (a minimum of 50%) of exam items in a given course/clerkship utilizing standardized review criteria established by the committee. Exam reliability, item difficulty (p value), item discrimination (point biserial), distractor analysis, overall item performance, as well as item mix (level of difficulty, clinical cases, requiring critical thinking) are reviewed. Items are also critiqued with regard to format, and institution-wide category tagging, including competencies. Exam reviews are presented at monthly PESA meetings and a detailed report indicating items in need of review, and a summary report with overall metrics is compiled and sent to Course Directors. Continuous Quality Improvement Process

Evaluation findings are disseminated widely, in an effort to promote transparency, which is critical to

ensuring the data supports continuous quality improvement efforts. Student survey reports are disseminated individually to Course and Clerkship Directors and Department Chairs. A follow-up survey is then disseminated to track quality improvements that were implemented, or are planned; the feedback survey allows course and clerkship directors to report proposed changes in content, format, instruction methods, and other curricular innovations.

Annual Curriculum Review report is disseminated to the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Assistant Deans for Curriculum and for Clinical Education, Chairs, Course and Clerkship Directors,

6

Curriculum Committee, PESA and the Director of Academic Affairs. Presentations on the review findings are presented annually to Academic Chairs and the Curriculum Committee including student leadership.

The comprehensive course and clerkship reviews completed by PESA are summarized in a final report. The report is disseminated by the PESA Chair and the Associate Dean for Assessment to the Course or Clerkship Director, Department Chair, and the Assistant Dean for Curriculum. A 360 review meeting is then conducted with the course or clerkship director, the Assocaite Dean for Assessment, the Assistant Dean for Curriculum, and the PESA Chair. Department Chairs and the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs are invited to join the meeting on an ad hoc basis. The meeting provides a forum to discuss the comprehensive review findings and recommendations, as well as discuss areas of challenge. Outcomes from the meeting and specific action plans are documented in a summary table that is distributed back to all participants. The 360 follow up is important component of the quality improvement process and is a method for documenting efforts to improve program effectiveness. A summary report of the recommendations and final course rating is provided to the Curriculum Committee on a semi-annual basis.

The item review findings and summary reports are disseminated by the PESA Chair and Associate Dean for Assessment to the Course or Clerkship Director. A 360 review meeting then takes place, wherein the particulars of a courses’ exam item review are discussed, and questions answered about how to best modify and improve the quality of future exams. Course and clerkship directors are then required to report corrections and modifications that were made to exam items.

Student Performance Outcomes The assessment of student performance outcomes focuses primarily on measurable student and

graduate outcomes linked to the school’s overall mission and the RowanSOM learning competencies. Longitudinal datasets and the SOMetrics dashboard have been established to track student performance measures across all four years and to analyze predictors of success. Data collected on each student include admission data (MCAT, GPA, etc.), medical school performance (grades, competency scores, COMSAE, COMAT, COMLEX, etc.), graduate medical education placement data and residency performance measures. These outcome data are examined at the level of the student and the school.

1) Competency and EPA Performance

RowanSOM competencies are specifically linked to assessments across the curriculum in both courses and clerkships and include both knowledge and performance components. This allows the school the ability to track individual student performance and overall competency outcomes across all four years of the curriculum. Competency data is currently reported annually as part of the Institutional Effectiveness Series and is under development to be included in the SOMetrics dashboard for individual student counseling.

a. Knowledge Component – Knowledge-based competency performance is assessed through internal exams. RowanSOM competencies are specifically linked to exam items in all courses using ExamSoft. The SOMetrics dashboard is currently being expanded to include a visualization of student competency-based knowledge performance over time to an established benchmark and in comparison to peers (e.g. box and whisker plot, spider graph). Individual student performance by competency domain and specific competencies is recorded at the end of each academic year and as a composite at the end of pre-clerkship training. Overall mean performance and the percentage of students performing above the cut score of 70% are reported annually.

b. Performance Component- Performance-based competency performance is assessed through standardized patients (SP) encounters/OSCEs across all four years and clinical preceptor ratings in MSIII/IV clerkship training. Graded SP encounters in On-Doctoring, OMM and Geriatrics provide competency-based performance measures in MS I/II. Duirng MS III, Objective

7

structured clinical examinations (OSCE) are graded requirements in 7 of the 8 core clerkships. At the end of the MS III year, all students are also required to pass a Comprehensive Clinical Skills Exam (CSCE). The 8-station OSCE assesses minimum competence in history taking, physical examination, interpersonal and communication skills, documentation, clinical reasoning and OMT. The competency-based clinical preceptor form (see Appendix) provides competency-based reporting for each student by clerkship and longitudinally across all clerkships in One45. Performance data from both SPs/OSCEs and preceptor ratings will be combined in the SOMetrics dashboard to reflect student performance compared to an established benchmark and in comparison to peers (e.g. box and whisker plot, spider graph). Overall mean performance and the percentage of students performing above the cut score of 70% are also reported annually.

c. Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) – EPAs are mainly assessed through multiple occasions during clerkship training. For all MS III core clerkships, clinical preceptors also rated their entrustment levels on students using Preceptor Evaluation of Student Instrument. Elements of the CSCE checklists are tagged to the RowanSOM competencies and the 13 core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). In addition, three separate instruments have been developed to assess EPA-based skills. Entering and Discussing order and Prescription (EPA 4) is assessed during MS III Geriatrics and Pain OSCEs; Oral presentation of clinical case (EPA 6) is assessed during Geriatrics and OMM clerkships; patient handover (EPA 8) is assessed dring Geriatrics clerkship.

2) National Testing Data Performance on the national osteopathic licensure written examinations (COMLEX I, II and III) and subject exams (COMAT) serve as an objective assessment of basic science and clinical knowledge. COMLEX IIPE provides an objective assessment of interpersonal, communication, and clinical skills. The Assessment Office monitors pass rates and mean performance, analyzes school trends and national benchmarks. Data are shared with curriculum directors, Chairs, and Deans. Results are used by department education committees to inform curriculum reform. Scores, including performance by specialty, are used by the assessment committee, curriculum committee and the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to target curricular improvements. The data is also reported in the annual curriculum review which is disseminated to all Chairs and Course and Clerkship Directors.

3) Graduate Medical Education Placement Rates

Student success in the osteopathic and allopathic national residency match is an indicator of the competitiveness of our academic program and student success. The percentage of students who placed is compared to the national rate as a benchmark. The percentage of students placing into primary care residencies is also collected as an assessment of the school’s primary care mission. These data are collected and analyzed by the Department of Academic Affairs and presented to the Deans, PESA, Curriculum Committee and Academic Chairs.

4) Residency Performance Student’s preparation for and success in their first year of residency is also an important indicator of the effectiveness of the academic program. A Residency Director evaluation form is sent for each graduate at the end of their PGY I year of training. The survey assess graduate performance on the 13 core EPAs on a standard entrustment scale. The results of the survey are reported to the Deans, PESA, Curriculum Committee and Academic Chairs.

Continuous Quality Improvement Process

Student performance outcomes in each of the areas are widely disseminated to promote transparency,

which is critical to ensuring that data supports continuous quality improvement efforts. The Dean, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Associate Dean for Assessment, Assistant Deans for Curriculum and

8

Clinical Education, Chairs, Course and Clerkship Directors, the Curriculum Committee and PESA all serve a critical role in monitoring outcomes to ensure the effectiveness of the academic program, identify predictors of success, and ensure students are competent to graduate.

Academic Performance Outcomes Academic performance measures are primarily focused on the institutional success related to admission,

matriculation, retention, and graduation. It is the goal of SOM to recruit the best and brightest students and provide them with the environment and institutional support leading to high rates of retention, graduation, and program completion within a four year period. In addition, SOM is dedicated to maintaining its success in matriculating a gender-balanced class, who is ethnically and academically diverse, while focusing its recruitment pool within the State of New Jersey and its medically underserved areas.

The following outcomes are collected annually and tracked across years by the Admissions Office, the

registrar and Alumni Affairs. Admissions Outcome Measures

1) Academic rigor of accepted students: data are collected on admission GPA and MCAT scores to assure that academically highly qualified students are matriculated. Data are also used in an analysis of predictors of student success.

2) Diversity of accepted students: admission data are monitored to ensure the school fulfills its mission of diversity. Percentage of female students is utilized to assure a gender-balanced class; percentage of under-represented minority students is tracked to assure an ethnically diverse class.

3) Percentage of students from New Jersey and medically underserved communities- data are tracked to assess the school’s success in recruiting in-state residents especially from underserved areas that would allow future placement of physicians in the state as a component of the schools’ mission.

Retention Outcome Measures

1) Graduation rate for class admitted 5 years prior- this outcome is used to assess overall student retention and academic success.

Alumni Measures

An Alumni Survey is sent to graduates in order to assess the effectiveness of our academic program and accomplishment of our school’s mission. The specific outcomes tracked by the alumni office are:

1) Percentage of graduates who complete residency training 2) Percentage of graduates with medical licensure 3) Percentage of graduates with board certification 4) Percentage of graduates who practice as primary care clinicians 5) Percentage of graduates who practice in medically underserved areas/sites 6) Percentage of graduates who practice in state and overall geographic area of practice The administration of this survey begins 5 years after graduation, allowing respondents the time and

experience of clinical practice to reflect their satisfaction and preparedness. The office of Alumni Affairs administers the survey and prepares a summary report for the assessment committee, curriculum committee, and the Deans.

9

Implementation of the Plan The Outcomes Assessment Plan is developed by the Associate Dean for Assessment and the Assessment

Specialist in collaboration with the PESA committee. The plan is viewed as a living document that is adapted to respond to innovation in the field and changing needs within the school. Data in each of the three core areas is monitored by a number of key stakeholders (refer to Outcomes Assessment Plan summary table). These individuals ensure the implementation of the process and the analysis and dissemination of the resulting outcomes.

Appendix

• Outcomes Assessment Plan Summary Table • Student Evaluation of Course Instrument • Student Evaluation of Clerkship Instrument • PBL Program Evaluation Instrument • PBL Student Evaluation of Case-Based Learning Modules • Student Evaluation of Instructor Instrument • Student Evaluation of Preceptor Instrument • PBL Student Evaluation of Instructor for On Doctoring and OMM • PBL Student Evaluation of Course for On Doctoring and OMM • Student Evaluation of Small Group Facilitator Instrument • PBL Student Evaluation of Facilitator Instrument • Preceptor Evaluation of Student Instrument • PBL On Doctoring Preceptor evaluation of Student for Primary Care • PBL On Doctoring Preceptor evaluation of Student for Acute Care • PBL Facilitator Feedback for Student • Entering/Writing a Prescription Faculty Guidelines for Teaching and Scoring (EPA 4) • Preceptor of Oral Case Presentation Rubric (EPA 6) • Handover patient Rubric (EPA 8)

Updated July 2014 RowanSOM Office of Assessment and Evaluation

RowanSOM Outcomes Assessment Plan Summary Table

Assessment Target Outcomes Measured Level of Assessment/

Purpose of Assessment Data Source Submission Timeframe Monitored By

Curriculum/Program Effectiveness Program Measures

Student Course Evaluation(Traditional & PBL)‐ Course/Module evaluation survey results ‐ Clerkship evaluation survey results ‐ Course comments strengths/ weaknesses ‐ Class reports to Curriculum Committee ‐ Instructor evaluation ‐ Preceptor evaluation ‐ Facilitator evaluation Course (Traditional & PBL) /Clerkship Performance ‐ Exam grade distribution across yrs ‐ Final grades distribution across yrs ‐ Clinical Eval. grades distribution across yrs ‐ OSCE grades distribution across yrs ‐ COMLEX, COMAT performance by Discipline/Content Area and Overall

‐ Correlation course/clerkship data with national testing performance

‐ Annual Curriculum Review Analysis ‐ Hub Comparability Analysis ‐ One45 Student Log Analysis ‐ PESA Course Review Reports ‐ PESA Item Review Analysis AACOM Graduation Survey ‐ Graduation survey and Trends

Kirkpatrick – Level I Reaction. Used to assess learner perceptions and improve training based upon identified trends in individual course/clerkship

Kirkpatrick – Level II Learning

Assess amount of learning and to determine if curriculum adequately prepares students

Kirkpatrick Level I – Reaction

Evaluate student experience at SOM. Overall satisfaction with school curriculum, services, support and preparation

Academic AffairsOne45 Academic Affairs Assessment OfficeOne45 NBOME AACOM

End of term/Academic year End of term/ Academic year Annually

Academic Dean Assessment Dean Curriculum Dean Clinical Education Dean Academic Affairs Course/Clerkship Directors Chairs Curriculum Committee PESA

Student Performance Outcomes National Test Performance Competency Performance

National Test(NBOME) Performance‐ COMLEX, COMSAE Annual results – school/national mean, pass rates

‐ Comparison of longitudinal trends ‐ Correlations of test performance with other student data (Admissions, grades)

‐ Mission and Benchmarks Report

Kirkpatrick – Level II/III Learning and Behavior

Benchmark against national standards

Identify predictors of success Required for graduation and

medical licensure

Assessment OfficeNBOME

Spring ‐ COMSAE End of test cycle COMLEX I, II, III

SOM DeanAcademic Dean Assessment Dean Academic Chairs Curriculum Committee PESA

Student Grades and Competency Assessments‐ Longitudinal tracking of student performance (exams, OSCEs, grades) across 4 years

Kirkpatrick Level III – Behavior Measure to assess the transfer of learning to practice skills

Assessment OfficeOne45 ExamSoft

End of term/Academic year

Academic Dean Assessment Dean CSC DO N

OT USE O

R REDIS

TRIBUTE

Updated July 2014 RowanSOM Office of Assessment and Evaluation

Assessment Target Outcomes Measured Level of Assessment/

Purpose of Assessment Data Source Submission Timeframe Monitored By

Residency Performance

‐ ExamSoft Category by Competency‐ MS III Student Competency Assessment – One45 Star Charts and Mean Scores

‐ Clinical Skills Competency Exam (OSCE) ‐ EPA Assessment via OSCEs and preceptor evaluation

Track longitudinal competency performance at both student and class level

Learning Space

MS III ‐ June PESA

Postgraduate GME Placement Summary Report ‐ Match results: osteopathic, allopathic, national match rate

‐ % students matching in primary care ‐ % in NJ Residency Performance ‐ Survey to residency program directors ‐ COMLEX III Performance

Kirkpatrick Level IV – ResultsMatch positions graduates for first year of postdoctoral training demonstrates how academically competitive SOM is compared to other schools. Assess student readiness for PGY 1 year

Academic Affairs Assessment OfficeNBOME

Annually –Feb (osteopathic) March (allopathic) Summary Report – April 1

SOM DeanAcademic Dean Assessment Dean Clinical Education Dean GME PESA

Academic Performance Outcomes Admissions Measures

Admissions/Matriculation Summary Report In Mission and Benchmark Report ‐ GPA ‐ MCAT ‐ % Female students ‐ % Underrepresented ‐ % First Generation ‐ % NJ students

Predictors of Academic Success ‐ Analysis across years of admissions data as predictors of success

Characteristics of student population which can be used to identify trends in performance Kirkpatrick Level IV – Results Predictors of success

Admissions Assessment Office

Annually Every 1‐3 years

SOM DeanAcademic Dean Assessment Dean Admissions

Retention Measures

Retention/Graduation ‐ % of class admitted 5 years prior who graduated

Kirkpatrick Level IV ‐ ResultsHistorical data documenting student progress

Academic AffairsRegistrar

Annually SOM DeanAcademic Dean Assessment Dean

Alumni Measures

Alumni Survey ‐ graduates 5 years out ‐ % complete residency training ‐ % licensed and board certified ‐ % practice in Primary Care ‐ % practice in Medically Underserved ‐ % geographic area of practice/and in NJ

Kirkpatick Level IV ‐ ResultsDetermine location and area of practice graduates pursue. Track trends over time

Alumni Affairs

Annually 3‐5yrs post‐graduation

SOM DeanAcademic Dean Alumni Affairs

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name

Evaluating :person (role) or moment'sname (if applicable)

Dates :start date to end date

* indicates a mandatory response

STUDENT EVALUATION OF COURSEAttendance & ParticipationInstructions: Indicate your participation in this course. Select the statement that best describes your experience.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

*I used ECHO recordings exclusively.*I used ECHO recordings in addition to attending live classsessions.*I attended live, in-person class sessions exclusively.

None 0-2hours

2-4hours

4-6hours

6-8hours

8+hours

*In addition to the time allotted for lecture (live or ECHO), approximately howmany hours per week did you devote to this course?

Course CharacteristicInstructions: Rate the course on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Unableto

Evaluate

Nolearningobjectiveswereprovidedfor thecourse

Learningobjectives wereprovided butwere somewhatunclear and didnot align withcourse content orexams.

Learningobjectiveswere clearand alignedwith coursecontent,assignmentsand exams.

Learning objectives wereprovided for both theoverall course and eachsession, were clearlystated and aligned withcourse content,assignments and exams.

*Learning Objectives

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

evaluate

Content wasdisorganized,sequence oftopics wasillogical anddid not supportlearning,material notdelivered attheappropriatelevel, noresourcesprovided tosupport self-directedlearning

Content was fairlyorganized,sequence of sometopics seemed outof order and didnot alwayssupport learning,some material notdelivered at theappropriate level,limited resourcesprovided tosupport self-directed learning

Content wasorganized,sequencedand effectivefor learning,materialdelivered attheappropriatelevel, severalresourceswereprovided tosupport self-directedlearning

Content was well-organized, sequencedand specificallylinked to priorcontent for effectivelearning, materialdelivered at theappropriate level andadapted to meet theneeds of the class, awide variety ofresources wereprovided to supportself-directed learning

*Course Content


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasengaging andused someactive learningstrategies (e.g.small group,cased-basedlearning, etc.)that providedstudents someopportunity toapply contentand use criticalthinking andproblem-solvingskills.

Course wasmoderatelyengaging,deliverymostlypresentationsof conceptswith limitedopportunityfor activelearning or forstudents toapply contentand usecriticalthinking orproblem-solving skills.

Course wasengaging andused someactive learningstrategies (e.g.small group,cased-basedlearning, etc.)that providedstudents someopportunity toapply contentand use criticalthinking andproblem-solvingskills.

Course was highlyengaging and used avariety of activelearning strategies(e.g. cased-basedlearning,interprofessionalpanel discussion,self-directedassignments, etc.)that providedstudents theopportunity to applycontent and usecritical thinking andproblem solvingskills.

*Quality of Overall Course Instruction


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasdisorganized,syllabus andschedule wereunclear orincomplete,learningmanagementsite wasineffective anddid not provideaccess tomaterials inadvance ofclass, CourseDirector notreadilyaccessible forfeedback orguidance

Course wassomewhatdisorganized,syllabus was fairlyclear andcomplete,schedule wasinaccurate orfrequentlychanged, learningmanagement sitewas adequatehowever access tomaterials oftenprovided afterclass, CourseDirector was notreadily accessiblefor feedback orguidance.

Course wasorganized,syllabus andschedule wereclear andcomplete,learningmanagementsite waseffective withaccess toslides andmaterialsprovided atthe time ofclass, CourseDirectoraccessible forfeedback orguidance.

Course was veryorganized, syllabusand schedule wereclear andcomplete, learningmanagement sitewas highlyeffective withaccess to materialsand self-directedlearning resourceswell in advance ofclass, CourseDirector wasreadily accessibleoutside of class forfeedback andguidance.

*Course Administration

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasineffective anddid not supportstudent learning;one of the worstclasses that Ihave had

Course wassomewhatineffective, butdid supportstudent learning;among theweaker classes Ihave had.

Course waseffective andsupportedstudentlearning;among thebetter classes Ihave had.

Course was highlyeffective,significantlyadvanced studentlearning; one ofthe best classes Ihave had.

*Overall Course Experience

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the course. Specific recommendations that you feel would improve thecourse are particularly helpful.

Strengths:

Weaknesses (with specific recommendations):

Page 3

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLERKSHIPAttendance & ParticipationInstructions: Select the statement that best describes your experience.

< 4hours/day

4-6hours/day

6-8hours/day

> 8hours/day

*Please indicate the average number of hours per day you were present onsiteduring this rotation (excluding travel & prep time):

< 2hours/day

2-4hours/day

4-6hours/day

> 6hours/day

*Please indicate the average number of contact hours you spent per day with afaculty/attending preceptor while on rotation:

Clerkship CharacteristicsInstructions: Rate the clerkship on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Nolearningobjectiveswereprovidedfor theclerkship

Learning objectiveswere provided for theoverall clerkship butwere somewhatunclear and did notalign with clinicalexperiences,assignments orexams

Learningobjectives forthe overallclerkship wereclear andaligned withclinicalexperiences,assignmentsand exams

Learning objectiveswere provided foroverall clerkship andspecific rotationexperiences, wereclearly stated andaligned with clinicalexperiences,assignments and exams



Unableto

Evaluate

Inadequate patientexperience orvariety of patientcases to supportskill development,pacing was alwayseither too rushedor too slow tofacilitate learning

Adequate patientexperience andvariety of patientcases to supportskill development,pacing was ofteneither too rushedor too slow tofacilitate learning

Good patientexperience andvariety ofpatient cases tosupport skilldevelopment,pacing wasusuallyappropriate tofacilitatelearning

Excellent patientexperience andvariety of patientcases to supportskilldevelopment,pacing wasalwaysappropriate tofacilitatelearning

*Patient Care Experience

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Inadequateincorporation of aholistic approachto patient care ORuse of osteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on technique) inpatient care

Adequateincorporation of aholistic approachto patient careOR use ofosteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on technique) inpatient care

Goodincorporation of aholistic approachto patient careOR use ofosteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on techniques) inpatient care

Excellentincorporation of aholistic approachto patient care ORuse of osteopathicpractices (notlimited to hands-on techniques) inpatient care

*Osteopathic Principles and Practice


Unableto

Evaluate

No exposure toworking withother membersof theinterprofessionalteam

Limited exposureto working withother members oftheinterprofessionalteam

Some exposureto working withother membersof theinterprofessionalteam

A great deal ofexposure toworking with othermembers of theinterprofessionalteam

*Interprofessional Practice Experience


Unableto

Evaluate

Faculty/attendingswere disinterestedin teaching andsupportingstudent learning,little bedsideteaching or formalinstruction,instruction notprovided at theappropriate level

Faculty/attendingsoffered limitedteaching andsupport forstudent learning,some bedsideteaching andformal instruction,instruction oftennot provided atthe appropriatelevel

Faculty/attendingswere interested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,good bedsideteaching andformal instruction,instructiongenerallyprovided at theappropriate level

Faculty/attendingswere highlyinvested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,excellent bedsideteaching andformal instruction,instructionconsistentlyprovided at theappropriate level

*Clinical Teaching by Faculty &Attending Physicians


Unableto

Evaluate

Housestaff weredisinterested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,little bedsideteaching orformalinstruction,instruction notprovided at theappropriate level

Housestaffoffered limitedteaching andsupport forstudent learning,some bedsideteaching andformalinstruction,instruction oftennot provided atthe appropriatelevel

Housestaff wereinterested inteaching andsupportingstudent learning,good bedsideteaching andformalinstruction,instructiongenerallyprovided at theappropriate level

Housestaff werehighly invested inteaching andsupporting studentlearning, excellentbedside teachingand formalinstruction,instructionconsistentlyprovided at theappropriate level

*Clinical Teaching by Housestaff

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Rotation providedno hands-oninvolvement inpatient care,students were notincluded asvaluablemembers of theteam and werelimited to anobservational role

Rotation providedsome hands-oninvolvement inpatient care,students weregiven someresponsibility butwere not activelyincluded asvaluable membersof the team

Rotation providedregular hands-oninvolvement inpatient care,students wereincluded asmembers of theteam and allowedto participate insome decision-making

Rotationprovidedextensive hands-on patient care,students wereincluded asvaluablemembers of theteam and asactiveparticipants indecision-making

*Student Participation


Unableto

Evaluate

No feedbackwas provided,no directreview ofstudent workor observationof student'sclinical skills

Some generalfeedback provided butoffered only whenprompted by students,there was no review ofstudent work or directobservation of clinicalskills

Generalfeedback wasprovided basedupon a review ofstudent workwith some directobservation ofclinical skills

Specific andconstructivefeedback wasprovided basedupon review ofstudent work anddirect observationof clinical skills

*Feedback


Unableto

Evaluate

Clerkship wasdisorganized,learningmanagementsite wasineffective,expectationsand scheduleswere notprovided orwere unclear,ClerkshipDirector/coordinator notreadilyaccessible forguidance

Clerkship wassomewhatdisorganized,learningmanagement sitewas adequate atsupporting studentrotation,expectations andschedules weresomewhat unclearor frequentlychanged, ClerkshipDirector/ coordinatornot readilyaccessible forguidance

Clerkship wasorganized,learningmanagementsite waseffective atsupportingstudentrotation,expectationsand scheduleswere clear,ClerkshipDirector/coordinatoraccessible forguidance

Clerkship was veryorganized, learningmanagement sitewas highly effectiveat supportingstudent rotation andself-directedlearning,expectations andschedules weredetailed and clear,Clerkship Director/coordinator readilyaccessible forguidance

*Clerkship Administration


Unableto

Evaluate

Clerkship wasineffective anddid not supportstudent learning;one of the worstclinical rotationsthat I have had

Clerkship wassomewhatineffective, but didsupport studentlearning; amongthe weaker clinicalrotations I havehad

Clerkship waseffective andsupportedstudentlearning; amongthe betterclinical rotationsI have had

Clerkship washighly effective,significantlyadvanced studentlearning; one ofthe best clinicalrotations I havehad

*Overall Clerkship Experience

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the clerkship. Specific recommendations that you feel would improve theclerkship are particularly helpful.

*Strengths:

Page 3*Weaknesses (with specific recommendations):

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




Student Evaluation of PBL Program*Program Director

Pick

*YearOMS IOMS II

Instructions: Rate the program on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.

Course CharacteristicsPOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTNo

objectiveswere

providedfor the

program

Program objectiveswere provided but weresomewhat unclear and

did not align with coursecontent or assessments

Program objectiveswere clear and

partially aligned withcourse content,

assignments andassessments

Program objectiveswere very clearly

stated and alignedwith course content,

assignments andassessments

*Program Objectives


The number andquality of casestudies did notsupport active

student learning,cases were ofpoor quality or

outdated,sequence of caseswas illogical anddid not support

learning

The number and qualityof case studies wereadequate to support

active student learning,some reflected current

practices in clinicalmedicine, sequence ofsome cases seemed

out of order and did notalways support

learning

The number andquality of casestudies were

appropriate tosupport active

student learning,most reflected

current practices inclinical medicine,

cases weresequenced and

effective forlearning

Case studieswere of highquality and

reflected currentpractices in

clinical medicine,cases were

sequenced andspecifically

linked to priorcontent foreffectivelearning

*Program Content

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTResourcesrequired tocomplete

assignmentswere not

available oraccessible; noability to store

or shareinformation

Minimal resourcesrequired tocomplete

assignments wereavailable but weredifficult to access,no ability to store

or shareinformation

Adequate resourcesrequired tocomplete

assignments wereavailable and

readily accessible,limited capacity to

store and shareinformation

A wide variety ofresources required tocomplete assignments

were available andeasily accessible,appropriate data

storage and technologyto share information

*Learning resources

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTFeedbackwas notprovidedand/or

nothelpful

Individual and/orgroup feedback was

providedsporadically,feedback was

somewhat helpful

Individual and groupfeedback was providedconsistently, feedbackwas for the most part

helpful and timely

Individual and groupfeedback was providedconsistently, feedback

was detailed, veryhelpful and timely

*Feedback


The number ofassessments

was too few ortoo abundant,

assessments didnot align withprogram goals

The number ofassessments wasappropriate butthe assessmentsdid not addressproblem solvingand reasoning

skills

The number ofassessments was

appropriate;aspects of theassessments

addressed problemsolving and

reasoning skills


appropriate,assessments addressedproblem-solving skills

and represented acontinuation of thelearning process

*Assessment


Program wasdisorganized,

syllabus/schedulewere unclear or

incomplete,program fostered

a non-collaborative

environment withnegative group

dynamics

Program was somewhatdisorganized,

syllabus/schedule wasfairly clear but

inaccuracies and changesfrequently occurred,program occasionally

fostered a collaborativeenvironment with bothpositive and negative

group dynamics

Program wasorganized,

syllabus/schedulewere clear and

complete,program fostered

a collaborativeenvironment withmostly positivegroup dynamics

Program wasvery organized,

syllabus andschedule were

clear andcomplete,program

consistentlyfostered a richcollaborative

environment withpositive group

dynamics*Program administration

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTProgram was

ineffective; didnot develop

critical thinkingor

communicationskills, studentsgained minimalknowledge ofbasic scienceand clinicalprinciples

Program wassomewhat

effective; providedlimited opportunityto develop critical

thinking andcommunicationskills, students

gained adequateknowledge of basicscience and clinical

principles

Program waseffective; developedcritical thinking and

communicationskills, students

gained considerableknowledge of basicscience and clinical

principles, butlimited ability tointegrate these

concepts

Program was highlyeffective; developedcritical thinking and

communication skills,students gained

advanced knowledgeof basic science and

clinical principles, andability to thoroughly

integrate theseconcepts

*Overall experience

Comments

Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this program. Specific recommendations that you feel would improvethe program are particularly helpful.

Strengths

Page 2


DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




PBL Student Evaluation of Case-Based Learning ModuleCase EffectivenessPlease rate the following aspects of cases used in this module.

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTThe sequence ofcases was totally

disorganized; casesdidn't connect with

each other, and didn'talign with the

learning progress ofthe module, andneeded to be re-

designed.

The sequence ofcases wassomehow

organized, buttheir connectionswere still unclearand didn't align

with the learningprogress of the

module.

The sequence of caseswas organized and the

case connectionswere fairly clear, butsome of them could

be rearranged tobetter align with thelearning progress of

the module.

The sequence ofcases was

organized andthe case

connectionswere clear thatclosely aligned

with the learningprogress of the

module.*Sequence of the cases


The number of caseswas too few that only

cover few targetedcontent, or tooabundant that

exceeded students'workload and

capacity.

The number ofcases only cover

some of thetargeted content,

or slightlyexceededstudents'

workload andcapacity.

The number ofcases was sufficientto cover most of the

targeted content,and did not

exceeded students'workload and

capacity.

The number ofcases was sufficientto cover all of thetargeted content,

and did notexceeded students'

workload andcapacity.

*The number of cases

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTNone of the caseswas accurate and

relevant to themodule content

Only a few caseswere accurate and


Most of the caseswere accurate and


All the cases wereaccurate and


*The accuracy and relevance of cases

Please provide your suggestions that could help improve the cases.

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE



too few or tooabundant,

assessments didnot align withprogram goals

The number ofassessments wasappropriate butthe assessmentsdid not addresscritical thinking

skills


appropriate; Someaspects of theassessments

addressed criticalthinking skills


appropriate;Assessments addressed

critical thinking skills andrepresented a

continuation of thelearning process

*Assessment

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTResources tohelp the caselearning were

not available oraccessible; noability to store

or shareinformation

Minimal resourceswere available to

help the caselearning, but weredifficult to access;no ability to store

or shareinformation

Adequate resourceswere available to

help the caselearning, and

readily accessible;limited capacity to

store and shareinformation

A wide variety ofresources were

available to help thecase learning andeasily accessible;Appropriate data

storage and technologyto share information

*Learning resources


Feedbackwas notprovidedand/or

nothelpful

Individual and/orgroup feedback was

providedsporadically,and

feedback wassomewhat helpful

Individual and groupfeedback was provided

consistently,and feedbackwas for the most part

helpful and timely

Individual andgroup feedback was

providedconsistently,and

feedbackwasddetailed,

very helpful andtimely

*Feedback

POOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENTModule was

disorganized,schedule was

unclear orincomplete,

module fostereda non-

collaborativeenvironment withnegative group

dynamics

Module was somewhatdisorganized, schedule

was fairly clear butchanges frequentlyoccurred, module

occassionally fostered acollaborative

environment with bothpositive and negative

group dynamics

Module wasorganized,

schedule wasclear andcomplete,

module fostereda collaborativeenvironmentwith mostly

positive groupdynamics

Module was veryorganized,

schedule was clearand complete,

moduleconsistently

fostered a richcollaborative

environment withpositive group

dynamics*Module Organization

Please comment on other Strengths and Weaknesses of this module. Specific suggestions are particularly helpful.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Page 2

Overall Quality of the Module

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTORInstructor ModalityPlease be sure to evaluate the instructor for the course indicated at the top of this form

Instructions: Select the statement that best describes your experience.

*Please indicate your experience of this instructor:Via ECHO recording, exclusivelyVia ECHO recording in addition to live class sessionsLive, in-person, exclusivelyNone

Instructor CharacteristicInstructions: Rate your instructor on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describes yourexperience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor didnot start or endclass on time,was not well-prepared, didnot provideaccess toslides/materialsin advance ofclass

Instructorstarted andended class ontime, was notfully prepared,providedaccess toslides/materialsafter the class

Instructorstarted andended class ontime, wasprepared,providedaccess toslides/materials atthe time of theclass

Instructor startedand ended class ontime and effectivelyutilized the timeallotted, was well-prepared, providedaccess toslides/materials wellin advance of class

*Preparation for Class


Unableto

Evaluate

Content wasdisorganizedand not wellsequenced,informationwas inaccurateand dated,material notdelivered attheappropriatelevel, amountof content wasinappropriatefor timeallotted

Content wasfairly organizedand sequenced,information wasaccurate andrelativelycurrent, somematerial notdelivered at theappropriatelevel, amount ofcontent wassomewhatexcessive for thetime allotted

Content wasorganized andappropriatelysequenced,informationwas accurateand current,materialdelivered attheappropriatelevel, amountof contentappropriate forthe timeallotted

Content was well-organized,sequenced andspecifically linked toprior knowledge,information wasaccurate, currentand provided withsupportingreferences, materialdelivered at theappropriate level,amount of contentappropriate for thetime allotted

*Presentation Content

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasnot engaging,did notintroduce therelevance ofthe topic orprovide anoverview ofthe objectivesfor thesession,presentation ofconcepts wasunclear, pacewas rushed,did notemphasizemajor teachingpoints,frequentlywent ontangents

Instructor wassomewhatengaging,introducedrelevance of thetopic but did notprovide anoverview of theobjectives forthe session,presentation ofconcepts wasfairly clear butpace at timesfelt rushed, didnot emphasizemajor teachingpoints and attimes went ontangents

Instructor wasengaging,introducedrelevance of thetopic andprovided ageneraloverview of theobjectives forthe session,presentation ofconcepts wasclear andappropriatelypaced, majorteaching pointswereemphasized andinstructorremainedfocused onrelevant content

Instructor washighly engagingand held theinterest of students,introducedrelevance of thetopic in the contextof prior learning,provided specificobjectives for thesession,presentation ofconcepts was clearand effectivelypaced, majorteaching pointswere emphasizedand instructorremained focusedon relevant content

*Presentation Style


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructorpresentedcontent withlittle or noemphasis onconceptualunderstandingand/or criticalthinking,audiovisualswere unclearand did noteffectivelysupportlearning

Instructorpresentedcontentwith someexamples tosupport theapplicationof learning,audiovisualswere limitedto textslides

Instructorpresented contentusing an activeteaching strategyto promoteconceptualunderstandingand/or criticalthinking skills,audiovisuals wereclear and includedelements(graphics, images)to reinforcelearning

Instructor used avariety of activeteaching strategiesto promoteconceptualunderstanding and/orcritical thinking skills,audiovisuals werehighly effective andincluded a variety ofelements (graphics,videos, diagrams) toreinforce learning

*Teaching Skills


Unableto

Evaluate

Did notsupportinteractionwith students,made studentsfeeluncomfortableaskingquestions, wasnot accessibleoutside ofclass forguidance orfeedback

Supportedsomeinteractionwith students,responded tostudentquestionsappropriately,at timesdifficult toaccess outsideof class forguidance orfeedback

Encouragedstudentinteraction,made studentsfeel comfortableaskingquestions andrespondedeffectively, wasaccessibleoutside of classfor guidanceand feedback

Encouraged studentinteraction in apositive andsupportive way, madestudents feelcomfortable takingrisks and askingquestions andresponded effectively,was readily accessibleoutside of class forguidance andfeedback

*Interaction with Students

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasineffective anddid not providea valuablelearningexperience; oneof the worstinstructors Ihave had

Instructor wassomewhatineffective, butdid provide anadequate learningexperience;among theweakerinstructors I havehad

Instructor waseffective andprovided avaluablelearningexperience;among thebetterinstructors Ihave had

Instructor washighly effectiveand provided anengaging andvaluable learningexperience; one ofthe bestinstructors I havehad

*Overall Quality of Instructor

COMMENTSPlease comment on specific strengths and weaknesses in the instructor's teaching.

Strengths:


Page 3

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




STUDENT EVALUATION OF PRECEPTORInstructions: Students are asked to complete an evaluation on 2-3 preceptors on every rotation, unless there is a singlepreceptor. Rate your preceptor on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describes yourexperience.

Preceptor CharacteristicsPOOR FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Unableto

Evaluate

Teachingenvironmentwasuncomfortableand notconducive forlearning.

Teachingenvironment wasat timesuncomfortable,but for the mostpart conducive forlearning.

Teachingenvironment wassupportive,encouraging ofquestions andconducive forlearning

Teachingenvironment wassupportive,encouraging ofquestions andconducive forlearning

*Teaching Environment


Unableto

Evaluate

Disinterested inteaching, does notcheck studentwork, only teacheswith prompting,informationprovided was notat the appropriatelevel

Teaching wasfairly limitedunlessprompted;conveysuseful andappropriateinformation onstudent work.

Allocates timefor teaching andansweringquestions;information wasusually clearlyexplained and atthe appropriatelevel

Highly investedin studentteaching;engagedstudents byquestioning andencouraginganalytical andcritical thinkingskills

*Teaching Skills


Unableto

Evaluate

Provided nohands-oninvolvementin patientcare

Providedlimitedhands-oninvolvementin patientcare

Provided routinehands-on involvementin patient care andsome decision-making

Actively involvedstudents in hands-on patient care anddecision-making

*Student Participation


Unableto

Evaluate

Providednofeedbacktostudents

Providedlimitedfeedback andonly whenasked bystudents

Providedfeedback, butat timesneeded to beprompted bystudents

Provided regular andconstructive feedback aboutstudent work (i.e. SOAP notes,H&Ps), and offeredsuggestions for improvement

*Feedback

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Displayedinsensitivity orlack ofunderstandingto patientneeds

Generallyrespectful andcompassionatewith patients

Modeledrespectful andcompassionatepatient care

Modeled respectfuland compassionatepatient care thatvalued and respectedpatient preferences

*Professional Role Model


Unableto

Evaluate

Ineffective andone of my worstpreceptors, Iwould notrecommend thispreceptor to otherstudents

An acceptablepreceptor, butone I would beunlikely torecommend toother students

Overall agoodpreceptor, Iwouldrecommendthis preceptorto otherstudents

Highly effective,one of my bestpreceptors, I wouldstronglyrecommend thispreceptor to otherstudents

*Overall Effectiveness of Preceptor

COMMENTSPlease comment on specific strengths or weaknesses in working with the preceptor.

Strengths:


Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTORInstructor ModalityPlease be sure to evaluate the instructor for the course indicated at the top of this form

Instructor CharacteristicInstructions: Rate your instructor on each of the following characteristics. Select the statement that best describes yourexperience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor didnot start or endclass on time,was not well-prepared, didnot provideaccess toslides/materialsin advance ofclass

Instructorstarted andended class ontime, was notfully prepared,providedaccess toslides/materialsafter the class

Instructorstarted andended class ontime, wasprepared,providedaccess toslides/materials atthe time of theclass

Instructor startedand ended class ontime and effectivelyutilized the timeallotted, was well-prepared, providedaccess toslides/materials wellin advance of class

*Preparation for Class


Unableto

Evaluate

Content wasdisorganizedand not wellsequenced,informationwas inaccurateand dated,material notdelivered attheappropriatelevel, amountof content wasinappropriatefor timeallotted

Content wasfairly organizedand sequenced,information wasaccurate andrelativelycurrent, somematerial notdelivered at theappropriatelevel, amount ofcontent wassomewhatexcessive for thetime allotted

Content wasorganized andappropriatelysequenced,informationwas accurateand current,materialdelivered attheappropriatelevel, amountof contentappropriate forthe timeallotted

Content was well-organized,sequenced andspecifically linked toprior knowledge,information wasaccurate, currentand provided withsupportingreferences, materialdelivered at theappropriate level,amount of contentappropriate for thetime allotted

*Presentation Content

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasnot engaging,did notintroduce therelevance ofthe topic orprovide anoverview ofthe objectivesfor thesession,presentation ofconcepts wasunclear, pacewas rushed,did notemphasizemajor teachingpoints,frequentlywent ontangents

Instructor wassomewhatengaging,introducedrelevance of thetopic but did notprovide anoverview of theobjectives forthe session,presentation ofconcepts wasfairly clear butpace at timesfelt rushed, didnot emphasizemajor teachingpoints and attimes went ontangents

Instructor wasengaging,introducedrelevance of thetopic andprovided ageneraloverview of theobjectives forthe session,presentation ofconcepts wasclear andappropriatelypaced, majorteaching pointswereemphasized andinstructorremainedfocused onrelevant content

Instructor washighly engagingand held theinterest of students,introducedrelevance of thetopic in the contextof prior learning,provided specificobjectives for thesession,presentation ofconcepts was clearand effectivelypaced, majorteaching pointswere emphasizedand instructorremained focusedon relevant content

*Presentation Style


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructorpresentedcontent withlittle or noemphasis onconceptualunderstandingand/or criticalthinking,instructionswere unclearand did noteffectivelysupportlearning

Instructorpresentedcontentwith someexamplesto supporttheapplicationof learning,instructionswerelimited tocontent inreadings orrecordedlectures

Instructorpresented contentusing an activeteaching strategyto promoteconceptualunderstandingand/or criticalthinking skills,instructions wereclear and includedelements(graphics, images)to reinforcelearning

Instructor used avariety of activeteaching strategies topromote conceptualunderstanding and/orcritical thinking skills,audiovisuals werehighly effective andincluded a variety ofelements (graphics,videos, hands-ondemonstrations) toreinforce learning

*Teaching Skills

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Did noteffectivelysupportinteractionwith students,madestudents feeluncomfortableaskingquestions,was notaccessibleoutside ofclass forguidance orfeedback

Somehow effective insupporting interactionwith students, respondedto student questionsappropriately, at timesdifficult to access outsideof class for guidance orfeedback

Fairlyeffective insupportingstudentinteraction,madestudents feelcomfortableaskingquestions andrespondedeffectively,wasaccessibleoutside ofclass forguidance andfeedback

Highlyeffective insupportingstudentinteraction, madestudents feelcomfortabletaking risksand askingquestions andrespondedeffectively,was readilyaccessibleoutside ofclass forguidance andfeedback

*Interaction with Students


Unableto

Evaluate

Instructor wasineffective anddid not providea valuablelearningexperience; oneof the worstinstructors Ihave had

Instructor wassomewhatineffective, butdid provide anadequate learningexperience;among theweakerinstructors I havehad

Instructor waseffective andprovided avaluablelearningexperience;among thebetterinstructors Ihave had

Instructor washighly effectiveand provided anengaging andvaluable learningexperience; one ofthe bestinstructors I havehad

*Overall Quality of Instructor

COMMENTSPlease comment on specific strengths and weaknesses in the instructor's teaching.

Strengths:


Page 3

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




STUDENT EVALUATION OF COURSEAttendance & ParticipationInstructions: Indicate your participation in this course. Select the statement that best describes your experience.

*In addition to the time allotted for lecture (Live and ECHO), approximately how many hours per week did you devote to thiscourse?

None0-2 hours2-4 hours4-6 hours6-8 hours8+ hours

Course CharacteristicInstructions: Rate the course on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.


Unableto

Evaluate

Nolearningobjectiveswereprovidedfor thecourse

Learningobjectives wereprovided butwere somewhatunclear and didnot align withcourse content orexams.

Learningobjectiveswere clearand alignedwith coursecontent,assignmentsand exams.

Learning objectives wereprovided for both theoverall course and eachsession, were clearlystated and aligned withcourse content,assignments and exams.



Unableto

evaluate

Content wasdisorganized,sequence oftopics wasillogical anddid not supportlearning,material notdelivered attheappropriatelevel, noresourcesprovided tosupport self-directedlearning

Content was fairlyorganized,sequence of sometopics seemed outof order and didnot alwayssupport learning,some material notdelivered at theappropriate level,limited resourcesprovided tosupport self-directed learning

Content wasorganized,sequencedand effectivefor learning,materialdelivered attheappropriatelevel, severalresourceswereprovided tosupport self-directedlearning

Content was well-organized, sequencedand specificallylinked to priorcontent for effectivelearning, materialdelivered at theappropriate level andadapted to meet theneeds of the class, awide variety ofresources wereprovided to supportself-directed learning

*Course Content

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasengaging andused some activelearningstrategies thatprovided studentssome opportunityto apply contentand use criticalthinking andproblem-solvingskills.

Course wasmoderatelyengaging, deliverymostly presentationsof concepts withlimited opportunityfor active learning orfor students to applycontent and usecritical thinking orproblem- solvingskills.

Course wasengaging andused some activelearningstrategies thatprovided studentssome opportunityto apply contentand use criticalthinking andproblem-solvingskills.

Course washighlyengagingand used avariety ofactivelearningstrategiesthatprovidedstudentstheopportunityto applycontentand usecriticalthinkingandproblemsolvingskills.

*Quality of Overall Course Instruction


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasdisorganized,syllabus andschedule wereunclear orincomplete,learningmanagementsite wasineffective anddid not provideaccess tomaterials inadvance ofclass, CourseDirector notreadilyaccessible forfeedback orguidance

Course wassomewhatdisorganized,syllabus was fairlyclear andcomplete,schedule wasinaccurate orfrequentlychanged, learningmanagement sitewas adequatehowever access tomaterials oftenprovided afterclass, CourseDirector was notreadily accessiblefor feedback orguidance.

Course wasorganized,syllabus andschedule wereclear andcomplete,learningmanagementsite waseffective withaccess toslides andmaterialsprovided atthe time ofclass, CourseDirectoraccessible forfeedback orguidance.

Course was veryorganized, syllabusand schedule wereclear andcomplete, learningmanagement sitewas highlyeffective withaccess to materialsand self-directedlearning resourceswell in advance ofclass, CourseDirector wasreadily accessibleoutside of class forfeedback andguidance.

*Course Administration


Unableto

Evaluate

Course wasineffective anddid not supportstudent learning;one of the worstclasses that Ihave had

Course wassomewhatineffective, butdid supportstudent learning;among theweaker classes Ihave had.

Course waseffective andsupportedstudentlearning;among thebetter classes Ihave had.

Course was highlyeffective,significantlyadvanced studentlearning; one ofthe best classes Ihave had.

*Overall Course Experience

COMMENTSPlease comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the course. Specific recommendations that you feel would improve the course are particularly helpful.

Page 2Strengths:


DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




Student Evaluation of Small Group FacilitatorInstructions: Rate your facilitator on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.

The facilitator was effective at stimulating our group to:

Rarely Sometimes Usually Almost Always Always*work effectively as a team*be open to all members of the group indiscussion

Rarely Sometimes Usually AlmostAlways Always

*The facilitator clearly outlined sessions' structure and expectations.*The facilitator clarified concepts with explanation and examples.*The facilitator encouraged group participation and allowed students toexpress their ideas.*The facilitator questioned, listened, and responded appropriately.

Poor Fair Good VeryGood Excellent

*Please rate the overall performance of the facilitator based upon his/hereffectiveness supporting student learning and engagement.

Please provide feedback to the facilitator about his/her effectiveness by completing the followingstatements:

*I appreciated the way the facilitator:

*I found it challenging when the facilitator:

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

(Poor) (Excellent) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rowan SOM Undergrad

Evaluated : evaluator's name By Evaluating : person (role) or moment's

name (if applicable) Dates : start date to end date


PBL Student Evaluation of Facilitator Form *Please select your group number:

--

Instructions: Rate your facilitator on each of the characteristics. Select the statement that best describes your experience.

The facilitator was effective at stimulating our group to:

*generate clear learning issues by ourselves

*search for various resources by ourselves

*summarize what we learned in our own words

*apply underlying mechanisms and theories

*explore the clinical reasoning process with questions andprobes

*make connections between issues discussed in the group

*relate prior learning to the discussed problem

*be open to all members of the group in discussion

*give constructive feedback about our group work

Rarely Sometimes Usually Almost Always Always

*The facilitator encouraged participation among all members of the group.

*The facilitator encouraged the group to discuss interpersonal problemsand conflicting views

*The facilitator provided an open and supportive learning environment.

Rarely Sometimes Usually AlmostAlways

Always

*Please rate the overall performance of the facilitator based upon his/her effectiveness in supporting the problem-basedlearning environment and student engagement.

Please provide feedback to the facilitator about his/her effectiveness by completing the following statements:

*I appreciated the way the facilitator:

*I found it challenging when the facilitator:

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name

Evaluating :person (role) or moment's name(if applicable)



Preceptor Evaluation of Students*Please select one:

I confirm that this evaluation is based upon my own observationsI confirm that I am completing this evaluation as a summary

evaluation based upon my observations and that of faculty and/orresidents on our service

Please evaluate the performance of the student in the following competencies using the anchors described below Unacceptable: Fails to meet minimum expectations of performance, significant improvement required Developing: Basic level of performance, continued improvement required Approaching Competent Competent: Performance at expected level Approaching Advanced Advanced: Performance above expected level

Medical KnowledgeStudents are expected to demonstrate knowledge of established and evolving biomedical, clinical, epidemiological, andpsychosocial/behavioral concepts and apply to patient-centered care.

Major deficits infund of

knowledge.Unable to applyknowledge in

clinical setting.

Demonstratesbasic fund of

knowledge, butwith some gaps.

Inconsistentability to applyknowledge topatient care.

Demonstrates expected fundof knowledge and can apply to

patient care.

Demonstrates fund ofknowledge that is beyond

expected level of training andeffectively applies to patient

care.

Unableto

EvaluateUnacceptable Developing Approaching

Competent Competent ApproachingAdvanced Advanced

*1. Exhibits medical knowledgeessential for effective patient care

Patient CareStudents are expected to promote health and deliver compassionate, appropriate and effective treatment of disease based uponpatient information, preferences, evidence and clinical judgment.

Often missesimportant

information.Information

often inaccurate.Patient concerns

poorlycharacterized.

Sometimesmisses

importantinformation orinformation is

inaccurate.Patient

concerns notfully

characterized orprioritized.

Rarely misses importantinformation, routinely complete

and accurate. Identifies andcharacterizes most patient

concerns. Effectively prioritizedand organized.

Consistently complete andaccurate information.

Identifies and fullycharacterizes all patient

concerns. Effectivelyprioritized and organized.

Recognizes biopsychosocialissues.

Unableto



*2. Takes an effective history

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Disorganized.Frequently not

thorough. Missesand/or

misinterpretsfindings.

Does notconsistentlydemonstrate

correcttechnique for

routine physicaland structural

exam. Notconsistentlyorganized.

Demonstrates correct physicaland structural exam technique.Uses an organized approach.

Demonstrates correctphysical and structural examtechnique. Able to effectively

focus the exam based ondifferential diagnosis.

Organized and attentive todetail.

Unableto



*3. Performs appropriate physical exam

Poor ability toorganize and

prioritize data.Misses primary

diagnosisrepeatedly.

Does notconsistentlygenerate acomplete

differentialdiagnosis, orapply sound

clinicalreasoning.

Consistently generates anadequate (3-4) differential

diagnosis which includes relatedsomatic dysfunction as

appropriate. Demonstratesadequate clinical reasoning.

Consistently generates acomplete differential

diagnosis which includesrelated somatic dysfunction as

appropriate. Demonstrateseffective clinical reasoning

and judgment.

Unableto



*4. Generates differential diagnosisthat reflects clinical reasoning

Lacks ability torecommendappropriate

tests.Misinterpretscommon lab

values and failsto recognize

critical values.

Recommendsstandard

diagnostic testsfor somecommon

problems. Maymisinterpret or

overreact tocommon lab

values.

Recommends screening anddiagnostic tests for acute andchronic conditions. Correctlyinterprets and acts on routine

findings.

Recommends screening anddiagnostic tests for acute andchronic conditions. Considers

costs and patientpreferences. Able todistinguish clinicallyimportant findings.

Unableto



*5. Recommends and interpretsscreening and diagnostic tests

Contributes littleto the treatment

plan. Maysuggest

inappropriatetreatmentoptions.

Inconsistentlycontributes totreatment planor management

of patients.Does not use

holistic, patient-centered

approach tocare.

Consistently contributes totreatment plan and patient

management.Includes some basic preventive

strategies and adequatelyapplies a holistic, patient-

centered approach to care.

Independently generatestreatment plans and

contributes to patientmanagement. Consistentlyaddresses lifestyle and self-management strategies and

applies a holistic, patient-centered approach to care.

Unableto



*6. Generates holistic treatment plansand contributes to patientmanagement

Practice-based Learning and ImprovementStudents are expected to appraise, assimilate and apply scientific evidence to patient care.

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

No evidence ofoutside research

or reading.Unable to apply

evidence topatient care.

Reads onlyprovidedliterature.

Inconsistentlyapplies

resources orevidence topatient care.

Needs guidanceto form clinical

questions.

Routinely accesses resourcesand evidenced-based literature

and point of care resources.Formulates clinical questions

and applies evidence to patientcare.

Routinely accesses resourcesand evidence-based

literature. Formulates clinicalquestions and able to judge

quality of evidence and applyto patient care.

Unableto



*7. Demonstrates skills in evidence-based medicine

Interpersonal & Communication SkillsStudents are expected to demonstrate effective listening, speaking, writing and nonverbal communication skills with patients andthe healthcare team.

Often missespatients'

concerns. Doesnot recognizeemotion cues.

Frequent use ofmedical jargon.

Sometimesmisses

patients'concerns and

emotionalcues. Often

uses medicaljargon.

Consistently identifies andresponds to patients' concerns

and feelings. Establishesrapport. Uses language

effectively without jargon.

Identifies nonverbal cues andaddresses difficult topics with

sensitivity. Consistentlydemonstrates empathy and

establishes good rapport. Useslanguage effectively without

jargon.

Unableto



*8. Effective communication withpatients and families

Grosslyinsufficient or

inaccuratewritten record.

Somewhatincompleteand poorlyorganized

writtenrecord.

Thorough, accurate andorganized written record. Able

to synthesize and prioritize.Clearly stated assessment plan.

Thorough and precise writtenrecord. Able to synthesize andprioritize. Integrates evidence-

based information intoassessment and plan.

Unableto



*9. Effective written documentationskills

Poorpresentation.Disorganized.Inaccurate and

missing keyinformation.

Communicationsomewhat

disorganized.Information not

clearlypresented.

Information iseither

incomplete orexcessively

detailed.

Communication is clear,accurate and concise.

Information is prioritized.Adequately responds to

questions.

Communication is clear,accurate and concise yet

always thorough. Informationis synthesized and prioritized.Organized and polished with

minimal written prompts.Effectively responds to

questions.

Unableto



*10. Effective oral presentation skills

Systems-based PracticeStudents are expected to demonstrate knowledge of health systems and resources available to provide comprehensive quality care.

Page 3

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Lacksunderstanding of

team roles. Attimes,

disrespectful toteam members.

Occasionalmisunderstanding

of team roles.Does not always

communicateeffectively withteam or seek

input to supportpatient care.

Understands role andcommunicates effectively and

respectfully with teammembers. Identifies

appropriate team member forpatient care issues.

Well-integrated with team.Communicates important

issues to appropriate teammembers in a timely fashion.Seeks out team members forinput on more subtle aspectsof complex clinical situations.

Unableto



*11. Teamwork skills

Lacks knowledgeof health systems

and qualityimprovement.

Fails torecommendresources to

support patientneeds.

Limitedknowledge of

health systemsand quality

improvement.Did not

consistentlyrecommendresources to

support patientneeds.

Demonstrates knowledge ofhealth systems and quality

improvement. Uses good safetypractices. Recommends

resources to support patientneeds.

Demonstrates understandingof health systems and quality

improvement. Uses goodsafety practices.

Consistently recommendsappropriate resources to

support patient needs andsafe transitions of care.

Unableto



*12. Knowledge of health systems andresources

ProfessionalismStudents are expected to conduct themselves with poise, courtesy, honesty and responsibility and engage in self-care and regulationin order to maintain a productive medical career.

Does not acceptresponsibility.

Not dependable.Does not

complete taskson time. Rarely

punctual.

Assumesresponsibility

only whenasked. Not

alwaysdependable.

Has somedifficulty

organizing andcompleting

tasks on time.Sometimes late.

Readily assumes responsibility.Dependable. Completes tasks

on time. Consistently organizedand punctual.

Seeks responsibility. Highlydependable and provides

consistent follow up.Completes tasks on time.Organized and punctual.

Unableto



*13. Accountability and professionalresponsibility

Disrespectful ofothers,

intolerant ofothers' attitudes

and beliefs.Breaches trust

andconfidentiality.

Needs toimprove

awareness ofothers' attitudesand beliefs. Attimes, lacks

empathy andrespect forautonomy.

Careless withconfidentiality.

Respectful. Nonjudgmental.Seeks to understand values

and beliefs of others. Respondswith empathy. Respects

patient privacy and autonomy.

Respectful. Nonjudgmental.Seeks to understand values

and beliefs of others andminimize the impact of bias.Responds with empathy and

compassion. Respects patientprivacy and autonomy and

advocates for needs.

Unableto



*14. Respect and compassion

Page 4

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Does notrecognize oracknowledge

limitations. Failsto seek

assistance. Doesnot put the

needs of thepatient first.

Needs toimprove

awareness ofone's own

limitations andseek appropriate

direction andsupport.

Generallyrecognizes

potential forconflict of

interest and theprimacy of

patient needs.

Recognizes the limits of one'sexpertise. Accepts direction

and support. Recognizespotential for conflict of interest

and the primacy of patientneeds.

Recognizes the limits of one'sexpertise and capacity.

Proactively seeks directionand support. Recognizespotential for conflict of

interest and the primacy ofpatient needs.

Unableto



*15. Self-awareness of limitations andconflict of interest

Formative Assessment of Entrustment

*I directly observed the student in performing patient care dutiesYesNo

*I had meaningful interaction with the student and feel comfortable making judgments about the student's competence to performspecific skills

YesNo

16. Based upon your direct observation and evaluation of the student, at what level would you ENTRUST the student to perform thefollowing skills during their next patient encounter:

Unableto

Evaluate

Nottrusted

toperform

at all

Trusted toperform

withDIRECT

(in-room)supervision

ONLY

Trusted to performwith INDIRECT

supervision andALL findings

double checked


supervision withonly KEY findingsdouble checked

Trusted toperform

UNSUPERVISED

Gather a history and perform a physicalexaminationPrioritize a differential diagnosisfollowing a clinical encounterRecommend and interpret commondiagnostic and screening testsEnter and discuss orders andprescriptionsDocument a clinical encounter in apatient recordProvide an oral presentation of aclinical encounterForm a clinical question and retrieveevidence to advance patient careGive or receive a patient handover totransition care responsiblyCollaborate as a member of aninterprofessional teamRecognize a patient requiring urgent oremergent care and initiate evaluationand managementObtain informed consent for testsand/or procedures

Page 5

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Perform general procedures of aphysician (CPR, Bag & Mask Ventilation,Venipuncture, Inserting an IV, OMM)Identify system failures and contributeto a culture of safety and improvement

Unableto

Evaluate

Nottrusted

toperform

at all

Trusted toperform

withDIRECT

(in-room)supervision

ONLY


supervision andALL findings

double checked


supervision withonly KEY findingsdouble checked

Trusted toperform

UNSUPERVISED

*Please indicate the total number of days this student took off during his/her rotation:

Unsure / Did not track

4 or more days

3 days

2 days

1 day

None

*Please comment on the students overall performance. These comments WILL be included in the Medical Student PerformanceEvaluation (MSPE formerly known as the Dean's letter).

*Please comment on areas where the student's performance will benefit from enhanced skill development. These comments WILL NOTappear in the MSPE (For students only).

Page 6

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




PBL I On Doctoring I, Primary Care Session - PreceptorEvaluation of StudentInstructions:Please evaluate the student's proficiency and/or competence in each of the following categories. Consider education level when evaluating student performance. Please use comment section for any additional comments.

Section I: Clinical Performance on Competencies: Consider the student's level of education whencompleting this section.

Patient Care

Unable toEvaluate

NeedsImprovement Satisfactory

*Student demonstrated ability to accurately perform and obtain all vitalsigns.

Interpersonal and Communication Skills

Unable toEvaluate


*Student utilized communications skills which resulted in effective informationexchange among the healthcare team.

Professionalism

Unable toEvaluate


*Student demonstrated professionalism by arriving on time, and was professionallydressed with a clean white coat and stethoscope.*Student demonstrated professionalism by coming prepared to the session.

Osteopathic Philosophy

Unable toEvaluate


*Student recognized the need for application of osteopathic manipulativetreatment as appropriate.

Section II: CommentsSpecific comments about student strengths and areas for improvement are most effective.

Please add any specific comments/concerns you have about this student's interpersonal and communication skills or

Page 1professional behavior that needs to be addressed.

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMUndergrad

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




PBL I On Doctoring I, Acute Care Session - PreceptorEvaluation of StudentInstructions:Please evaluate the student's proficiency and/or competence in each of the following categories. Consider education level when evaluating student performance. Please use comment section for any additional comments.

Section I: Clinical Performance on Competencies: Consider the student's level of education whencompleting this section.

Patient Care

Unable toEvaluate


*Student was engaged in the direct observation of patient care, andaskedappropriate questions related to Case Pathology

Interpersonal and Communication Skills

Unable toEvaluate


*Student utilized communications skills which resulted in effective informationexchange among the healthcare team.

Professionalism

Unable toEvaluate


*Student demonstrated professionalism by arriving on time, and was professionallydressed with a clean white coat and stethoscope.*Student demonstrated professionalism by coming prepared to the session.

Section II: CommentsSpecific comments about student strengths and areas for improvement are most effective.

Please add any specific comments/concerns you have about this student's interpersonal and communication skills orprofessional behavior that needs to be addressed.

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMPBL

Evaluated By :Evaluating : Dates :


PBL Facilitator Feedback for Student FormInstructions: Please choose the closest descriptor of this student's performance based on the skills demonstrated during this module.

Unsatisfactory Marginally Meets Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Consistentlyunprepared

Not prepared toparticipate in group

discussion; inadequateresearch of learning

issues (LIs); contributeslittle to group

knowledge

Somewhat Prepared Somewhat prepared to

participate in groupdiscussion but

inadequate research ofLIs to make meaningfulcontributions to group

knowledge

Mostly well-preparedPrepared to participate

in group discussion;adequate research of

LIs; contributesmeaningfully to group

knowledge

Consistently well-prepared Well-

prepared to participatein group discussion;

significant research ofLIs; contributes

significantly to groupknowledge

*Preparation

Unsatisfactory Marginally MeetsExpectations

Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Demonstrates passiveparticipation in group

learning Does notactively participate in

discussions; rarely leadsdiscussion; does not

support statements withreferences/evidence.

Demonstrates someactive participationin group learning

Participates indiscussions; at times

leads discussions,however, statementsreflect a lack of depthin understanding and

support fromreferences/ evidence.

Mostly demonstratesactive participation ingroup learning Mostly

participates in discussions;frequently leads

discussions that reflectadequate depth of

understanding; supportsstatements with somereferences/evidence.

Consistentlydemonstrates active

participation in grouplearning Promotes active

discussions; frequentlyleads discussions that

reflect significant depth inunderstanding; supportsstatements with a varietyof references/evidence.

*Participation


Ineffective teachingskills Ineffective atpresenting LIs and

relating the materialback to the case;

content is disorganized;does not summarize the

material; fails touse/develop handoutsas learning aids for the

team.

Somewhat effectiveteaching skills

Somewhat effective atpresenting LIs and

relating materials backto the case; content is

somewhat disorganized;

summaries areprovided, but few arethorough and concise;

uses copies of materialsfor handouts, but rarely

develops uniquelearning aids for the

team.

Adequate teachingskills Mostly effectiveat presenting LIs and

relating materials backto the case; content isorganized; summariesare mostly thorough

and concise;frequently developsunique learning aids

for the team.

Highly effectiveteaching skills Highlyeffective at explaining

LIs and relatingmaterial back to the

case; content is highlyorganized and follows a

logical sequence;summaries are

consistently thoroughand concise; usuallydevelops unique andeffective learning aids

for the team.

*Teaching

Unsatisfactory Marginally Meets Expectation Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Deficient in criticalthinking Consistent

difficulty withgenerating

hypotheses, applyingknowledge to case,critical appraisal ofinformation, making

sound deductions, andexplaining reasoning.

Demonstrates somecritical thinking

Sometimes effective ingenerating hypothesesand applying knowledgeto the case, has somedifficulties with critical

appraisal of information,making sound

deductions, andexplaining reasoning.

Demonstrates goodcritical thinking

Mostly effective ingenerating hypotheses,applying knowledge to

the case, criticalappraisal of information,

making sounddeductions, and

explaining reasoning.

Highly skilled incritical thinking

Consistently excels ingenerating

hypotheses, applyingknowledge to the case,

critical appraisal ofinformation, making

sound deductions, andexplaining reasoning.

*Critical Thinking


Deficiencies inprofessional behavior

Frequently late orabsent; does not fulfillresponsibilities to the

group; often hasdifficulty accepting

feedback; demonstratesa lack of respect for

peers and facilitators.

Demonstrates basicprofessional behavior

Usually on-time andready to participate;

generally fulfillsresponsibilities to the

group; has somedifficulties accepting

constructive feedback;usually demonstratesrespect for peers and

facilitators.

Demonstratesprofessional behavior

Mostly on-time andready to participate;

mostly fulfillsresponsibilities to the

group; acceptsconstructive feedback;demonstrates respect

for peers andfacilitators.

Highly developedprofessional behavior

Consistently on-timeand ready to

participate; consistentlyfulfills responsibilities to

the group; acceptsfeedback constructivelyand demonstrates anopenness to improve;demonstrates respect

for peers andfacilitators.

*Professionalism

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Unsatisfactory Marginally Meets Expectation Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Demonstrates poorteam skills Reluctantly

volunteers for grouptasks or shares

resources; does notlisten to others, appearsdistracted during group

discussion; does notshow respect for others'

contributions;interrupts, dominates orignores others; does not

help to resolve groupinterpersonal issues and

conflict; does notprovide constructive

feedback.

Demonstratesadequate team skillsAt times volunteers forgroup tasks and shares

resources; usuallylistens and is attentive

during groupdiscussions; showsrespect for others'

contributions and allowsgroup members to

express ideas;occasionally

demonstrates leadershipin resolving group

interpersonal issues andconflict; occasionallyprovides constructive

feedback.

Demonstrates goodteam skills Frequently

volunteers for grouptasks and shares

resources; listens and isattentive during group

discussions; showsrespect for others'

contributions and allowsgroup members to

express ideas; at times,facilitates resolvinggroup interpersonalissues and conflict;

provides constructivefeedback.

Demonstrateseffective team skillsConsistently volunteers

for group tasks andreadily shares

resources; activelylistens and is fully

engaged during groupdiscussions; consistently

shows respect forothers' contributions and

allows them time toexpress their ideas;

demonstrates leadershipin resolving group

interpersonal issues andconflict; consistentlyprovides constructive

feedback withsuggestions forimprovement.

*Teamwork


Does not acceptresponsibility for ownlearning Depends onothers for learning;

does not recognize thelimits of own knowledge

or ability; does notshow effort or

responsibility forimprovement.

Basically acceptsresponsibility for ownlearning Usually directs

own learning;sometimes requiressupport; generally

recognizes limits of ownknowledge or ability and

works to improve;sometimes requiressubstantial coaching.

Mostly acceptsresponsibility for ownlearning Mostly directs

own learning andrecognizes limits of own

knowledge or ability;works to improve;sometimes requires

coaching.

Accepts responsibilityfor own learning

Consistently directs ownlearning and recognizeslimits of own knowledge

or ability; clearlydisplays effort and

independently works toimprove.

*Responsibility for Learning

COMMENTS

*Please comment on the specific strengths of this student's performance.

*Please comment on areas for improvement in this student's performance.

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

EPA 4: Entering/Writing a Prescription Faculty Guidelines for Teaching and Scoring

Elements of a Prescription Controlled

Medications (EX. Narcotics)

NON Controlled Medications

Other ROWANSOM Guidelines Scoring: Students are required to include ALL required elements to Meet Minimum Passing Standards. The required elements will appear in a checklist and the graded/scored item will state “The prescription is legal and appropriate for the patient” Yes/No. The EPA skill can be graded as a separate task (P/F) or included as part of a case. The specific point value is at the discretion of the clerkship director in consultation with CEAC.

Required Recommended Required Recommended

Date of Prescription X X

Patient Name (First and Last) X X

Patient DOB X X 1) DOB is recommended on medications to ensure patient safety, but it is not required of students in the testing environment.

Name of Drug X X 1) Generic names required 2) No abbreviations or acronyms permitted 3) Spelling errors not counted against the student

Strength of Drug a) In numeric form

b) In text and numeric form

X

X

1) Students are allowed to use standard abbreviations including mg, g, ml, mcg (prefer micrograms to be spelled out to prevent medical error).

2) Students are not permitted to use tsp and tbsp. 3) For controlled medications, an appropriate strength is required. 4) For non‐controlled medications, an incorrect strength will not count against the

student. 5) Students are required to Always use leading zeros and Avoid trailing zeros, ex. 5

mg vs. 5.0 mg can be mistaken for 50 mg or 0.7 g vs .70 g can be mistaken for 70 g

X

Quantity of the drug a) In numeric form b) In text and numeric form

X

X Dosage form X X 1) Use of commonly accepted abbreviations for dosage form (PO, IM, IV, etc.) is

accepted in the testing environment. 2) Liquid medications requires concentration and dose

Frequency of Administration X X 1) Must spell out daily or every day and every other day – abbreviations QD and QOD not permitted.

2) Abbreviations that are permitted include TID, BID, AC, PC and other commonly accepted standard abbreviations.

Instructions for use X X 1) Taken as directed is not permitted.

Number of refills (if any) authorized X X

Medication selected is appropriate for patient (not contraindicated)

X X 1) Students are not required to be graded on selecting an appropriate medication, although clerkships are permitted to include it as graded element if it is a learning objective and students are specifically taught the content.

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Rowan SOMYr3 Clerkship

EvaluatedBy

:evaluator's name




Preceptor Evaluation of Oral Case Presentation*Type of Visit:

New PatientFollow Up/RevisitWell Visit

*Case ComplexityLow - Two or less minor problems; one stable chronic

condition; acute uncomplicated illness or injuryModerate - Chronic illnesses (1 or more) with mild

exacerbation; un-diagnosed new problem; illness with systemicsymptoms; complicated injury

High - Multiple presenting problems (4 or more); broaddifferential; urgent/emergent situation; requires transition of care

Content of Case PresentationUnacceptable Developing Competent

Accuracy: Inaccurate.Data is either missing

or irrelevant. Detail: No chief

complaint. Sequenceof events unclear.

Past history is overlydetailed with no clear

connection to theactive problem.Description of

symptoms lacks detail(e.g., location,intensity, etc.)

Accuracy: Most data isaccurate and relevant

with some minor detailsomitted.

Detail: Chief complaintincluded most pertinentinformation, but lacked

some clarity. Sequence ofmajor events clear. Past

history adequatelydescribed and linked toactive problem. Most

aspects of symptoms aredescribed.

Accuracy: Data is accurate,relevant & complete.

Detail: Chief complaint is clearand concise, Includes relevantpast history. Sequence of allevents clear. Patient history

complete and conciselydescribed and linked to active

problem. Symptoms aredescribed clearly using

appropriate adjectives, location,intensity and frequency.

*Patient History

Unacceptable Developing CompetentAccuracy: Inaccurate.Data is either missing

or irrelevant. Detail: Does notinclude general

statement, PE is eithertoo detailed or

incomplete. Irrelevanttest results arepresented or

significant resultsomitted.

Accuracy: Most data isaccurate and relevant

with some minor detailsomitted.

Detail: Mostly cleargeneral statement, PE

includes most important+/- findings, Most

relevant test results arereported with some

omissions or extra detailincluded.


Detail: Succinct generalstatement creating clear picture

of patient. PE is precise andincludes all pertinent +/-

findings. All relevant resultspresented and organized to

distinguish between possiblediagnoses.

*Patient Data

Page 1

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Unacceptable Developing CompetentAccuracy:Inaccurate.

Data is eithermissing orirrelevant. Detail: No

summary orsynthesis of

criticalelements of the

case. Noproblem list or

poorlyorganized list.No DDX given.

Accuracy: Most data is accurateand relevant with some minor

details omitted.Detail: Most pertinent

information synthesized; someexcessive detail. Most important

problems included andprioritized. A DDX with severalpossibilities is given for majorproblems. Provided adequate

clinical reasoning for diagnosis.


Detail: Synthesized criticalelements of the case. Completeand prioritized problem list. A

DDX with several possibilities isgiven for all active problems.

Provided effective clinicalreasoning and rationale to

support diagnosis.

*Assessment

Unacceptable Developing CompetentAccuracy:

Inaccurate. Planis incorrect or

largelyincomplete.

Detail: Plan isnot described oris unrelated toproblem list.

Accuracy: Plan is relevant withsome details omitted.

Detail: Provided adequateclinical reasoning for plan.Provided a plan addressingmost important problems.

Accuracy: Plan is relevant &complete.

Detail: Provided effectiveclinical reasoning and rationale

to support plan. Consideredpatient preferences.

*Plan

Unacceptable Developing CompetentOsteopathic

principles and/ortreatment

modalities wereomitted or notappropriately

applied toaddress patient's

presentingproblem.

Osteopathic principles and/ortreatment modalities adequatelyapplied. Some key componentswere lacking to appropriately

address patient's current condition.Relationship of structure andfunction and the rationale for

treatment adequately explained.

Osteopathic principlesand/or treatment

modalities appropriatelyapplied for the presenting

patient condition.Relationship of structure

and function and therationale for treatmenteffectively explained.

Application of OsteopathicPrinciples & Impact of OsteopathicCare (as applicable)

Unacceptable Developing CompetentDisorganizedpresentation,data is out of

order

Attempts to follow SOAPmodel; Organized andlogical presentation of

data.

Follows SOAP model and uses it toguide audience; Data focuses on the

abnormal/chief complaint, sequentially.

*Organization

Presentation SkillsUnacceptable Developing Competent

Presentation isunclear, keycase details

and pertinent+/- wereomitted.

Presentation is mostly clear.Able to adequately report themajor case details with some

details omitted to fully supportclinical decision-making.

Presentation is clear, concise andengaging. Able to accuratelyreport the case and provideappropriate details to fully

support clinical decision-making.

*Communication

Page 2

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Unacceptable Developing CompetentUnable to answer

questions.Mostly able to answer

questions.Answers questions fully and

responsively.*Response to Questions

Overall Level of Entrustment*Based upon my assessment, this student can be trusted to present their next patient case with:

Not trusted to perform at allDIRECT supervisionINDIRECT supervision and ALL findings checkedINDIRECT supervision with KEY findings checkedTrusted to perform UNSUPERVISED

Additional Comments:

Page 3

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

Criteria Unacceptable Developing Competent

Handoff Skills

Problem Statement Did not speak coherently Communicated information about patient, but it was not succinct, abstracted, or synthesized. “Stuck to the script” of what was written.

Gave an accurate, synthesized, and succinct problem statement including: (name, age, gender, relevant PMH, reason for hospitalization, major events since admission).

Patient Status Was not sure what happened. Communicated what happened to patient in the last 24 hours

Discussed what happened AND how that might affect the patient in the next 12 hours. Prioritized major and minor anticipated problems

Patient Problems Unable to effectively communicate main reason for hospitalization and outstanding problems

Communicated main reason for hospitalization and outstanding problems without prioritizing patient’s problems

Complete, RELEVANT “to do” list, includes appropriate “if... then” statements with specific recs

To do list Did not create “to do” list. Created incomplete “to do” list, and did not prioritize or use “if...then” statements for those items.

Complete, RELEVANT “to do” list, includes appropriate “if... then” statements with specific recs.

Prioritize Team Did not prioritize team Prioritized “Really Sick” from “Not Sick” Prioritized patient in terms of acuity and complexity. Anticipated which patients may get sick.

Interactive Questioning Does not engage others in hand-off process. Provided information, was unable to answer all questions

Engaged receiver and anticipated their questions in an open and non selfdefensive way

Manage Time and Environment

Distractions cause chaos and time was not appropriate.

Completed hand-off, but minimally managed distractions or time.

Effectively managed time and distractions.

Transfer No sense of responsibility. Was not explicit about a transfer of responsibility Made explicit to the receiver the transfer of responsibility.

Source: Aylward, M., Nixon, J., Gladding, S. An Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) for Handoffs as a Model for EPA Assessment Development, Academic Medicine, 89 (10), October 2014

Overall Level of Entrustment: Based upon my assessment, this student can be trusted to handoff their next patient with:

Not trusted to perform at all DIRECT supervision INDIRECT supervision and ALL findings checked INDIRECT supervision with KEY findings checked Trusted to perform UNSUPERVISED

DO NOT U

SE OR R

EDISTRIB

UTE

rowansom outcomes assessment plan - rowan university · 2020-04-08 · the outcomes assessment plan...

Documents