1 / 117

AAMC Annual Meeting San Antonio, Texas November 1, 2008

GSA Transition Forum: Is the MSPE Dead?. AAMC Annual Meeting San Antonio, Texas November 1, 2008. Chair. Molly Osborne, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Dean for Student Affairs Oregon Health & Science University Chair-Elect, AAMC Group on Student Affairs. Speakers. Richard P. Wheeler, M.D.

tambre
Download Presentation

AAMC Annual Meeting San Antonio, Texas November 1, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. GSA Transition Forum:Is the MSPE Dead? AAMC Annual Meeting San Antonio, Texas November 1, 2008

  2. Chair • Molly Osborne, M.D., Ph.D. • Associate Dean for Student Affairs • Oregon Health & Science University • Chair-Elect, AAMC Group on Student Affairs

  3. Speakers • Richard P. Wheeler, M.D. • Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Medicine • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences • Lanny Garth Close, M.D. • Professor and Chair, Department of Otolaryngology • Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons

  4. Speakers • Neil H. Parker, M.D. • Senior Associate Dean, Student Affairs & GME • University of California Los Angeles Geffen SOM • Angela Nuzzarello, M.D., MHPE • Associate Dean, Student Programs & Professional Development • Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

  5. Speakers • Maria C. Savoia, M.D. • Vice Dean for Medical Education • Professor of Medicine • University of California San Diego School of Medicine

  6. Question # 1 • Which of the choices below is your primary affiliation? • 1. Student Affairs (GSA) • 2. Undergraduate Medical Education (GEA) • Graduate Medical Education (Program Directors) • Student (OSR) • Resident (ORR) • Other

  7. Question # 2 • If you are involved with GSA what part are you primarily involved with? • 1. MAS • 2. COSR • 3. COSA • 4. COSFA • OSR • All

  8. Question # 3 • How long have you worked in this position? • 1. < 1 year • 2. 1-5 years • 3. 5-10 years • 4. >10 years

  9. Question # 4 • Are you the sender, recipient or subject of the MSPE? • 1. Sender • Recipient • Subject • None of the Above

  10. Richard P. Wheeler, M.D. • Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Medicine • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

  11. History of the Dean’s Letter • AKA – MSPE • AKA – MISSPEEEEEEEE • AKA – “It’s not time yet to do those darn things again this year, is it?”

  12. National Library of Medicine 4th or 5th Century AD

  13. National Library of Medicine 4th or 5th Century AD

  14. National Library of Medicine 4th or 5th Century AD

  15. This was too damn hard. Have the Associate Dean do it from now on!!

  16. National Library of Medicine 4th or 5th Century AD

  17. National Library of Medicine 4th or 5th Century AD

  18. National Library of Medicine 4th or 5th Century AD

  19. Henry M. Sondheimer, M.D.November 1, 300

  20. No rules or standardization. Personal letters written to individual program directors. Many times a real letter of recommendation rather than reference.

  21. UAMS Dean’s Letters = 1 to 2 pages

  22. 1989

  23. UAMS Dean’s Letters = 2 to 3 pages

  24. November 1 release date approved through a complex process. Intended to slow down the process - and it worked. Few interviews before November.

  25. ERAS 1995 September 1 release established by ERAS Committee but not through complex approval process like the November 1 release date

  26. Camel

  27. 2002

  28. UAMS Dean’s Letters = 8 to 9 pages

  29. TODAY

  30. OR

  31. Lanny Garth Close, M.D. • Professor and Chair, Department of Otolaryngology • Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons

  32. THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR’S POINT OF VIEW The Medical Student Performance Evaluation

  33. MSPE 2004 Survey of Oto/HNS PD’s Rank Order of ERAS Candidate Information USMLE step 1 score Performance as sub-I LOR from fellow Chairs/PD’s AOA status Candidate’s Personal statement Dean’s Letter (MSPE)

  34. MSPE The PD’s dream MSPE……… “ Josephine Smith’s class rank at the completion of the third year of medical school is **/***.”

  35. MSPE The PD’s nightmare MSPE……….. “Although the Dean’s Letter Advisory Committee of the AAMC recommends that the MSPE contain comparative performance statements, ………..’s evaluation system was not designed to provide information comparing one student to another. For that reason, we encourage review of this evaluation in it’s entirety.”

  36. MSPE Why is the non-revealing “stealth” MSPE a problem for the PD in a highly competitive specialty for which large numbers of highly qualified candidates are applying? 450 applicants 4 positions 40 interview slots One PD

  37. MSPE What does the PD want from the MSPE Earlier release Clearly stated, uniform performance scoring Clearly stated and illustrated performance comparisons for All subjects (rotations) for all 3 years An overall ranking of performance at the end of the third year (at least by quartiles) As few adjectives and adverbs as possible

  38. MSPE Where does the PD turn when the MSPE does not provide a meaningful comparison of performance for the candidate? Other schools USMLE scores AOA status (when available) LOR from colleagues College transcript

  39. MSPE Example of scored/illustrated performance by course Number of Students

  40. MSPE Example of scored/illustrated overall performance at completion of third year % Students

  41. MSPE A Review of 2007 MSPEs from 62 U.S. Medical Schools

  42. MSPE SCORING CRITERIA 3 CATAGORIES MS performance scored MS performance compared MS performance comparison illustrated

  43. MSPE MS Performance Scored 0- not done 1- poorly/incompletely done 2- average (acceptable) 3- well done 4- uniformly done (excellent)

  44. MSPE MS Performance Compared 0- not done 1- poorly/incompletely done 2- average (acceptable) 3- well done 4- uniformly done (excellent)

  45. MSPE MS Performance Comparison Illustrated 0- not done 1- poorly/incompletely done 2- average (acceptable) 3- well done 4- uniformly done (excellent)

  46. MSPE Overall Score for Institution 0- No attempt to follow AAMC guidelines 6- Acceptable presentation of MS performance 12- Outstanding (Gold Standard)

  47. MSPE # of Institutions SCORES

  48. MSPE Study Results 20/62 (32%) U.S. Medical Schools failed to present MS Performance in acceptable format 42/62 (68%) U.S. Medical Schools present MS Performance in acceptable format 6/62 (10%) U.S. Medical Schools present MS Performance in outstanding format

More Related