Cargando…

A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship

INTRODUCTION: Reviewing elements of a curriculum, such as courses and clerkships in medical school, is an essential part of the quality improvement process. Yet there is a gap in the literature in terms of actual rubrics for evaluating course quality in medical schools. METHODS: This resource descri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moore, Kathryn B., Bonnett, Rachel, Colbert-Getz, Jorie M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Association of American Medical Colleges 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7331966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32656332
http://dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10911
_version_ 1783553432440799232
author Moore, Kathryn B.
Bonnett, Rachel
Colbert-Getz, Jorie M.
author_facet Moore, Kathryn B.
Bonnett, Rachel
Colbert-Getz, Jorie M.
author_sort Moore, Kathryn B.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Reviewing elements of a curriculum, such as courses and clerkships in medical school, is an essential part of the quality improvement process. Yet there is a gap in the literature in terms of actual rubrics for evaluating course quality in medical schools. METHODS: This resource describes a course review process and rubric to evaluate course quality: A subcommittee of faculty members and students evaluates goals, content and delivery, assessment, feedback to students, grading, and student feedback for each course with the rubric. Course directors, Curriculum Committee members, and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members were surveyed on their perception of the process. RESULTS: A large majority of Curriculum Committee and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members agreed that the review process was objective (100%), provided an evaluation of course quality (>95%), helped identify areas of improvement/strengths (>91%) and issues/concerns in the curriculum (>95%), helped them become more familiar with the curriculum (>90%), and was a catalyst for changes in a course (>77%). Course/clerkship directors had less agreement that the course review process was a catalyst for curriculum changes (46%) and that the process helped identify areas of improvement for a course (62%). DISCUSSION: This curriculum evaluation process provides a resource for other institutions to use and/or modify for their own course evaluation process. All stakeholders in the review process agreed that the evaluation process was successful in identifying areas that worked and did not work in courses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7331966
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Association of American Medical Colleges
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73319662020-07-06 A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship Moore, Kathryn B. Bonnett, Rachel Colbert-Getz, Jorie M. MedEdPORTAL Original Publication INTRODUCTION: Reviewing elements of a curriculum, such as courses and clerkships in medical school, is an essential part of the quality improvement process. Yet there is a gap in the literature in terms of actual rubrics for evaluating course quality in medical schools. METHODS: This resource describes a course review process and rubric to evaluate course quality: A subcommittee of faculty members and students evaluates goals, content and delivery, assessment, feedback to students, grading, and student feedback for each course with the rubric. Course directors, Curriculum Committee members, and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members were surveyed on their perception of the process. RESULTS: A large majority of Curriculum Committee and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members agreed that the review process was objective (100%), provided an evaluation of course quality (>95%), helped identify areas of improvement/strengths (>91%) and issues/concerns in the curriculum (>95%), helped them become more familiar with the curriculum (>90%), and was a catalyst for changes in a course (>77%). Course/clerkship directors had less agreement that the course review process was a catalyst for curriculum changes (46%) and that the process helped identify areas of improvement for a course (62%). DISCUSSION: This curriculum evaluation process provides a resource for other institutions to use and/or modify for their own course evaluation process. All stakeholders in the review process agreed that the evaluation process was successful in identifying areas that worked and did not work in courses. Association of American Medical Colleges 2020-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7331966/ /pubmed/32656332 http://dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10911 Text en © 2020 Moore et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license.
spellingShingle Original Publication
Moore, Kathryn B.
Bonnett, Rachel
Colbert-Getz, Jorie M.
A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship
title A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship
title_full A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship
title_fullStr A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship
title_full_unstemmed A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship
title_short A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship
title_sort process and rubric for a group to review the quality of a medical education course/clerkship
topic Original Publication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7331966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32656332
http://dx.doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10911
work_keys_str_mv AT moorekathrynb aprocessandrubricforagrouptoreviewthequalityofamedicaleducationcourseclerkship
AT bonnettrachel aprocessandrubricforagrouptoreviewthequalityofamedicaleducationcourseclerkship
AT colbertgetzjoriem aprocessandrubricforagrouptoreviewthequalityofamedicaleducationcourseclerkship
AT moorekathrynb processandrubricforagrouptoreviewthequalityofamedicaleducationcourseclerkship
AT bonnettrachel processandrubricforagrouptoreviewthequalityofamedicaleducationcourseclerkship
AT colbertgetzjoriem processandrubricforagrouptoreviewthequalityofamedicaleducationcourseclerkship