WGEA/WGSA/WOSR 2017

Abstract Body: Objectives This presentation will provide an overview of the project to migrate Stanford School of Medicine faculty, teaching staff, and their course materials from Sakai learning management system to Canvas. The Canvas Migration Project, which started in August 2015 (ongoing until January ‘17) has five major objectives: 1) Move all relevant course material to Canvas before the Sakai learning management system is taken offline on December 21, 2016. 2) Train interested faculty and teaching staff on Canvas features and processes. 3) Provide technical support for faculty and teaching staff during their course setup and delivery. 4) Provide current medical students a method of retrieving course materials from courses taken on the Sakai system during their time as a School of Medicine student at Stanford. 5) Provide a secure test taking environment for high-stakes exams. Methods This presentation will focus on the project management aspects of migrating over 500 courses from one learning management system to Canvas including: -The iterative planning process, -The creating and revising of communication strategies, -The execution of copying course materials, -Providing customer-service oriented faculty development and support, -Soliciting feedback from both faculty AND students, and -Piloting and implementation of Respondus LockDown Browser for secure test taking. Intended Outcomes In this small-group presentation attendees will learn one approach to managing a large scale course content migration process. We will include a brief discussion of low-cost, web-based tools used to facilitate, track and report. Surprises and lessons learned will be shared. We will conclude with time for attendees to share their experiences and ask questions. We intend for this session to be as much a conversation as a presentation. Target Audience This session is intended for both technical and academic administration interested in adopting and transitioning to a new learning management system. 

Abstract Body: Objectives This small group session is intended to facilitate a conversation about the definitions and value of early clinical experiences, and develop strategies to converge student and administrator expectations for these experiences. At the end of this small group session, participants will be able to: *Explain how definitions of “Early Clinical Experience” (ECE) can vary across stakeholder groups (educational leadership, course directors, students, preceptors, clinic administrators) *Explore ways that students seek and gain what they perceive to be valuable ECE in the first year of medical school Identify expected educational outcomes from ECE *Propose methods for identifying gaps between student and administration definitions of ECE *Propose methods for identifying gaps between student and administration expectations of ECE *Consider methods for evaluating the extent to which expectations are met Methods Early Clinical Experience is a term that is both ubiquitous and loosely defined. There is a national shift toward providing clinical experience earlier in medical school, sometimes as early as the first month. In addition to doctoring courses, many schools are including a variety of required early clinical experiences in large-scale curriculum change efforts, and others provide early clinical experiences in predominantly elective experiences. We will discuss our institution’s efforts to create a common operational definition of “early clinical experience”, including sharing examples of the different experiential learning courses we developed. We will also share how we aligned stakeholder expectations to the development the current early clinical experience and suggest ways these experiences may reform in future iterations as our curriculum evolves. We will engage participants in discussion of existing gaps in defining and setting expectations for early clinical experiences, challenge the group to develop a shared operational definition, and establish the foundation for a future collaborative perspectives piece or similar scholarly work. Intended Outcomes Participants will engage in discussion of the challenges and benefits of establishing a shared operational definition of the term “early clinical experience”. By the end of the session the group will create a shared operational definition, assess how various stakeholder groups may challenge this definition, and develop strategies participants may utilize to address stakeholder concerns. Target Audience MD program faculty, staff, students 

Abstract Body: Introduction An established positive relationship between metacognition and learning suggests that specific training and opportunity in reflection and metacognition would be beneficial to medical students. Our research group includes academic support staff, curriculum assessment administrators and a block director/teaching faculty member. The hypothesis developed by our research group was based initially on our reading of the book, Make It Stick: The science of successful learning. From this book and other published research in medical education, we posited that teaching students to reflect on performance on a variety of assessed activities and experiences in medical school, and giving them directed feedback on the quality of their reflection, would assist in improving their academic achievement. We established the goal and construct of metacognition with Year 1 medical students during orientation activities. This included an assigned reading, classroom presentations designed to introduce the framework for guided reflective writing and the importance of metacognition in learning complex information and skills, followed by multiple writing assignments with guided prompts relevant to Year 1 assessment activities. Using a six level rubric created by medical educators specifically for evaluating reflective writing, we rated and gave feedback to students on their assignments. Ratings are not shared with the students, only directed feedback designed to encourage more in-depth reflection in the future about their learning and desired/expected level of achievement. Session Outcomes Through participation in this discussion session, participants will be able to: Identify resources for teaching medical students about the value of guided reflection; Describe an institutional approach to developing curricular activities for reflection in medical education; Understand how to evaluate reflective writing and provide directed feedback to students; Consider participating in a collaborative research opportunity to analyze the relationship between students’ ability to reflect on the development of their learning and their acquisition of required knowledge, skills and attitudes during medical school. Small Group Discussion Timeline and Methods: Introduction of Research Question and Methodology including rubric use (10 minutes) Group discussion of resources for teaching value of reflective writing (10 minutes) Examples of writing prompts used with assessment activities (10 minutes) Group discussion of measures of academic achievement across curriculum (10 minutes) Summary of future writing assignments in UME Years 1-4 (5 minutes) Invitation to collaborate on reflective writing research project (5 minutes) Reference Brown PC, Roediger HL, McDaniel MA, (2014). Make it stick: the science of successful learning. Belknap. 

Abstract Body: Objectives The objectives of this small group discussion presentation are as follows: * To present an overview types of systems and reports that can help prepare a medical school for LCME-accreditation under current standards * To outline the benefits and challenges of meeting the new accreditation standards with new and legacy systems most commonly found in medical schools * To describe three examples of systems applied to address specific LCME standards and elements: - Program and learning objectives (Element 6.1, 8.2, 8.3) - Monitoring required clinical experiences (Element 6.2 and 8.6) - Depth and breadth of the curriculum (Standard 7). Methods The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) is the body that accredits medical schools in the United States and Canada. Completion of the Data Collection Instrument (DCI) is critical to the LCME-accreditation process. The DCI requires medical schools to provide data about all aspects of their program and the LCME focus on continuous quality improvement necessitates the need for systems to drive the outcomes reported within. This session will begin with an overview of the types of systems that are used in managing a medical school including curriculum management systems, evaluation systems and reporting systems (10 minutes). The overview will be followed by a presentation of the common benefits, e.g., dashboard monitoring and central oversight, and challenges, e.g., disparate data sources and limited reporting capabilities, of responding to accreditation needs using such systems (10 minutes). The brief presentation will be followed by a small group discussion of systems and solutions at WGEA medical schools (15 minutes). Participation in the discussion will be encouraged through the use of audience response tools. Intended Outcomes Medical school deans, accreditation specialists and administrators will receive an introduction to the technical aspects of preparing for an accreditation site visit. LCME Element 1.1 is a recently established standard to reflect the need for medical schools to demonstrate continuous quality improvement. Accordingly, understanding the systems that enable compliance-monitoring has become a driving factor in the accreditation process and this small group discussion aims to contribute towards this understanding. Target Audience The intended audience is deans, accreditation specialists and administrators preparing for an accreditation site visit. 

Abstract Body: The session will present an approach for helping students self-identify and understand factors which contribute to the experience of academic and personal difficulty. The presentation is organized around a new self-assessment instrument we have developed which displays and describes eleven “Common Contributors to Academic and Personal Difficulty” in a visual format. These contributors are psychosocial as well as academic or cognitive. Students check factors which have some influence on, (or contribute to) their difficulty. The instrument includes an easy to use method for estimating the saliency of specified factors. The results are used to recommend specific interventions and referrals. The use of the instrument will be demonstrated with specific cases. Discussion period will invite participants to ask questions and share what they have learned from their own experiences about the topic. Objectives: 1. Demonstrate a new instrument for identifying academic, cognitive and psycho-social contributors to academic and personal difficulty 2. Discuss its applicability to faculty and other professionals who provide support to students who are struggling 3. Provide specific examples of its use with students 4. Identify four specific ways to reduce stigma and fear associated with disclosing causes for failure. 

Abstract Body: Objectives: Experience how a reflective writing exercise can be used in medical education. Identify ways in which reflective writing are integral part of a longitudinal health disparities curriculum. Identify findings of a reflective writing exercise on how culture of providers and patients affect patient Find at least one opportunity to include reflective writing in the participant home institution During the development of the comprehensive Health Disparities Curriculum at the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson, curriculum needs were mapped and a lack of explicit and mandatory content in the clinical years was identified. To address this gap in health disparities-related content in third year, students are now assigned two reflective writing exercises – one related to cross cultural communication and the other related to social determinants of health. In the preclinical years students experience reflective writing exercises using 4 different essay prompts. For the third year requirement students identity a clinical situation they have experienced, write a short reflective essay, receive written feedback from a faculty member, and then read the essay and discuss within a small group setting. This presentation will provide participants the opportunity to experience an abbreviated version of the health disparities reflective writing exercises. The format and impact of the exercises will be described in detail, and the potential connections to resident/faculty development will also be discussed. Finally, the evaluation methodology and the highlights of the findings will be presented. The session’s participants will then have a chance to comment on this key component of the Health Disparities Curriculum, share experiences and find ways to incorporate this methodology at their home institutions. Intended Outcomes: Reflective writing exercises will be presented as a tool for exploring difficult subject matter related to health disparities in a non-threatening format. Medical students, faculty and residents understand the importance of identifying and intervening on cultural aspects and social determinants of health to improve the health of the population. A longitudinal curriculum in medical humanities and health disparities converge in the clerkship year to enhance reflective medical practice to increase patient and physician satisfaction. Target Audience: Medical school educators, graduate medical education directors and faculty, and medical education administrators. 

Abstract Body: Conducting research related to curriculum content, pedagogy, structure, and competencies has been limited for years by the manner in which the research had to be conducted: surveys, literature reviews, and small studies at selected schools. While this has not prevented excellent work from being done, it has been difficult to do large scale research due survey return rates, limited literature, and the logistics for multi-institutional projects. The AAMC Curriculum Inventory has been collecting data from 85 percent of US medical schools for three years, and the 2015-2016 participation rate is 92 percent. This opens up a new opportunity for large-scale projects, and a Research Group has been convened to review the data to determine what types of research projects might be conducted, areas where additional data is necessary, and other data sources that could complement or expand CI data. That group has developed several projects that they will be conducting over the next few years. This session will provide attendees the opportunity to see an overview of the data that has been collected and to participate in discussions about individual medical school research interests and how the CI might support those interests. Objectives: At the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to: 1. Review Curriculum Inventory Data 2. Discuss medical education research projects the CI can / cannot support 3. Develop medical education research ideas 4. Collaborate with potential partners on medical education research projects Schedule: Welcome and Introduction of Presenters and Topic: 5 mins Curriculum Inventory Data Overview: 5 mins Small Group Discussion: 20 mins *Is there additional data that the CI should collect? *What types of research projects can the CI support? *What types of research projects do schools need to support their curriculum efforts? *How does your school use the CI for benchmarking, CQI, curriculum review/renewal, and accreditation? Reports Back / Large Group Discussion: 10 mins Wrap-Up / Collaboration Opportunities: 5 mins *Wrap-up includes explanation of the resources available to assist researchers such as the MERC workshops, WGEA grant, etc. Presenters: Terri Cameron, MA, Director of Curriculum Programs, AAMC Terri Cameron has been presenting and publishing about use of curriculum management systems in medical school curricula for nearly two decades. She has trained schools to use a national curriculum management system, and has worked with schools locally to help them define the criteria for system selection and for using systems effectively. She has spent the last five years designing and implementing an international curriculum benchmarking system, the AAMC Curriculum Inventory. Jorie Colbert-Getz, Phd, MS, Assistant Dean of Assessment and Evaluation, University of Utah School of Medicine Dr. Colbert-Getz has over 20 publication in medical education and has led workshops on development of research/scholarship projects. Before joining the University of Utah School of Medicine she was the Director of Assessment for Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine where she managed the Student Outcomes Research Data Warehouse, which linked all pre-matriculation, school level, and post-graduation data. She is currently the Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education (SDRME) representative for the AAMC Curriculum Inventory Research Group. Arianne Teherani, PhD, University of California- San Francisco Dr. Teherani is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine and educational researcher in the Center for Faculty Educators in the UCSF School of Medicine. Since 2007, she has served as Director for Program Evaluation, a role in which she oversees evaluation design, planning, and policy for the undergraduate curriculum in the School of Medicine. She is currently the WGEA representative for the AAMC Curriculum Inventory Research Group. 

Abstract Body: Summary: Unconscious biases are prejudices we have but are unaware of. These are “mental shortcuts” based on social norms and stereotypes. (Guynn, 2015). Considerable evidence demonstrates that we all have unconscious bias; even if we sincerely believe that we are being fair and objective, stereotypes may still be influencing our opinions—without us being aware of it. Studies that have measured implicit attitudes have shown that MDs have a stronger implicit preference for White Americans over Blank Americans when compared to the general public and other professional degree holders that can contribute to racial health care disparities (Sabin, 2012). Being aware of one’s own biases can help improve one’s ability to care for patients from diverse backgrounds and be more culturally sensitive however acknowledging and discussing one’s biases can be uncomfortable. Objectives Describe four educational approaches of teaching medical students about implicit bias Discuss the role that faculty and the institution plays to address bias. Recognize the power of self-reflection as a method for understanding bias Share best practices and resources for addressing bias. Methods Four institutions will share their different educational approaches to address this topic with their students at their respective institutions and the challenges and lessons learned. Introductions (5m) Faculty from each institution will give a brief presentation on their curriculum (15 min) Discussion on the delivery of implicit bias curriculum (25 min) Intended Outcomes Participants will gain a variety of ideas of how to deliver curriculum for medical students on implicit bias Target Audience Faculty and staff responsible for curriculum development and medical students. 

Abstract Body: At the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, we recognize the importance of increasing the diversity of our institution, but are faced with limited resources for recruitment and pipeline programs. Consequently, our leadership decided to strategically focus recruitment efforts for a targeted approach to diversity, with the intention of enhancing quality and impact. To do this, we utilized an inclusive systematic, data-driven process to re-evaluate and re-define the institution’s diversity. We enlisted support from our main campus partners from the Center for Student Cultural Diversity to provide a deeper context surrounding diversity recruitment and retention. This process aligned our diversity efforts with the mission of the school to strategically focus on groups for which we can demonstrate a commitment through policies, procedures, resources, and outcomes. This presentation will describe: 1) how to redefine an institution’s diversity categories to guide recruitment and retention activities, 2) the results of our assessment, and 3) how to use results to implement change. Two methods were utilized to obtain input regarding our recruitment strategies: focus groups and a survey. Focus groups were used to promote open discussion about diversity and inclusion at our institution and how diversity efforts can be both narrowed and improved to further advance our school’s mission. To preserve the transparency of the discussion, our external partners from the Center for Student Cultural Diversity led our focus groups. For broader participation, an online survey was utilized to acquire data representative of the school of medicine community. The survey asked respondents to rate how effective the school has been in creating a diverse and inclusive environment, how diversity efforts can be improved, and then asked respondents to identify 3-5 groups that our school should focus on for recruitment. The survey was emailed to all students, faculty, residents, and classified staff. Overall 35 people participated in the focus groups and 400 responded to the survey, for a response rate of 33.5%. There was clear consensus from the focus groups and survey in terms of how the school should strategically focus diversity efforts. In addition, the focus groups and survey provided rich data on why particular groups should be the focus, as well as suggestions for how diversity and inclusion can be improved. These results will be discussed, along with an overview of how these data are informing subsequent diversity and inclusion efforts and how this process can be used at other institutions. 

Abstract Body: Objectives After this session attendees will be able to: * Understand the requirements of data security policy at Stanford Medicine. * Describe how Stanford Medicine attains 100% compliance with data security policy among incoming students prior to the start of classes. * Discuss strategies that other schools have taken with regards to setting and enforcing data security policy. Methods Information security is a critical priority for Stanford Medicine. As of May 31, 2015, Stanford University policy states that all Stanford-owned computers and devices must be verifiably encrypted. This also applies to personally-owned computers and devices which either may store or access High-Risk Data (including Protected Health Information (PHI)) or which are used on the Stanford network. Since it is assumed that incoming MD students will access PHI during their learning, all MD students must be fully compliant with this policy before starting classes. This requirement is viewed as a gateway to critical discussions on medical professionalism. Every year Stanford Medicine matriculates approximately 90 students to our incoming class. Students receive their admissions packet containing matriculation instructions and the acceptance letter between November and March. In early July, they begin receiving communications directly from the administration with further details about the requirements for their upcoming matriculation. One of these requirements is compliance with Stanford data security policy. Stanford has implemented a set of systems to track and report on compliance. If a student is not compliant before the deadline they will be barred from class, they will not have access to their course materials online, and they will not have security access to student facilities (lounge, gym, study rooms). Once the initial communication is sent out, every week until orientation week, students are sent individualized reminders until they reach compliance. On orientation week, they receive daily reminders. IT support is available to students over the phone, at an on-campus Tech Bar and at one-on-one support sessions scheduled during orientation week. As a result of these efforts, we have not once had to enforce the consequences of non-compliance. Intended Outcomes In this session we will present Stanford Medicine’s policy, process and results. But we intend for this session to be more of a conversation than a presentation. We want to hear from the attendees how data security has been addressed at their institutions and what are the common barriers, pitfalls, and factors for success. Let’s learn from each other! Target Audience Office of Student Affairs, Privacy Office, IT staff and leadership, Admissions, Students 

Abstract Body: Objectives 1. Describe Hotspotting as a method for intervening with patients who have highly complex needs. 2. Consider approaches for using Values-driven Outcomes Data to identify individuals who may benefit from a Hotspotting intervention. 3. Identify appropriate educational outcomes for interprofessional education (IPE) teams participating in an IPE Hotspotting Immersion. 4. Describe the processes and challenges of creating and implementing IPE Hotspotting teams. 5. Discuss the benefits of successful Hotspotting for patients, health professions students and health care delivery systems. Methods This project uses Interprofessional Education Hotspotting Immersions to drive IPE beyond the focus of direct care and to foster the development of Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (IPEC) within the framework of systems-based practice. Hotspotting is the term used to describe local team-based interventions designed to improve health and health care utilization for individuals and communities with highly complex needs. A team of interprofessional faculty (medicine, social work, nursing, and pharmacy) will present the process, structure and early outcomes of creating and implementing an IPE Hotspotting Immersion with chronically and persistently homeless individuals supported in a Housing First program. Presentation content will include: the use of value-driven health systems data to identify patients, preparing students with a Hotspotting curriculum, navigating legal consent and HIPAA requirements, and working with community organizations. Guided discussion with the audience will be enhanced by the participation of student members from the IPE Hotspotting team. Intended Outcomes Participants will learn about an innovative community-based model for IPE that provides students with opportunities to collaboratively identify and address the drivers of health while seeking to reduce unnecessary health care costs and utilization. Participants will be able to identify the benefits, challenges, and first steps for implementing a similar IPE Hotspotting program within their own educational institutions. Target Audience The target audience for this Small Group Discussion includes: IPE faculty and health professions program directors interested in community-based IPE and academic health centers leaders exploring Hotspotting interventions in their own communities. 

Abstract Body: Objectives Session participants will: - Learn about the instructional methods used in an innovative Creative and Critical Thinking course for medical students conducting summer research. - Experience two creativity and critical thinking exercises used in the course. - Learn approaches other participants use to enhance students’ abilities to think creatively and critically. Methods Presentation – 15 minutes We will present the goals, instructional methods, and assignments used for a Creative and Critical Thinking course. This 1-credit elective is designed to stimulate the development of creative and critical thinking skills within the context of diabetes, cardiovascular, and eye disease research (the foci of three NIH T-35 training grants). In the course, students learn and practice (a) techniques that facilitate identification of potential areas for research and development of research questions, and (b) observational, curiosity-building and innovative thinking skills. The course objectives are aligned with the following competencies from the University of Utah School of Medicine (UUSOM) undergraduate medical curriculum: - Commit to excellence and scholarship. - Develop the curiosity to seek out research and advancements which impact the field of medicine. - Actively engage in self-directed learning activities that promote lifelong learning. - Exhibit interpersonal and communication skills that promote effective information exchange with professional associates. This course is required of all UUSOM students engaged in research between MS1 and MS2 who have received NIH T-35 grants or who are enrolled in the MD/PhD program. Creativity and Critical Thinking Exercises – 10 minutes Participants will be introduced to and practice two exercises used in the course: Observation and curiosity-building exercises: Notice and record at least three curious or never-before-noticed things in your life. Reframing research questions: Historical examples and an exercise on how reframing a research question from an alternative perspective can lead to discovering the “truth.” Small group discussion – 15 minutes Participants will discuss methods they are using to foster creative and critical thinking and/or ways they might integrate the aspects of the course content at their institution. Whole-group report-out – 5 minutes A representative will be asked to report the most interesting and/or key points from each group’s discussion. Intended Outcomes Session participants will learn methods the session presenters are using to build students’ abilities to engage in creative and critical thinking. They also will be stimulated to think about ways they can incorporate creative and critical thinking skill building in the curriculum at their institution. Target Audience Curriculum developers, faculty who oversee scholarly concentration (research) programs 

Abstract Body: We propose a small group session to discuss tactics toward integrating value-driven healthcare concepts and practice into education at the UME and GME levels. The objectives of this session are to (1) briefly examine the definition of “value” and the importance of integrating trainees into value improvement processes, (2) discuss our efforts at the University of Utah at the UME level through curriculum development, and (3) discuss efforts at the GME level through the creation of a value committee. After discussing efforts at our institution, we will then (4) transition to a discussion about experiences at other institutions. We will introduce the concept of “value” as it pertains to healthcare and discuss how it has been defined both nationally and locally here at the University of Utah. We will discuss why it is vital that medical professionals are trained in this domain both in light of the ACGME Next Accreditation System as well as practice in the community at large. We will stress the importance of coordination between departments and the health care institution in developing an integrated educational program. UME-level efforts to build a curriculum in value-driven healthcare will then be discussed. We will describe the approach to education transformation using Kotter’s 8 steps to transform organizations as a conceptual framework. We will identify key stakeholders who have been recruited to contribute to the process of curriculum development and highlight the intentional overlap between the UME and GME efforts. To emphasize the importance of institutional alignment, we will highlight our approach to identifying and incorporating specific terminology and methodology unique to the University of Utah. GME-level efforts to create a GME Value Committee will then be discussed. We will describe our initial efforts at member recruitment, emphasizing the importance of representation from both GME and health system operations and leadership. We will discuss integration of the University of Utah-specific value methodology and value summary into our work. We will discuss the role of the committee and how it has evolved over time, addressing challenges we have encountered and our progress to date. We will then answer questions, invite comments and facilitate discussion. Session attendees will leave with new knowledge and ideas about how to approach the integration of value-driven healthcare into UME and GME education at their own institution. 

Abstract Body: Stanford has a history of supporting the undergraduate education of first-generation and low-income students. Services were recently extended to first-generation graduate students in the medical school who can face similar issues (feelings of isolation, Imposter Syndrome, do not fit into the School’s culture). During this small group discussion, the presenters will describe the genesis of the Stanford Medicine First Generation Mentorship program, outcomes of its first year, and engage session participants about their schools’ strategies to support first-generation medical and biosciences students. Learning Objectives Identify characteristics of first-generation students that are unique to the medical student population Describe Stanford Medicine’s program and recruitment and assignment process of students and mentors Discuss the benefits and challenges of formalizing a mentorship program for first-generation graduate students Consider approaches and strategies used by other schools to support first-generation medical students Methods This small group discussion will focus on determining the programmatic needs of first-generation graduate students and fostering collaborations with other offices to support staffing and funding of programs. The session will begin with a brief 15-minute presentation describing the first-generation community at Stanford and the mentorship program During the next 20-minute interactive block, small groups of participants will work through case scenarios to assess students’ needs, identify existing school resources, determine opportunities for programming directed at first-generation students, and brainstorm considerations for mentor recruitment and engagement The session will close with a 10-minute large group debriefing of the case scenarios and discussion of strategies employed at other schools to support first-generation medical students Intended Outcomes Describe characteristics of first-generation graduate students that affect their academic performance and adjustment to the culture of medicine Identify strategies for utilizing existing resources and partnering with other offices to support programming (Including learning how other schools support first-generation medical students) Target Audience Evaluation results from the pilot year demonstrate that Stanford Medicines’ students have an increased sense of belonging and encouragement as a result of participating in the first-generation mentoring program. Our target audience includes faculty or staff members with a stake in medical student success including members of student affairs, academic advising, wellness, admissions, alumni associations, and pipeline programs. 

Abstract Body: Objectives 1. Appraise professionalism as a dynamic, contingent process that incorporates attitudes, beliefs, and concepts, thus resistant to a static or universal definition. 2. Determine the skills and values that could define professionalism at the learner’s institution. 3. Create educational interventions and extracurricular activities that address the desired skills and values. Methods The presenters will discuss the limitations of working with a static definition of professionalism and offer examples of creating an adaptable definition for a given set of circumstances. We will also present guidelines for creating new educational interventions and extracurricular activities and for adapting existing ones. In the discussion portion, we will encourage participants to brainstorm skills and values that could apply to a definition of professionalism for their home institutions. To facilitate brainstorming, we will collate and categorize these ideas using sticky notes filled out by participants, in an interactive technique borrowed from Hoshin Kanri planning theory, and discuss what we learn. Intended Outcomes Both of the presenters are faculty who are tasked directly with teaching professionalism to undergraduate medical students. A primary difficulty in any cohort or institution is agreeing on a definition of professionalism, so that aspects of it may be addressed in the classroom or extracurricularly. We argue that working toward a static definition is not possible or productive, and instead, professionalism should be regarded as a mutable set of skills and values that depends on the given circumstances. We would like learners to leave our workshop with the confidence to teach professionalism as constantly changing, experiential, and participatory. They will also leave our workshop with concrete tools for applying the ideas we explore. Target Audience This workshop will be salient to teaching faculty and administrators with direct student contact. The discussion will also be targeted to students and trainees, who are potentially the most effective at setting standards for professionalism in a given medical culture. 

Abstract Body: Objectives: In August 2016, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine launched the Bridges Curriculum. This novel approach to medical education prepares future physicians to address 21st-century challenges by leading health systems change in safety, quality, and patient satisfaction, and developing skills and knowledge in systems improvement, implementation science, data management, and interprofessional teamwork. The four integrated elements of the curriculum include: 1) the Clinical Microsystems Clerkship (CMC) where students participate in a longitudinal immersion in clinical teams with a focus on developing direct patient care skills and engaging in institution-lead quality improvement efforts; 2) the Core Inquiry Curriculum (CIC), which gives students an opportunity to explore current, complex, and cutting-edge scientific or healthcare problems; 3) Foundational Sciences (FS), in which students come to understand and apply traditional basic sciences to the 21st-century practice of medicine; and 4) Assessment, Reflection, Coaching, Health (ARCH) Weeks, which focus on students understanding their competency development through holistically reviewing and reflecting on their performance. New learning strategies include: - Use of flipped classroom - Frequent low-stakes assessments - Physician coaches to support student learning in the clinical environment - Dedicated weeks for integrated assessment, reflection on competency development, learning planning, and attention to one’s well-being. - Adapted PBL learning format to explore the edge of known science - Criteria for assessing the “Inquiry Habit of Mind” At the end of the discussion, participants will be able to: - Describe the design and implementation of the Bridges Curriculum - Describe how integrated elements create a novel approach to medical student learning - Assess the benefits of coaches and assessment weeks - Describe how to make strategic choices for launching a complex curriculum - Identify lessons learned from the implementation of the new curriculum Methods: The session will begin with an overview of Bridges, structure of the first year, and the innovative elements (25 minutes). The presentation will include four members of the staff implementation team, each of whom will describe an element with regard to design, faculty involvement, and staff involvement. Participants in this session will receive a worksheet with a description of the elements. After the presentation, the facilitator will solicit questions from participants and the members of the implementation team will offer their insights (20 min). Intended Outcomes: As a result of attending, individuals will have insight into developing and implementing novel elements into a medical school curriculum. Target Audience: Those considering or implementing curricular change. 

Abstract Body: Objectives: 1. Discuss the impact of a targeted curricular change ( on both the cognitive and affective domains of student learning. 2. Identify tools that can assess the impact of curricular change on the affective domain of learning. 3. Outline strategies to evaluate impact of curricular change on both the cognitive and affective domains of learning. Session Format: A brief summary (15 minutes) will be presented by an anatomy instructor (in a Cell Biology and Physiology department), and an educational researcher (in a Biochemistry and Molecular Biology department), on a recent curricular change that integrated anatomy content within the organ system courses rather than presenting anatomy as a separate course. Initial evidence indicates that this change led to improved anatomy content mastery as well as differences in student attitudes, including aspects of professional identity and confidence. A think-pair-share activity (15 minutes) among session participants will be based around the following prompts: 1. Give examples of possible ways curricular change could influence student learning. 2. If your program has changed or is planning curricular change, what specific non-cognitive outcomes (if any) did or will you track. 3. What tools are you aware of or would you like to have to measure these outcomes. Participants will be encouraged to use a provided template to identify assessment tools that measure impact of curricular change on domains of learning in the context of their home institution. A group discussion (15 minutes) will provide an opportunity to learn about assessment/evaluation strategies used by different programs to track the potential influence of curricular revision. Intended Outcome: Raising awareness about non-cognitive outcomes resulting from changes in a medical curriculum and sharing of assessment tools and strategies to capture these effects. Target Audience: Medical educators, administrators and medical students interested in a broader spectrum of effects on learning as a result of curricular change.

Abstract Body: Objectives Summarize changes in the University of Utah Endocrinology Fellowship selection process. Engage participants in sharing their own selection processes. Engage participants in designing a standardized selection process that optimizes the likelihood of selecting fellow candidates who will succeed at the institution. Methods The fellowship application process from the program’s perspective consists of 3 stages, which includes application review, the interview, and the post-interview ranking process. This is quite challenging at every stage since the applicants have varied experiences in education, clinical & community outreach activities, teaching, and research. Also, their personality, ability to communicate effectively, interest in the respective specialty, exam scores, letters of recommendation, and their potential to ‘fit’ well into a program are all extremely important factors to be considered during the ranking process. The varied experiences of different applicants should be weighed on the same platform using a judicious, reproducible and systematic process. This is extremely challenging due to a multitude of interviewee and interviewer related factors, both academic and personality. The University of Utah Endocrinology Fellowship program recently changed from recruiting 1 fellow per year for a required 3-year fellowship to 2 fellows per year for the ACGME required 2-year fellowship. We also changed our process from including a few faculty in the selection process to all faculty. About 58 prospective fellows apply every year, 10-30 applicants are invited for a personal interview, and a selected percentage of them are ranked. The fellowship training involves a close interaction between a small group of faculty and fellows almost on a daily basis throughout the training period which is very different from large residency programs where trainees have limited interaction with the same faculty. Also, fellows are considered ‘adult learners’ compared to residents and a higher emphasis is placed on research and leadership prospects during fellowship selection. Intended Outcomes Understanding the similarities and differences between residency and fellowship selection process. Exchange of ideas about increased value for our effort and identify best practices. Establishing a focus group interested to interact and share ideas about this in the future. Target Audience Program directors, assistant directors, and faculty Trainees (fellows, residents, and medical students) Training program managers and coordinators Undergraduate Medical Education faculty and staff 

Abstract Body: Objectives: After this session, attendees will be able to: Describe the purpose and utility of curriculum mapping in medical education. Conceptualize a simple curriculum map design and how it can be leveraged to perform robust curriculum searches and report on curriculum gaps, redundancies, and course design and evaluations. Discuss the experiences, hurdles, and best practices of a medical school who recently implemented a curriculum map, search tool, and reporting system. Problem: As medical schools move forward with developing curriculum mapping frameworks to better capture and evaluate their programs, many have realized just how limited the available resources and stated best practices are in this area. Also limited are affordable, adaptable, yet robust software options for searching and reporting on curriculum data. Methods: The presenters will share lessons-learned and best practices identified while developing a curriculum map, search tool, and reporting system at the University of Colorado School of Medicine (CUSOM). While this discussion will focus on the use of Tableau® software as an interactive data visualization tool, the design of the curriculum data mapping that will be presented also lends itself to using universally-available software such as Microsoft Excel and Access software for data searches and reporting. The small group discussion will focus on sharing other schools’ efforts in curriculum mapping design, and curriculum search and reporting tools. Topics covered will include: Overview of the purpose, goals, and utility of curriculum mapping in undergraduate medical education. Overview of the curriculum mapping framework implemented at the CUSOM. Demonstration of an interactive data visualization software, Tableau®, used to provide a robust curriculum search tool, along with user-defined reporting capabilities. Lessons learned and considerations for creating a sustainable curriculum map and reporting system. The CUSOM began their curriculum mapping initiative in 2014. The primary driver for this effort was similar to many other medical schools’ – the need to be able to effectively capture, monitor, and report on the medical school program’s curriculum. After pursuing several different curriculum mapping software solutions, a simple “home-grown” curriculum mapping structure was designed and implemented. The simplicity of the curriculum map design facilitated the use of a robust, cost-effective interactive data visualization software, Tableau®. This presentation will highlight CUSOM’s curriculum map and provide a demonstration of the newly-launched curriculum search tool. In addition, we will share Tableau’s reporting capabilities used to both assess course design and inform course evaluations. Target Audience: Curriculum deans, faculty, education technology, curriculum administrators. 

Abstract Body: Learning objectives: Become familiar with medical student insights into benefits of and challenges to patient-centered care in primary care settings. Discuss time management, a salient patient-centered challenefor medical students. Explore ways to teach medical students about patient-centered time management through a hands-on curriculum. Generate ideas about additional ways to teach medical students about patient-centered care in busy outpatient settings. Methods: In 2013-2014, we conducted a study analyzing 216 medical students’ patient logs from the Stanford School of Medicine family medicine core clerkship to assess their perceptions of patient-centered care. We found that students were able to identify many of the benefits of patient-centered care, such as increased patient engagement in the care plan and improved outcomes. However, students also highlighted several challenges that they faced in being patient-centered. These challenges ranged from communication barriers between themselves and the patient, to limited time for the clinical encounter, to areas where physician and patient perceptions of illness differed. We have begun to design an innovative, hands-on curriculum that seeks to teach medical students new skills around patient-centeredness, to address some of these perceived challenges. Our evolving curriculum focuses on patient-centered time management. We designed a flipped classroom curriculum about patient-centered time management that includes two short video clips, followed by thirty minutes of didactics during the required family medicine core clerkship at Stanford. During our presentation, we will show audience members portions of the videos and use our curriculum as a starting point to generate discussion around how to teach medical students the tenets of patient-centered care, with a focus on time efficiency and efficacy. Intended outcomes: There is little in the literature about how to effectively teach students how to be patient-centered in a primary care setting. We hope to generate rich discussion about how to teach medical students the tenets of patient-centeredness, specifically in relation to time management. After we introduce the curriculum we have designed to teach students about patient-centered time management, we hope to get feedback from audience members about ways to improve/alter our curriculum to best address barriers to patient-centeredness in the primary care setting. Target audience: Our target audience includes primary care faculty, medical and other health professions students, and staff involved in designing and evaluating medical school education curriculum. We are especially hoping to target faculty and staff that help to design primary care exposure for preclerkship and clerkship students. 

Abstract Body: This small group discussion will focus on how schools respond to student tragedies on their campus. Participants will share their experiences in delaing with tragedies such as an unexpected death, how they responded and what they learned from the experience. The goal of this session is for participants to learn about effective strategies and resources that can be implemented at their own institutions. 

Abstract Body: Background This project represents an ongoing collaboarative effort of emergency medicine residency program directors, education professionals, and residents. The puprose was to enhance the quality and depth of formative feedback to residents regarding non-medical knowledge competencies. Effective communication skills are essential to building good patient rapport, communication and patient outcomes, as well as for successful collaborative working relations with peers, attendings and consulting physicians. Session Objectives The small group discussion of this process has the following objectives: - Describe the shadow shift/evaluation process for assessing and providing formative feedback to residents regarding performance of non-medical knowledge competencies. - Discuss results of the ongoing study - Discuss challenges raised by this process in terms of patient care, patient flow, resident and attending acceptance and cooperation; resident evaluation, evaluator competence, and inter-departmental collaboration. - Describe and discuss how project leaders addressed these challenges. The audience will their share perspectives on the issue of non-clinician evaluation of trainees, potential benefits and the challenges for design and implementation at their various institions. Evaluation Process Our resident shadow/evaluation project combines the skills, experience and talent of education professionals in the Office of Medical Student Education. The evaluation process has three components: 1) a full shadow shift by a non-clinician evaluator; 2) verbal feedback; and 3) written evaluation with specific feedback and guidance for improvement. Two medical education specialists shadow residents for an entire shift and note observations concerning interaction and communication with patients, peers, attendings and colleagues with whom they consult. At the close of the shift the education professional offers verbal feedback, and, within a couple of weeks following the shift, a written evaluation. Study Methods & Summary of Results We surveyed residents who participated in this evaluation process before and after the shadow shift experience. They identified anticipated and actual benefits and concerns associated with being evaluated by a non-clinician professional and being shadowed for an entire shift. Eight of nine residents in the post survey indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed they received meaningful feedback from the education professional, and that, “Overall, the education professional evaluated me accurately based on the milestones.” Only one resident indicated that the educational officials failed to identify specific skills and knowledge they needed to improve or guidance as to how to improve these. Only one was concerned that the education professional did not have sufficient knowledge of emergency medicine to identify skills and knowledge for improvement or offer guidance on how to improve. Small Group Discussion Methods Following a brief presentation of the evaluation approach and the results to date of the ongoing study of resident perceptions of the process, the facilitators will engage the participants in discussion and interactive activity as follows: - Discussion of challenges and strategies for addressing these with audience participation and suggestions; - Using a web-based collaboration tool, the audience participants will identify pros and cons as well as challenges/obstacles and supportive infrastructure at their own institutions for enhance trainee evaluation and formative feedback. Intended Outcomes Audience will demonstrate understanding of this evaluating process; describe key factors, possible challenges and strategies for designing and implementing an innovative evaluation process at their institutions. 

Abstract Body: Curriculum mapping is integral to curriculum oversight, as well as required by the LCME. While every medical school is tasked with utilizing a clear and cohesive curriculum map, involving key stakeholders from day-one, defining a universal purpose, creating a realistic timeline, and planning effective messaging can ease the process. With limited financial resources, time, and staff to manage the creation of curriculum map, the challenge many medical administrators face is creating a curriculum map that will both fulfill all LCME requirements and serve as an attractive and useful tool for faculty and students for years to come. Gathering the elements of a curriculum map is a time consuming task, and can hold little relevance for educators who do not see the purpose or understand the usefulness of the final product. However, a well-designed curriculum map can serve many purposes, including aiding in administration of a cohesive curriculum, linking exam items to learning objectives, and categorizing content in a way that is relevant to educators across the continuum. During this small group presentation, we will: 1) Explain the elements of a curriculum map that can fulfill LCME requirements and serve as an organizational planning and collaboration tool. 2) Outline the process of creating a curriculum map, including faculty involvement, staffing requirements, technology requirements, faculty development, and continuous quality improvement. 3) Share lessons learned in creating a curriculum map. 4) Explain the role of assessments in curriculum mapping and share progress made at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Following the presentation, we will lead a small group discussion guided by question prompts. Attendees will examine the curriculum mapping processes currently in place at their institution and share their experiences with other small group participants. Before the end of the session, we will convene as a group to discuss central themes and create a final document of tips, lessons learned, and next steps to email to attendees after the presentation. At the end of the session, attendees should be able to: 1) Identify the components of a curriculum map and first steps needed to begin the mapping process at their institution. 2) Formulate a timeline for completing the curriculum mapping process in time for an LCME visit. 3) Connect with others involved in curriculum mapping. We hope that highlighting the multifaceted purposes of a curriculum map will appeal to curriculum deans, faculty, curriculum administrators, and support staff.