July 2, 2020 – Meadsnovels

New York College of Osteopathic Medicine

Learning Outcomes Assessment 2009-2010

January 2009

Taskforce Members

John R. McCarthy, Ed.D.

Pelham Mead, Ed.D.

Mary Ann Achziger, M.S.

Felicia Bruno, M.A.

Claire Bryant, Ph.D.

Leonard Goldstein, DDS, PH.D.

Abraham Jeger, Ph.D.

Rodika Zaika, M.S.

Ron Portanova, Ph.D.

Pre-

Doctoral

Data

Post-Graduate Data

Career

data

Pre-Matriculation

Table of Contents

OVERVIEW 4

I. Introduction and Rationale 5

II. Purpose and Design 9

III. Specifics of the Plan 11

Mission of NYCOM 11

Learning Outcomes 11

Compiling the Data 17

Stakeholders 17

IV. Plan Implementation 18

Next Steps 18

V. Conclusion 20

A. OUTCOME INDICATORS – DETAIL 24

1. Pre-matriculation data 24

Forms 26

2. Academic (pre-clinical) course-work 47

Forms – LDB / DPC Track 49

Forms – Institute for Clinical Competence (ICC) 55

3. Clinical Clerkship Evaluations / NBOME Subject Exams 86

Forms 88

4. Student feedback (assessment) of courses/Clinical clerkship

PDA project 92

Forms 94

5. COMLEX USA Level I, Level II CE & PE,

Level III data (NBOME) 120

6. Residency match rates and overall placement rate 121

7. Feedback from (AACOM) Graduation Questionnaire 122

Forms 123

8. Completion rates (post-doctoral programs) 142

9. Specialty certification and licensure 143

10. Career choices and geographic practice location 144

11. Alumni Survey 145

Forms 146

B. BENCHMARKS 151

Bibliography 152

Appendices: 153

Chart 1 Proposed Curriculum and Faculty Assessment Timeline

Institute for Clinical Competence:

Neurological Exam – Student Version Parts I & II

Taskforce Members

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1 Cycle of Assessment 9

Figure 2 Outcome Assessment along the Continuum 15

Figure 3 Data Collection Phases 22

Table 1 Assessment Plan Guide 23

New York College of Osteopathic Medicine

Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan

February 2009

Overview

This document was developed by the NYCOM Task Force on Learning Outcomes

Assessment and was accepted by the dean in January 2009. Although a few of the assessment

tools and processes described in the document are new, most have been employed at NYCOM

since its inception to inform curriculum design and implementation and to gauge progress and

success in meeting the institution’s mission, goals and objectives.

The Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan documents the processes and measures used by

the institution to gauge student achievement and program (curricular) effectiveness. The results

of these activities are used by faculty to devise ways to improve student learning and by

administrators and other stakeholder groups to assess institutional effectiveness and inform

planning, decision-making, and resource allocation.

Certain of the measures described in later sections of this document constitute key

performance indicators for the institution, for which numerical goals have been set. Performance

on these measures has a significant effect on institutional planning and decision-making

regarding areas of investment and growth, program improvement, and policy.

Key performance indicators and benchmarks are summarized below and also on 􀁓􀁄􀁊􀁈 151

􀁒􀁉􀀃􀁗􀁋􀁈􀀃􀁓􀁏􀁄􀁑􀀑

Indicator Benchmarks

 Number of Applicants Maintain relative standing among Osteopathic Medical

Colleges

 Admissions Profile Maintain or improve current admissions profile based

on academic criteria (MCAT, GPA, Colleges attended

 Attrition 3% or less

 Remediation rate

(preclinical)

2% reduction per year

 COMLEX USA scores

(first-time pass rates,

mean scores)

Top quartile

 Students entering

OGME

Maintain or improve OGME placement

 Graduates entering

Primary Care careers

Maintain or improve Primary Care placement

 Career characteristics Regarding Licensure, Board Certification, Geographic

Practice, and Scholarly achievements–TBD

I. Introduction and Rationale

At NYCOM we believe it is our societal responsibility to monitor our students’ quality of

education through continual assessment of educational outcomes. On-going program evaluation

mandates longitudinal study (repeated observations over time) and the utilization of empirical

data based on a scientific methodology.

At Thomas Jefferson University, an innovative study was implemented circa 1970, which

was ultimately titled “Jefferson Longitudinal Study of Medical Education”.1 As a result of

implementation of this longitudinal study plan, Thomas Jefferson University was praised by the

1 Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care: Jefferson Longitudinal Study of Medical Education,

Thomas Jefferson University, 2005.

Accreditation Team for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education for “…..their

academic interest in outcome data, responsiveness to faculty and department needs and the clear

use of data to modify the curriculum and teaching environment….their use of this data has

impacted many components of the curriculum, the learning environment, individual student

development, and program planning…” (TJU, 2005).

The Jefferson Longitudinal Study of Medical Education has been the most productive

longitudinal study of medical students and graduates of a single medical school. This study has

resulted in 155 publications in peer review journals. Many were presented before national or

international professional meetings prior to their publication (TJU, 2005).

According to Hernon and Dugan (2004), the pressure on higher education institutions to

prove accountability has moved beyond the acceptance and reliance of self-reports and anecdotal

evidence compiled during the self-regulatory accreditation process. It now encompasses an

increasing demand from a variety of constituencies to demonstrate institutional effectiveness by

focusing on quality measures, such as educational quality, and cost efficiencies.

Accountability focuses on results as institutions quantify or provide evidence that they are

meeting their stated mission, goals, and objectives. Institutional effectiveness is concerned, in

part, with measuring (Hernon and Dugan, 2004):

 Programmatic outcomes: such as applicant pool, retention rates, and graduation rates.

Such outcomes are institution-based and may be used to compare internal year-to-year

institutional performance and as comparative measures with other institutions.

 Student learning outcomes: oftentimes referred to as educational quality and concerned

with attributes and abilities, both cognitive and affective, which reflect how student

experiences at the institution supported their development as individuals. Students are

expected to demonstrate acquisition of specific knowledge and skills.

At NYCOM, we recognize that our effectiveness as an institution must ultimately be

assessed and expressed by evaluating our success in achieving our Mission in relation to the

following Outcomes:

1. Student Learning / Program Effectiveness

2. Research and Scholarly Output

3. Clinical Services

The present document focuses on #1, above, viz., Student Learning / Program Effectiveness.

That is, it is intended only as a Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan. At the same time, we are

cognizant that Institutional Effectiveness/Outcomes derive from numerous inputs, or “means” to

these “ends,” including:

1. Finances

2. Faculty Resources

3. Administrative Resources

4. Student Support Services

5. Clinical Facilities and Resources

6. Characteristics of the Physical Plant

7. Information Technology Resources

8. Library Resources

We believe it is our obligation to continually assess the impact of any changes in the inputs,

processes, and outputs of this institution.

The evaluation approach in this Assessment Plan provides for on-going data collection

and analysis targeted specifically at assessing outcomes of student achievement and program

effectiveness (educational quality). Assessment of achievement and program effectiveness is

based on objective, quantifiable information (data).

As a result of the NYCOM Learning Outcome Assessment Plan’s continual assessment

cycle, the report is available, with scheduled updates, as a resource in the decision-making

process.

The report provides outcomes data, recommendations, and suggestions intended to inform key

policy makers and stakeholders2 of areas of growth and/or improvement, together with proposed

changes to policy that strengthen both overall assessment and data-driven efforts to improve

student learning.

2 NYCOM Administration, academic committees, faculty, potential researchers, and students.

II. Purpose and Design

Well-designed plans for assessing student learning outcomes link learning outcomes,

measures, data analysis, and action planning in a continuous cycle of improvement illustrated

below.

Figure 1 Cycle of Assessment

Ten principles guide the specifics of NYCOM’s Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan:

1. The plan provides formative and summative assessment of student learning.3

2. The primary purpose for assessing outcomes is to improve student learning.

3. Developing and revising an assessment plan is a long-term, dynamic, and collaborative

process.

4. Assessments use the most reliable and valid instruments available.

3 Examples of the former include post-course roundtable discussions, Institute for Clinical Competence (ICC)

seminars, and data from the Course/Faculty Assessment Program. Examples of the latter include the AACOM

Graduation Questionnaire, COMLEX scores, NBOME subject exam scores, and clerkship evaluations.

Define

intended

Learning

Outcomes

Identify

methods

of measuring

outcomes

Collect Data

Review results

and use to make

decisions

regarding program

improvement

Start

Here

5. Assessment priorities are grounded in NYCOM’s mission, goals, and learning outcomes.

6. The assessment involves a multi-method approach.

7. Assessment of student learning is separate from evaluation of faculty.

8. The primary benefit of assessment is the provision of evidence-based analysis to inform

decision-making concerning program revision and improvement and resource allocation.

9. The assessment plan must provide a substantive and sustainable mechanism for fulfilling

NYCOM’s responsibility to ensure the quality, rigor, and overall effectiveness of our

programs in educating competent and compassionate physicians.

10. The assessment plan yields valid measures of student outcomes that provide stakeholders

with relevant and timely data to make informed decisions on changes in curricular design,

implementation, program planning, and the overall learning environment.

Outcomes assessment is a continuous process of measuring institutional effectiveness

focusing on planning, determining, understanding, and improving student learning. At

NYCOM, we are mindful that an integral component of this assessment plan is to ensure that the

plan and the reporting process measures what it is intended to measure (student achievement and

program effectiveness).

III. Specifics of the Plan

The NYCOM assessment plan articulates eleven student learning outcomes, which are

linked to both the institutional mission and the osteopathic core competencies

Mission of NYCOM

The New York College of Osteopathic Medicine of the New York Institute of

Technology is committed to training osteopathic physicians for a lifetime of learning and

practice, based upon the integration of evidence-based knowledge, critical thinking and the tenets

of osteopathic principles and practice. The college is also committed to preparing osteopathic

physicians for careers in primary care, including health care in the inner city and rural

communities, as well as to the scholarly pursuit of new knowledge concerning health and

disease. NYCOM provides a continuum of educational experiences to its students, extending

through the clinical and post-graduate years of training. This continuum provides the future

osteopathic physician with the foundation necessary to maintain competence and compassion, as

well as the ability to better serve society through research, teaching, and leadership.

Learning Outcomes

The following eleven (11) Learning Outcomes that guide this plan stem from NYCOM’s mission

(above) and the osteopathic core competencies:

1. The Osteopathic Philosophy: Upon graduation, a student must possess the ability to

demonstrate the basic knowledge of Osteopathic philosophy and practice, as well as

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment.

2. Medical Knowledge: A student must possess the ability to demonstrate medical

knowledge through passing of course tests, standardized tests of the NBOME, post-

course rotation tests, research activities, presentations, and participation in directed

reading programs and/or journal clubs, and/or other evidence-based medicine activities.

3. Practice-based learning and improvement: Students must demonstrate their ability to

critically evaluate their methods of clinical practice, integrate evidence-based medicine

into patient care, show an understanding of research methods, and improve patient care

practices

4. Professionalism: Students must demonstrate knowledge of professional, ethical, legal,

practice management, and public health issues applicable to medical practice.

5. Systems-based practice: Students must demonstrate an understanding of health care

delivery systems, provide effective patient care and practice cost-effective medicine

within the system.

6. Patient Care: Students must demonstrate the ability to effectively treat patients and

provide medical care which incorporates the osteopathic philosophy, empathy, preventive

medicine education, and health promotion.

7. Communication skills: Students must demonstrate interpersonal and communication

skills with patients and other healthcare professionals, which enable them to establish and

maintain professional relationships with patients, families, and other healthcare providers.

8. Primary Care: Students will be prepared for careers in primary care, including health care

in the inner city, as well as rural communities.

9. Scholarly/Research Activities: Students will be prepared for the scholarly pursuit of new

knowledge concerning health and disease. Students in NYCOM’s 5-year Academic

Medicine Scholars Program will be prepared as academic physicians in order to address

this nation’s projected health care provider shortage and the resulting expansion of

medical school training facilities.

10. Global Medicine and Health policy: Students will be prepared to engage in global health

practice, policy, and the development of solutions to the world’s vital health problems.

11. Cultural Competence: Students will be prepared to deliver the highest quality medical

care, with the highest degree of compassion, understanding, and empathy toward cultural

differences in our global society.

The NYCOM assessment plan provides for analysis of learning outcomes for two

curricular tracks and four categories of student

NYCOM has historically tracked student data across the curriculum, paying particular

attention to cohorts of students (see below), as well as NYCOM’s two curricular tracks:

a) Lecture-Based Discussion track: integrates the biomedical and clinical sciences along

continuous didactic ‘threads’ delivered according to a systems based approach;

b) Doctor Patient Continuum track: a problem-based curriculum, whose cornerstone is

small-group, case-based learning.

Current data gathering incorporates tracking outcomes associated with several subcategories of

student (important to the institution) within the 4-year pre-doctoral curriculum and the 5-year

pre-doctoral Academic Medicine Scholars curriculum. The pre-doctoral populations are defined

according to the following subcategories:

 Traditional:4

 BS/DO: The BS/DO program is a combined baccalaureate/doctor of osteopathic

medicine program requiring successful completion of a total of 7 years (undergraduate, 3

years; osteopathic medical school, 4 years).

 MedPrep: A pre-matriculation program offering academic enrichment to facilitate the

acceptance of underrepresented minority and economically disadvantaged student

applicants.5

4 All other students not inclusive of BS/DO, MedPrep, and EPP defined cohorts.

5 The program is funded by the New York State Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program and the

NYCOM Office of Equity and Opportunity Programs.

 EPP (Émigré Physician Program): A 4-year program, offered by NYCOM, to educate

émigré physicians to become DOs to enable them to continue their professional careers in

the U.S.

The NYCOM assessment plan includes data from four phases of the medical education

continuum (as illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3): pre-matriculation, the four-year predoctoral

curriculum6, post-graduation data, and careers and practice data

Within the NYCOM Learning Outcome Assessment Plan, the Task Force has chosen the

following outcome indicators for assessment of program effectiveness at different points in the

medical education continuum:

 Pre-matriculation data, including first-year student survey;

 Academic (pre-clinical) course-work (scores on exams, etc.) – attrition rate;

 Clinical Clerkship Evaluations (3rd/4th year) and NBOME Subject Exams;

 Student feedback (assessment) of courses and 3rd and 4th year clinical clerkships and

PDA-based Patient and Educational Activity Tracking;

 COMLEX USA Level I, Level II CE & PE, and Level III data, including:

o First-time and overall pass rates and mean scores;

o Comparison of NYCOM first time and overall pass rates and mean scores to

national rankings;

 Residency match rate and placement rate (AOA / NRMP);

 Feedback from AACOM Graduation Questionnaire;

 Completion rates of Post-Doctoral programs;

 Specialty certification and licensure;

 Career choices (practice type–academic, research, etc.);

 Geographic practice locations;

 Alumni survey.

The Outcome Indicators—Detail sections of this plan (􀁓􀁄􀁊􀁈􀁖 24 􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁊􀁋 150) show the various

data sources and include copies of the forms or survey questionnaires utilized in the data

gathering process.

The NYCOM assessment plan identifies specific sources of data for each phase

Figure 2 illustrates which of the above measures are most relevant at each phase of the medical

education continuum.

6 And the five-year pre-doctoral Academic Medicine Scholars program

The NYCOM assessment plan describes the collection and reporting of data,

responsibilities for analysis and dissemination, and the linkage to continuous program

improvement and institutional planning

Compiling the Data

Discussions with departmental leaders and deans confirmed that data gathering occurs at

various levels throughout the institution. Development of a central repository (centralized

database) facilitates data gathering, data mining and overall efficiency as it relates to data

analysis, report generation, and report dissemination. This includes utilization of internal

databases (internal to NYCOM) as well as interfacing with external organizations’ databases,

including the AOA (American Osteopathic Association), AACOM (American Association of

Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine), AMA (American Medical Association), and the ABMS

(American Board of Medical Specialties).

Stakeholders

Information from the data collection serves to inform NYCOM administration, relevant

faculty, appropriate research and academic/administrative committees, including the following:

 Curriculum Committee

 Student Progress Committee

 Admissions Committee

 Deans and Chairs Committee

 Clinical and Basic Science Chairs

 Research Advisory Group

 Academic Senate

The NYCOM assessment plan sets forth benchmarks, goals and standards of performance

The major elements of the plan are summarized in Table 1: Assessment Plan Guide:

Learning Outcomes/Metrics/Benchmarks found at the end of this chapter.

IV. Plan Implementation

As discussed earlier, most of the assessment tools and processes described in the

document have been employed at NYCOM since its inception to inform curriculum design and

implementation and to gauge progress and success in meeting the institution’s mission, goals and

objectives. Beginning in fall 2008, however, assessment efforts have been made more

systematic; policies, procedures, and accountabilities are now documented and more widely

disseminated.

The Office of Program Evaluation and Assessment (OPEA), reporting to the Associate

Dean for Academic Affairs is responsible for directing all aspects of plan refinement and

implementation.

Next steps

1. Develop a shared, central repository for pre-matriculation, pre-doctoral, and postgraduate

data (see Figure 3). Time Frame: Academic Year 2010-2011

Centralized database: Development of a (shared or central) repository

(database) utilized by internal departments of NYCOM. WEAVEonline is

a web-bases assessment system, utilized by numerous academic

institutions across the country, for assessment and planning purposes.

Utilizing this program facilitates centralization of data. The central

database is comprised of student data categorized as follows:

Pre-matriculation Data includes demographics, AACOM pre-matriculation survey, academic

data (GPA), and other admissions data (MCAT’s, etc.).

Data is categorized according to student cohort as previously written and

described (see item III. Specifics of the Plan on pages 13-14).

Pre-doctoral Data includes academic (pre-clinical) course work, course grades, end-ofyear

grade point averages, the newly implemented, innovative Course /

Faculty assessment program data (described in Section 4), ratings of

clinical clerkship performance, performance scores on COMLEX USA

Level I and Level II CE & PE, descriptors of changes in academic status

(attrition), and AACOM Graduation questionnaires.

Post-graduate/Career Data includes residency match rate, residency choice, hospitals of

residency, geographic location, chosen specialty, performance on

COMLEX Level III, geographic and specialty area(s) of practice

following graduation, licensure, board certification status, scholarly work,

professional activities/societies, faculty appointments, type(s) of practice

(academic, clinical, research).

This database supports and assimilates collaborative surveys utilized by

internal departments in order to capture requested data (see item III.

Specifics of the Plan on pages 13-14) essential for tracking students during

and after post-graduate training. Specific data (e.g., COMLEX Level III,

board certification, and licensure) is provided by external databases,

through periodic reporting means, or queries from NYCOM, therefore the

database provides for assimilation of this external data, in order to

incorporate into institutional reporting format.

2. Establish metrics. Time Frame: Academic Year 2010-2011

Benchmarks and Reporting: Conduct a retrospective data analysis in

order to establish baseline metrics (see Compiling the Data on page 17).

Following development of these metrics, institutional benchmarks are

established. Benchmarks align with Institutional Goals as written above.

Reporting of data analysis occurs on an annual basis. An annual

performance report is compiled from all survey data and external sources.

Timeframe for reporting is congruent with end of academic year. Updates

to report occur semi-annually, as additional (external) data is received.

Data reporting includes benchmarking against Institutional Goals

(mission), in order to provide projections around effectiveness of learning

environment, quality improvement indicators, long-range and strategic

planning processes, and cost analysis/budgetary considerations.

Report dissemination to key policy makers and stakeholders, as previously

identified (see Stakeholders on page 17) in addition to other staff, as

deemed appropriate for inclusion in the reporting of assessment analysis.

V. Conclusion

The impact on student learning of such things as changes in the demographics of medical school

applicants, admissions criteria, curricula, priorities, and methods of delivery of medical education

deserve careful discussion, planning, and analysis before, during, and after implementation. This

plan facilitates change management at three points:

o Planning, by providing evidence to support decision-making;

o Implementation, by establishing mechanisms for setting performance targets and

monitoring results, and

o Evaluation, by systematically measuring outcomes against goals and providing evidence

of whether the change has achieved its intended objectives.

At NYCOM, accountability is seen as both a requirement and a responsibility. As healthcare

delivery, pedagogy, and the science of medicine constantly change, monitoring the rigor and

effectiveness of the learning environment through assessment of student learning outcomes

throughout the medical education continuum becomes paramount.

Figure 3 Data Collection Phases

Pre-doctoral Data

Pre-matriculation

Data

Post-Graduate

Data

Career

Data

Assessment

Process

Learning Outcomes7 Data Collection Phases8 Assessment Methods Metrics9 Development of

benchmarks10

Students will:

Demonstrate basic knowledge of OPP

& OMT

Demonstrate medical knowledge

Demonstrate competency in practicebased

learning and improvement

Demonstrate professionalism and

ethical practice

Demonstrate an understanding of

health care delivery systems

Demonstrate the ability to effectively

treat patients

Demonstrate interpersonal and

communication skills

Be prepared for careers in primary

care

Be prepared for the scholarly pursuit

of new knowledge

Be prepared to engage in global

health practice, policy, and solutions

to world health problems

Be prepared to effectively interact

with people of diverse cultures and

deliver the highest quality of medical

care

• Pre-matriculation

• Pre-doctoral

• Post-graduate

• Career

• Didactic Academic

Performance

• LDB Curriculum

• DPC Curriculum

• Formative / Summative

Experiences: Patient

Simulations (SP’s /

Robotic)

• Student-driven Course,

Clerkship, and Faculty

Assessment

• Clinical Clerkship

Performance

• PDA-Based Patient and

Education Tracking

• Surveys

• Standardized Tests

• Alumni Feedback

Vis a Vis:

• Admissions Data

(Applicant Pool

demographics)

• Course Exams

• End-of-year pass rates

• Coursework

• Analysis of Residency

Trends Data

• Standardized Tests

Subject Exams

• COMLEX 1 & II Scores

• Analysis of Specialty

Choice

• Analysis of geographic

practice area

• Academic Attrition

rates

• Remediation rates

• Graduation and postgraduate

data

• External surveys

• Applicant Pool

• Admissions Profile

• Academic Attrition

rates

• Remediation rates

(pre-clinical years)

• COMLEX USA

Scores I & II (1st

time pass rate /

mean score)

• Number of

graduates entering

OGME programs

• Graduates entering

Primary Care (PC)11

• Career Data:

Licensure (within

3 years);

Board

Certification;

Geographic

Practice Area;

Scholarly

achievements

7 Complete detail of Learning Outcomes found in III., pages 11-13.

8 See Figure 3, page 22.

9 List of Metrics is not all-inclusive.

10 See complete detail of benchmarks—pages 5 & 151.

11 Primary Care: Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Pediatrics.

Table 1 – Assessment Plan Guide: Learning Outcomes / Data Sources / Metrics

Outcome Indicators – Detail

1. Pre-matriculation data

Data gathered prior to students entering NYCOM, and broken down by student

cohort, which includes the following:

Traditional, MedPrep, and BS/DO students

 AACOM pre-matriculation survey given to students;

 Total MCAT scores;

 Collegiate GPA (total GPA-including undergraduate/graduate);

 Science GPA;

 College(s) attended;

 Undergraduate degree (and graduate degree, if applicable;

 Gender,;

 Age;

 Ethnicity;

 State of residence;

 Pre-admission interview score.

Additional data is gathered on the MedPrep student cohort and incorporates the

following:

 Pre-matriculation lecture based exam and quiz scores;

 Pre-matriculation DPC (Doctor Patient Continuum) based facilitator assessment

scores and content exam scores;

 ICC (Institute for Clinical Competence) Professional Assessment Rating (PARS)

Scores.

Émigré Physician Program students

 TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) score;

 EPP Pre-Matriculation Examination score;

 Medical school attended;

 Date of MD degree;

 Age;

 Ethnicity;

 Country of Origin.

Specific forms/questionnaires utilized to capture the above-detailed information include the

following:

 MedPrep 2008 Program Assessment

 MedPrep Grade Table

 NYCOM Admissions Interview Evaluation Form

 Application for Émigré Physicians Program (EPP)

 AACOM Pre-matriculation survey (first-year students)

 NYCOM Interview Evaluation Form – Émigré Physicians Program

Samples of the forms/questionnaires follow

MedPrep 2008 Program Assessment

Successful completion of the MedPrep Pre-Matriculation Program takes into consideration the

following 3 assessment components:

1. Lecture-Discussion Based (LDB)

2. DPC (Doctor Patient Continuum)

3. ICC (Institute for Clinical Competence)

A successful candidate must achieve a passing score for all 3 components. Strength in one

area will not compensate for weakness in another.

1. The first component assesses the Lecture-Discussion Based portion of the MedPrep Pre-

Matriculation Program. It is comprised of 3 multiple choice quizzes and 1 multiple choice exam.

 Histology

 Biochemistry

 Physiology

 Genetics

 Physiology

 OMM

 Pharmacology

 Pathology

 Microbiology

 Clinical Reasoning Skills

Each of the three quizzes constitutes 10% of an individuals overall LDB score and the final exam

(to be conducted on June 27) constitutes 70% of an individuals overall LDB score (comprising

100%) in the Lecture-Discussion portion of the program.

2. The second is based upon your performance in the DPC portion of the MedPrep Pre-

Matriculation Program. There will be a facilitator assessment (to be conducted on June 26),

which will comprise 30% of an individual’s grade and a final written assessment which will be

70% of an individual’s overall DPC score.

** Note – Both the Lecture-Discussion Based and DPC passing scores are calculated as

per NYCOM practice:

 Average (mean) minus one standard deviation

 Not to be lower than 65%

 Not to be higher than 70%

3. The third component is the ICC encounter designed to assess your Doctor Patient

Interpersonal skills. This assessment is evaluated on the PARS scale described to you in the

Doctor Patient Interpersonal Skills session on June 12, by Dr. Errichetti.

After the program ends, on June 27th, all three components of the assessment will be compiled

and reviewed by the MedPrep Committee. The director of admissions, who is a member of the

committee, will prepare notification letters that will be mailed to you within two weeks.

Please note:

The written communication you will receive ONLY contains acceptance information. NO

grades will be distributed. Exams or other assessments (with the exception of the Lecture-

Discussion Based quizzes, which have already been returned) will not be shared or returned.

Please DO NOT contact anyone at NYCOM requesting the status of your candidacy. No

information will be given on the phone or to students on campus.

Thank you for your participation in the MedPrep Pre-Marticulation Program. The faculty

and staff have been delighted to meet and work with you. We wish you success!

Sincerely,

Bonnie Granat

Last Name, First Name

Quiz #1

Score

(10% of

Overall

LDB

Score)

Quiz #2

Score

(10% of

Overall

LDB Score)

Quiz #3

Score

(10% of

Overall

LDB

Score)

LDB Final

Exam

Score

(70% of

Overall LDB

Score)

Overall LBD

Score

(Exam and

Quizzes

Combined)

Overall

DPC

Score

Overall

ICC

Score

NEW YORK COLLEGE OF OSTEOPAHTIC MEDICINE

ADMISSIONS INTERVIEW EVALUATION FORM

Applicant______________________________________________________ Date____/_____/____

CATEGORY

CRITERIA TO BE

ADDRESSED VALUE RATING

1. Oral Comprehension

Ability to understand questions, content

2. Personal Presentation

Appropriate response, ability to relate to

interviewers

3. Verbal Expression

Clarity, articulation, use of

grammar

4. Overall Impression

Unique experiences, employment ,

research

OVERALL

RATING

100

INTERVIEWER RECOMMENDATION:

Accept_____________

Reject_____________

COMMENTS:______________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

NAME:_____________________________

SIGNED:____________________________

2. Academic (pre-clinical) course-work

Data captured during NYCOM’s pre-clinical 4-year pre-doctoral program and 5-year

Academic Medicine Scholars program which includes the following:

Curricular Tracks: Lecture Based-Discussion / Doctor Patient Continuum

 Pre-clinical course pass/failure rate as determined by class year (year 1 and year

2) and overall at end of year 2 (tracking each class and in aggregate for two

years);

 Failure rates of (components) Nervous System course or Behavior course;

 Course grades (H/P/F);

 Exam scores;

 Scores (pass/fail rate) on Core Clinical Competency OSCE exams;

 Professionalism Assessment Rating Scale (PARS)

 Students determined as pre-clinical course dismissals (and remediated);

 Students determined double course failure (and remediated);

 Failure rates due to cognitive and/or OMM lab portions of course

 Repeat students (aligned with Learning Specialist intervention)

 Changes in academic status (attrition-as identified above);

 End-of-year class rankings.

Specific forms/questionnaires utilized to capture the above-detailed information include the

following:

 Introduction to Osteopathic Medicine / Lecture-Based Discussion

 Doctor-Patient Continuum (DPC) – Biopsychosocial Sciences I

Grading and Evaluation Policy

 DPC – Clinical Sciences II – Grading Policy

 Assessing the AOA Core Competencies at NYCOM

 Institute for Clinical Competence (ICC) Professionalism Assessment

Rating Scale (PARS)

 SimCom-T(eam) Holistic Scoring Guide

 Case A – Dizziness, Acute (scoring guides)

Samples of the forms/questionnaires follow

Introduction to Osteopathic Medicine / Lecture-Based Discussion

Grading and Evaluation

1. At the conclusion of this course, students will receive a final cognitive score and a final OMM laboratory

score.

2. Both a student’s final cognitive score and a student’s final OMM laboratory score must be at a

passing level in order to pass this course.

3. Cognitive Score

a. A student’s cognitive score is comprised of the following two components:

i. Written Examinations and Quizzes pertaining to course lectures and corresponding

required readings, cases, course notes, and PowerPoint presentations

ii. Anatomy Laboratory Examinations and Quizzes

b. The weighting of the two components of the final cognitive score is as follows:

Summary of Cognitive Score Breakdown

Cognitive Score Component % of Final Cognitive Score

Written Examinations and Quizzes 75%

Anatomy Laboratory Examinations and

Quizzes

25%

Total Cognitive Score 100%

c. Written Examinations and Quizzes

i. There will be three written examinations and four written quizzes in this course.

ii. The written examinations and quizzes will consist of material from all three threads

(Cellular and Molecular Basis of Medicine, Structural and Functional Basis of Medicine,

Practice of Medicine).

iii. Up to 25% of the written exam and quiz material will come from directed readings.

iv. For the purpose of determining passing for this course, the written examinations will be

worth 90% of the final written score and the quizzes will be worth 10% (2.5% each) of the

final written score. This weighting is illustrated in the following table:

Summary of Written Exam/Quiz Score Breakdown

Written Exam/Quiz # % of Final Written Score

Written Exam #1 25%

Written Exam #2 30%

Written Exam #3 35%

Total Written Exam Score 90%

Written Quiz #1 2.5%

Written Quiz #2 2.5%

Written Quiz #3 2.5%

Written Quiz #4 2.5%

Total Written Quiz Score 10%

Total Written Score 100%

d. Anatomy Laboratory Examinations and Quizzes

i. There will be two Anatomy laboratory examinations in this course

ii. There will be Anatomy laboratory quizzes in this course, conducted during Anatomy

laboratory sessions.

iii. For the purpose of determining passing for this course, each Anatomy lab examination

will be worth 45% of students’ final Anatomy lab score and all Anatomy lab quizzes

combined will be worth 10% of students’ final Anatomy lab score. This weighting is

illustrated in the following table:

Summary of Anatomy Lab Exam/Quiz Score Breakdown

Anatomy Lab Exam/Quiz # % of Final Anatomy Score

Anatomy Lab Exam #1 45%

Anatomy Lab Exam #2 45%

Anatomy Lab Quizzes 10%

Total Anatomy Lab Exam/Quiz Score 100%

4. OMM Laboratory Score

a. A student’s OMM laboratory score in this course is comprised of an OMM laboratory examination

and laboratory quizzes, as follows:

i. There will be one OMM laboratory practical examination in this course

ii. There will be two OMM laboratory practical quizzes in this course conducted during OMM

laboratory sessions

iii. There will be a series of OMM laboratory written quizzes in this course conducted during

OMM laboratory sessions.

b. The weighting of the components of the OMM laboratory final score is as follows: For the purpose

of determining passing for this course, the OMM laboratory practical examination will be worth 70%

of the final OMM laboratory score, the OMM laboratory practical quizzes will be worth 20% (10%

each) of the final OMM laboratory score, and the OMM laboratory written quizzes will be worth 10%

(all OMM lab written quizzes combined) of the OMM laboratory score. This weighting is illustrated

in the following table:

Summary of OMM Laboratory Exam/Quiz Score Breakdown

OMM Laboratory Exam/Quiz % of Final OMM Laboratory Score

OMM Laboratory Practical Exam 70%

OMM Laboratory Practical Quiz #1 10%

OMM Laboratory Practical Quiz #2 10%

OMM Laboratory Written Quizzes (all quizzes

combined)

10%

Total OMM Laboratory Score 100%

5. Examinations and quizzes may be cumulative.

6. Honors Determination

a. For the purpose of determining who will be eligible to receive a course grade of Honors (“H”), the

final cognitive score and final OMM laboratory score will be combined in a 75%/25% ratio,

respectively.

b. Using the formula noted above, students scoring in the top 10% (and who have not taken a makeup

exam within the course or remediated the course) will receive a course grade of Honors.

DOCTOR PATIENT CONTINUUM(DPC) – BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL

SCIENCES I

Grading and Evaluation Policy:

The examinations and evaluations are weighed as follows:

Evaluation Criteria: Percent of Grade

Content Examination 55%

Component Examinations 25%

Facilitator Assessment 20%

Content Examination: There will a mid-term exam and an end of the term exam, each weighted equally. The

examinations will cover the learning issues submitted by the case-study groups. Questions will be based on the

common learning issues (covered by all groups) and learning issues specific to individual groups (unique issues).

Component Exams: Distribution of the component exams will be as follows:

 Exams based on Anatomy lectures and labs = 20%

 Graded assignments offered by problem set instructors, which might include quizzes, position papers,

and/or other exercises = 5%

Facilitator Assessment: Facilitators will meet individually with students twice during the term to evaluate their

performance. The first evaluation will be ‘formative’ only, i.e., to advise students of their progress and will not be

recorded for grade. The end of the term evaluation will be used to assess the student’s progress/participation in the

group and other class related activities. Students will also complete Self-Assessment Forms to supplement the

evaluation process.

The grading of this course is on a “PASS/FAIL/HONORS” basis.

1) Students will be evaluated each Term using the multiple components as described above.

2) Each year at the end of the 1st Term:

a) All students will be assigned an interim grade of I (Incomplete);

b) Each student will be informed of his/her final average, a record of which will be maintained in the office of

the DPC Academic Coordinator and the Director of the DPC program.

3) Students who earn less than a 1st-Term average of 70%, or a content exam score of <65%, will be officially

informed that their performance was deficient for the 1st Term. The student, in consultation with the Course

Coordinator, will present a plan designed to resolve the deficiency. This information will also be forwarded to

the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs for tracking purposes.

4) Students with a 1st-Term average <70%, or a content exam score of <65%, will be allowed to continue with the

class. However, in order to pass the year the student must achieve a final yearly average (1st- and 2ndterm)

of 70% or greater with a content exam average (for the two Terms) of 65% or greater.

5) All students who meet the requirements for passing the year (see 4) will then be awarded the grade of P (Pass)

or H (Honors) for each of the two Terms.

6) Students who fail the year (see 4) will be awarded a grade of I (Incomplete) and will be permitted (with

approval of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs) to sit for a comprehensive reassessment-examination.

The reassessment exam will be constructed by the course faculty and administered by the Course Coordinator.

The exam may include both written and oral components. Successful completion of the reassessment

examination will result in the awarding of a grade of P for the two Terms. Failure of the comprehensive

reassessment exam will result in the awarding of a grade of F (Fail) for the two terms, and a recommendation to

the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs that the student be dismissed from the College.

7) Students whose failure of the year (i.e. overall yearly average <70%) can be attributed to low facilitator

assessment scores present a special concern. The student has been determined, by his/her facilitators, to be

deficient in the skills necessary to effectively interact with patients and colleagues. This deficiency may not be

resolvable by examination. Such failures will be evaluated by the Director of the DPC program, the Associate

Dean of Academic Affairs and/or the Committee on Student Progress (CSP) to determine possible remediation

programs or to consider other options including dismissal.

DOCTOR PATIENT CONTINUUM(DPC) – CLINICAL SCIENCES II

Grading Policy:

1. The grading of this course is on a “PASS/FAIL/HONORS” basis. Grades will be determined by performance

in the three components of the course, OMM, Clinical Skills, and Clinical Practicum, as follows:

Evaluation Criteria: Percent of Grade

OMM 40%

Clinical Skills 40%

Clinical Practicum 20%

In both the OMM and Clinical Skills components of the course, student evaluations will encompass written

and practical examinations. In order to pass the course, both the written and practical examinations in OMM

AND Clinical Skills must be passed. Students who fail to achieve a passing score in either Clinical Skills or

OMM will be issued a grade of “I” (Incomplete). Such students will be offered the opportunity to remediate

the appropriate portion of the course. Re-evaluation will be conducted under the supervision of the DPC

faculty. Successful completion of the re-evaluation examination, both written and practical, will result in the

awarding of a grade of P (Pass). Failure of the comprehensive reassessment exam will result in the

awarding of a grade of U (Unsatisfactory) for this course.

2. Grading of the OMM component will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Evaluation Criteria: Percent of Grade

OMM written (weighted) 50%

OMM practical (average) 50%

3. Grading of the Clinical Practicum component will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Evaluation Criteria: Percent of Grade

Attendance and Participation 15%

Case Presentation 35%

Clinical Mentor Evaluation 50%

4. Grading of the Clinical Skills component will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Evaluation Criteria: Percent of Grade

Class participation/assignments 5%

ICC participation/assignments 10%

Timed examination #1

– Practical portion 20%

– Written portion 5%

Timed examination #2

– Practical portion 20%

– Written portion 5%

Timed Comprehensive examination

– Practical portion 25%

– Written portion 10%

Pre-clinical Years: Years I and II DPC Track

Assessing the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) Core Competencies at

New York College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYCOM)

A. Background

In recent years, there has been a trend toward defining, teaching and assessing a number

of core competencies physicians must demonstrate. The Federation of State medical Boards

sponsored two Competency-Accountability Summits in which a “theoretical textbook” on good

medical practice was drafted to guide the development of a competency-based curriculum. The

competencies include: medical knowledge, patient care, professionalism, interpersonal

communication, practice-based learning, and system-based practice. The AOA supports the

concepts of core competency assessment and added an additional competency: osteopathic

philosophy and osteopathic clinical medicine.

Arguably it is desirable to begin the process of core competency training and assessment

during the pre-clinical year. Patient simulations, i.e. using standardized patients and robotic

simulator, allow for such training and assessment under controlled conditions. Such a pre-clinical

program provides basic clinical skills acquisition in a patient-safe environment. NYCOM has

responded to this challenge by creating a two-year “Core Clinical Competencies” seminar that

requires students to learn and practice skills through various patient simulations in the Institute

For Clinical Competence (ICC). In this seminar the ICC assesses a sub-set of the above

competencies taught in the lecture-based and discussion-based clinical education tracks.

The following is a list of the competencies assessed during the pre-clinical years at

NYCOM, and reassessed during the third year (osteopathic medicine objective structured

clinical examination) and fourth year (voluntary Clinical Skills Capstone Program). It should be

noted that there is a fair amount of skills overlap between the competencies, for example, the

issue of proper communication can be manifested in a number of competencies.

B. Core Clinical Competencies

1. Patient Care: Provide compassionate, appropriate effective treatment, health promotion

Skills:

 Data-gathering: history-taking, physical examination (assessed with clinical skills

checklists)

 Develop differential diagnosis

 Interpret lab results, studies

 Procedural skills, e.g. intubation, central line placement, suturing, catheterization

 Provide therapy

2. Interpersonal and communication skills: Effective exchange of information and collaboration

with patients, their families, and health professionals.

Skills:

 Communication with patients and their families across a spectrum of multicultural

backgrounds (assessed with the Professionalism Assessment Rating Scale)

 Health team communication

 Written communication (SOAP note, progress note)

3. Professionalism: Commitment to carrying out professional responsibilities and ethical

committments

Skills:

 Compassion, respect, integrity for others

 Responsiveness to patient needs

 Respect for privacy, autonomy

 Communication and collaboration with other professionals

 Demonstrating appropriate ethical consideration

 Sensitivity and responsiveness to a diverse patient population including e.g. gender,

age, religion, culture, disabilities, sexual orientation.

4. Osteopathic Philosophy and Osteopathic Clinical Medicine: Demonstrate, apply knowledge

of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT); integrate osteopathic concepts and OMT into

medical care; treating the person, and not just the symptoms

Skills:

 Utilize caring, compassionate behavior with patients

 Demonstrate the treatment of people rather than the symptoms

 Demonstrate understanding of somato-visceral relationships and the role of the

musculoskeletal disease

 Demonstrate listening skills in interaction with patients

 Assessing disease (pathology) and illness (patient’s response to disease)

 Eliciting psychosocial information

C. Assessment of Core Competencies

The ICC utilizes formative assessment to evaluate learner skills and the effectiveness of

NYCOM’s clinical training programs. Data on student performance in the ICC is tracked from

the first through the fourth year. The ICC satellite at St. Barnabas assesses students during their

clerkship years as well as interns and residents in a number of clinical services. It uses a variety

of methods to assess competencies:

1. Written evaluations

 Analytic assessment – skills checklists that document data-gathering ability

 Global-holistic rating scales to assess doctor-patient communication (Professionalism

Assessment Rating Scale) and health team communication (SimCom-T)

 SOAP note and progress note assessment

2. Debriefing / feedback – a verbal review of learner actions following a patient simulation

program provided by standardized patients and instructors as appropriate.

Core Clinical Competencies 590 (MS 1)

Core Clinical Competencies 690 (MS 2)

The courses provide a horizontal integration between clinical courses provided by the LDB and

DPC programs (small group discussion and demonstration) and the OMM department. It

provides practice with simulated patients (some variation in this aspect as noted below),

formative assessment, end-of-year summative assessment and remediation.

1. SP PROGRAM, METRICS AND HOURS

MS 1 Program – SP Different program, same standardized examination

LDB

 SP program: training with formative assessment (see next bullet for formative assessment

metrics)

 End of year OSCE assessing history-taking (checklists designed for each SP case), PE (see

attached physical examination criteria) and interpersonal communication (see attached

program in doctor-patient communication “Professionalism Assessment Rating Scale)

 Hours: 13.5 / year (including OSCE)

DPC

 Clinic visits to substitute for SP encounters

 End of year OSCE (same as LDB)

 Hours: Should be equivalent to the number of SP hours in the LDB program

NOTE: The purpose of the OSCE is to assess the clinical training of both the LDB and DPC

programs. It is assumed the LDB and DPC faculty will work on this OSCE together with the

OMM department.

MS 1 Program – Patient Simulation Program

LDB and DPC

 Same program in basic procedures for both LDB and DPC students as outlined in the

syllabus distributed during the curriculum committee

 Hours: 5 hours / year

MS 2 Program – SP

LDB and DPC – same program, different approaches, same standardized exam

 SP program: training with formative assessment (see next bullet for formative assessment

metrics)

 End of year OSCE assessing history-taking (checklists designed for each SP case), PE (see

attached physical examination criteria) and interpersonal communication (see attached

program in doctor-patient communication “Professionalism Assessment Rating Scale)

 Hours: 13.5 hours / year (including OSCE)

 NOTE: It is assumed that the LDB and DPC program schedules will vary but that the

content will be equivalent

MS 2 Program – Patient Simulation Program

LDB and DPC – same program, same standardized exam

 Students work in the same group throughout the year

End of year OSCE assessing medical team communication using the SimCom-T rating scale

(attached)

 Group grade assigned for the OSCE (reflecting the spirit of the SimCom-T rating scale)

 Hours: 11 / year (including OSCE)

2. Attendance

 All activities and exams are mandatory.

 Make ups are done at the discretion of the ICC

NOTE: Make ups will be done as close to an activity as possible because delaying them, e.g. to

the end of the year, will incur additional training expenses (e.g. re-training a SP for a case played

months earlier) for the ICC.

3. Grading and remediation

 Pass / fail

 Grading is based upon:

o Attendance

o Participation

o End-of-year OSCE (standards to be set)

ICC Hours

MS1

Clinical Practice OSCE Total

Hours

LDB 8 SP exercises @1.5 hours each

12 hours per student

5 patient simulation program exercises @ 1 hours

each

5 hours per student

End-of-year SP OSCE

1.5 hours per student

(approximately 6.25 days)

13.5 hours

(SP)

5 hours

(Pat Sim)

Total = 18.5

DPC Clinic experience to substitute for SP exercises

 Students will receive information re:

communication and PE competencies

5 patient simulation program exercises @ 1 hours

each

5 hours per student

0 hours

(SP)

5 hours

Pat Sim

Total = 5

MS2

Clinical Practice OSCE Total

Hours

LDB

DPC

8 SP exercises @1.5 hours each

12 hours per student

6 patient simulation program exercises, plus ACLS

10 hours per student

End-of-year SP OSCE

1.5 hours per student

(approximately 6.25 days)

End-of-year Pat Sim OSCE

1 hour per student

(approximately 5 days)

13.5 hours

(SP)

11 hours

(Pat Sim)

Total = 24.5

Institute For Clinical Competence (ICC)

Professionalism Assessment Rating Scale (PARS)

Dear Students:

As part of your professional development, standardized patients (SPs) in the ICC will be

evaluating your interpersonal communication with them using the Professionalism Assessment

Rating Scale (PARS).

This scale evaluates two types of interpersonal communication, both important to quality health

care:

􀂃 Patient Relationship Quality – Rapport, empathy, confidence and body language.

􀂃 Patient Examination Quality – Questioning, listening, information exchanging and careful and

thorough physical examination.

Arguably patients (real or simulated) are in the best position to assess your interpersonal

communication with them because you are directly relating to them during an intimate, face-toface,

hands-on encounter. They are in the best position, literally, to observe your eye contact,

demeanor and body language because they are in the room with you. We would recommend you

take their feedback seriously, but perhaps “with a grain of salt.”

The term standardized patient is to some degree a misnomer – SPs can be standardized to

present the same challenge and the same medical symptoms to each student, but they cannot be

standardized to feel the same way about you and your work with them compared to other

students. This is true in life as well as clinical work – some people will like you better than others,

and patients are people! You may communicate with one patient the way you do with the next,

but receive slightly different ratings. This is to be expected. Unlike the analytic checklists we use

to document if you asked particular questions or performed certain exams correctly, there are no

dichotomous / “right or wrong” communication ratings. Patients are people who may tune into

different things during an encounter. We think this slight variation in observation is an asset that

will help you understand that patients are individuals who must be approached as individuals.

Another word about the ratings you will receive – the ratings are not absolute numbers that

constitute an unconditional assessment of your communication skills. Some days you may be

better than other days. We use the ratings numbers (1-8 holistic scale) to chart progress over

time. We do see improvements during the first two years of the typical student’s training but the

ratings are used to track your progress as much as to structure a conversation with the SP, or

faculty member, during debriefing. We would recommend you take responsibility during SP

debriefing and ask them questions about the work you just did.

The holistic 1 – 8 scale is broken down into two parts: Ratings of 1 – 4 are considered “lower

quality” communication, i.e. what might be considered acceptable at a novice or trainee level, but

less acceptable for an experienced professional. Ratings of 5 – 8 are considered “higher quality”

communication, i.e. more professional-quality communication regardless of the training or

experience level.

Professionalism Assessment Rating Scale (PARS)

Standardized patients will rate “to what degree” you demonstrated relationship quality and

examination quality on the following nine factors:

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

To what degree did the student …

Lower Higher

Quality Quality

1 Establish and maintain rapport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 Demonstrate empathy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 Instill confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4 Use appropriate body language 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

EXAMINATION QUALITY

To what degree did the student …

Lower Higher

Quality Quality

5 Elicit information clearly, effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6 Actively listen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 Provide timely feedback / information / counseling 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

8 Perform a thorough, careful physical exam or

treatment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Less experienced, More

or unprofessional professional

The following pages are a guide to the PARS, giving examples of “lower quality” and

“higher quality” communication.

1 Establish and maintain rapport

Establish and maintain a positive, respectful collaborative working relationship with the patient.

Lower Quality

1 2 3 4

Higher Quality

5 6 7 8

Overly familiar.

􀂃 “Hi Bill, I’m John. How are you doing

today.”

Appropriate address, e.g.

􀂃 “Hi Mr. Jones, I’m Student-doctor Smith. Is it

OK if I call you Bill?”

No agenda set. Set agenda, e.g.

No collaboration with the patient, i.e. carries

out the exam without patient consent or

agreement.

􀂃 “We have ___ minutes for this exam. I’ll take a

history, examine you…..etc.”

Collaborative mindset

􀂃 “Let’s figure out what’s going on.”

􀂃 “We’re going to work out this problem together.”

Took notes excessively, i.e. spent more time

taking notes than interacting.

Spent more time interacting with the patient than

taking notes.

Began physically examining patient without

“warming” patient up, asking consent, etc.

Asked consent for obtaining a physical

examination, e.g.

􀂃 “Is it OK for me to do a physical exam?”

Did not protect patient’s modesty, e.g.

􀂃 Did not use a drape sheet

Respected patient’s modesty at all times e.g.

􀂃 Used a drape sheet when appropriate

􀂃 Did not direct patient to get dressed after

exam

􀂃 Letting patient cover up follow an examination.

􀂃 Left door open when examining patient.

Talked “down” to patient, did not seem to

respect patient’s intelligence.

Seemed to assume patient is intelligent.

Rude, crabby or overtly disrespectful. Never rude, crabby; always respectful.

Dress, hygiene problems:

􀂃 Wore distracting perfume/cologne.

Dressed professionally, i.e. in a clean white coat,

clean clothes, etc.

􀂃 Poor hygiene, e.g. uncleanly, dirty nails,

body odor, did not wash hands, etc.

􀂃 Touched hair continually

􀂃 Unprofessional dress, e.g. wore jeans,

facial jewelry (e.g. tongue or nose studs),

overly suggestive or revealing garments

Seemed angry with the patient.

Seemed to like the patient.

2 Demonstrate empathy

Demonstrate both empathy (compassion, understanding, concern, support) and inquisitiveness

(curiosity, interest) in the patient’s medical problem and life situation.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

EMPATHY

No expressions of concern about patient’s

condition or situation.

Expressed concern about patient’s condition or

situation, e.g.

􀂃 “That must be painful.”

􀂃 “I’m here to try to help you.”

Failed to acknowledge positive behavior /

lifestyle changes the patient has made.

Reinforced behavior/lifestyle changes the patient

has made, e.g. “That’s great you quit smoking.”

Failed to acknowledge suggested behavior /

lifestyle changes might be difficult.

Acknowledged that suggested behavior/lifestyle

changes might be difficult.

Empathic expression seemed insincere,

superficial.

Empathic expressions seemed genuine.

Detached, aloof, overly “business-like,” robotic in

demeanor.

Compassionate and caring, “warm.”

Seeming lack of compassion, caring.

Accused patient of being a non-compliant, e.g.

􀂃 “Why don’t you take better care of yourself?”

􀂃 “You should have come in sooner.”

Positive reinforcement of things patient is doing

well, e.g.

􀂃 “That’s great that you stopped smoking.”

􀂃 “I’m glad you are taking your medication on a

regular basis.

INQUISITIVENESS – An aspect of empathy is inquisitiveness, the ability to attempt to

understand the patient, both medically and personally.

Focused on symptoms, but not the patient, i.e.

did not explore how the medical problem /

symptoms affect the patient’s life.

Tried to understand how the medical problem /

symptoms affect the patient’s life, or vice versa.

􀂃 “How is this affecting your life?”

􀂃 “Tell me about yourself.”

Failed to explore activities of daily living. 􀂃 “Describe a typical day in your life.”

􀂃 “Tell me about your stress.”

Failed to explore patient’s response to diagnosis

and / or treatment.

Inquires as to patient’s response to diagnosis and

/ or treatment

Failed to explore barriers to behavior / lifestyle

change.

Explored barriers to behavior / lifestyle change.

3 Instill confidence

Instilling confidence that the medical student or doctor is able to help and treat the patient.

Lower Quality

1 2 3 4

Higher Quality

5 6 7 8

Conveyed his / her anxiety, e.g. Conveyed an appropriately confident demeanor,

e.g.

􀂃 Made eye contact

􀂃 By avoiding eye contact

􀂃 Laughing or smiling nervously

􀂃 Sweaty hand shake

Made statement such as:

􀂃 “This is making me nervous.”

􀂃 “This is the first time I’ve ever done this.”

􀂃 “I don’t know what I’m doing.”

Apologized inappropriately to the patient. E.g.

􀂃 “I’m sorry, but I have to examine you.”

􀂃 Shook hands firmly, etc.

Overly confident, cocky.

Never cocky, appropriately humble without

undermining the patient’s confidence.

When making suggestions, used tentative

language, e.g.

􀂃 “Maybe you should try…”

􀂃 “I’m not sure but …”

When making suggestions, used authoritative

language, e.g.

􀂃 “What I suggest you do is…”

Made excuses for his/her lack of skill or

preparation by making statements such as:

Offered to help the patient or get information if he

/ she could not provide it by saying, e.g.

􀂃 “I’m just a medical student.”

􀂃 “Let me ask the attending physician”

􀂃 “They didn’t explain this to me.”

􀂃 “Do you know what I’m supposed to do next?”

􀂃 “I don’t know but let me find out for you.”

4 Use appropriate body language

The ability to use appropriate gestures, signs and body cues.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Overly casual posture, e.g. leaning against

the wall or putting feet up on a stool when

interviewing the patient.

Professional posture, i.e. carried himself / herself

like an experienced, competent physician.

Awkward posture, e.g.

• Stood stiffly when taking a history

• Stood as if he / she was unsure what to do

with his / her body.

Natural, poised posture.

Uncomfortable or inappropriate eye contact

e.g. stared at the patient too long and / or

never looked at the patient.

Used appropriate eye contact.

Avoided eye contact when listening.

Made eye contact when listening, whether eye

level of not.

Stood or sat too close or too distant from the

patient.

Maintained an appropriate “personal closeness”

and “personal distance.”

Turned away from the patient when listening.

Maintained appropriate body language when

listening to the patient.

5 Elicit information clearly, effectively

Effectively ask questions in an articulate, understandable, straightforward manner.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Used closed-ended, yes / no questions

exclusively, e.g.

Used open-ended questions to begin an inquiry,

and closed-ended questions to clarify, e.g.

􀂃 “How many days have you 􀂃 “Tell me about the problem.”

been sick?” 􀂃 “What do you do in a typical day?”

􀂃 “Ever had surgery?” 􀂃 “How is your health in general?”

􀂃 “Any cancer in your family?”

Used open-ended questions / non-clarifying

questions exclusively.

Used open-ended questions to begin an inquiry,

and closed-ended questions to clarify.

Student’s questions were inarticulate, e.g.

mumbled, spoke too fast, foreign accent

problems, stuttered*, etc.

* NOTE: Consider stuttering a form of inarticulation for

rating purposes, i.e. do not make allowances for

stuttering

Student was articulate, asked questions in an

intelligible manner.

Asked confusing, multi-part or overly complex

questions, e.g.

􀂃 “Tell me about your past medical

conditions, surgeries and allergies.”

Asked one question at a time, in a straight-forward

manner.

􀂃 “Tell me about your allergies.”

Asked direct questions, e.g.

Asked leading questions, e.g.

􀂃 “No cancer in your family, right?”

􀂃 “No surgeries?” 􀂃 “Do you have any cancer in your family?

􀂃 “You only have sex with your wife, right?” 􀂃 “Any surgeries?”

􀂃 “Are you monogamous?”

Jumped from topic to topic Organized interview.

in a “manic,” disjointed or

disorganized way.

Stayed focused, asked follow up questions before

moving to another topic.

Asked questions in a robotic way, Asked questions in a conversational way, i.e.

listened to the response, and then asked another

question.

i.e. as if reading from a prepared

checklist.

Constantly cut off patient, i.e. did

not let patient finish sentences.

Allowed patient to finish sentences and thoughts

before asking the next question.

6 Actively listen

Both listen and respond appropriately to the patients’ statements and questions.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Asked questions without listening to the

patient’s response.

Asked questions and listened to patient’s

response.

No overt statements made indicating he / she

was listening.

Said, e.g. “I’m listening.”

Turned away from the patient when listening.

Maintained appropriate body language when

listening to the patient.

Kept asking the same question(s) because

the physician didn’t seem to remember what

he / she asks.

If necessary, asked the same questions to obtain

clarification, e.g.

􀂃 “Can you tell me again how much you smoke?”

􀂃 “I know you told me this, but when was the last

time you saw your doctor?”

Wrote notes without indicating he / she was

listening.

When writing indicated he / she is listening, e.g.

􀂃 “I have to write down a few things down when

we talk, OK?”

Did not seem to be listening, seemed

distracted.

Attentive to the patient.

Kept talking, asking questions, etc. if the

patient was discussing a personal issue, a

health concern, fear, etc.

Was silent when necessary, e.g. if the patient was

discussing a personal issue, a health concern,

fear, etc.

7 Provide timely feedback / information / counseling

Explain, summarize information (e.g. results of physical exams, provides patient education

activities, etc.), or provide counseling in a clear and timely manner.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Did not explain examination procedures, e.g.

just started examining the patient without

explaining what he / she was doing.

Explained procedures, e.g.

􀂃 “I’m going to check your legs for edema.”

􀂃 “I’m going to listen to your heart.”

Did not provide feedback at all, or provided

minimal feedback

Periodically provided feedback regarding what he /

she heard the patient saying.

􀂃 “It sounds like your work schedule makes it

difficult for you to exercise.”

􀂃 “I hear in your voice that your family situation is

causing you a lot of stress.”

Did not summarize information at all. Periodically summarized information.

􀂃 “You had this cough for 3 weeks, it’s getting

worse and now you’ve got a fever. No one is

sick at home and you haven’t been around

anyone who is sick.”

Provided empty feedback or unprofessional

feedback, e.g.

Feedback was meaningful, useful and timely.

􀂃 “OK…..OK…..OK…..OK…”

􀂃 “Gotcha..gotcha…gotcha,..”

􀂃 “Great ” “Awesome” “Cool”

Examined the patient without providing

feedback about the results of the exam.

Provided feedback about results of the physical

exam.

􀂃 “Your blood pressure seems fine.”

Refused to give the patient information he /

she requested, e.g.

“You don’t need to know that.”

“That’s not important.”

Give information to the patient when requested, or

offered to get it if he / she couldn’t answer the

patient’s questions.

Used medical jargon without explanation, e.g. Explained medical terms.

􀂃 “What you experienced was a myocardial

infarction.”

􀂃 “What you experienced is a myocardial

infarction, meaning a heart attack.”

Ended the exam abruptly.

Let the patient know what the next step was,

provided closure.

No closure, no information about the next

steps

􀂃 “Let’s review the exam and your health…”

8 Conduct a thorough, careful physical exam or treatment

Conduct physical exams and / or treatment in a thorough, careful manner vs. a tentative or

superficial manner.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Conducted a superficial examination, e.g. Conducted a careful examination, e.g.

􀂃 Avoided touching the patient 􀂃 Examined on skin when appropriate

􀂃 Touched patient with great tentativeness

Hurried through the exam. Used the full amount of time allotted to examine

the patient.

Avoided inspecting (looking at) the patient’s

body / affected area.

Thoroughly inspected (looked at) the affected

area e.g. with gown open.

Consistently palpated, auscultated and / or

percussed over the exam gown.

Consistently palpated, auscultated and / or

percussed on skin.

Exam not bi-lateral (when appropriate). Bi-lateral exam (when appropriate).

Rough exam, e.g. Conducted a smooth exam from beginning to

􀂃 Started, stopped, re-started the exam. end.

􀂃 Fumbled with instruments

Did not look to see what patient’s expressions

were during an examination in order to assess

pain.

Looked for facial expressions to assess pain.

Did not thoroughly examine the site of the

chief complaint, e.g.

Thoroughly examined the site of the chief

complaint.

􀂃 Did not examine heart and / or lungs if

chief complaint was a breathing problem

9 Conduct the examination in an organized manner

Overall conduct the exam in an organized, systematic way vs. a disorganized or unsystematic

way.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

No clear opening, e.g. Clear opening, e.g.

􀂃 Did not set an agenda 􀂃 Set an agenda and followed it

􀂃 Abruptly began the exam 􀂃 Began the exam after a proper introduction

Medical interview not organized – history

jumped from topic to topic

Organize the medical interview vs. jumping from

topic to topic

No clear closure, e.g. Clear closure, e.g.

􀂃 Did not summarize information gathered

during the history and physical

examination

􀂃 Summarized information gathered during the

history and physical examination

􀂃 Did not ask patient “Any more questions?” 􀂃 Asked patient “Any more questions?”

􀂃 Did not clarify next steps 􀂃 Clarified next steps

SimCom-T(eam) Holistic Scoring Guide

The SimCom-T is a holistic health care team communication training program and rating scale. The nine-factor scale of SimCom-T

rates team members’ performance as a unit, i.e. individual team member performance should be considered a reflection upon the

entire team.

Rate each factor individually.

Ratings should be global, i.e. reflect the most characteristic performance of the team vs. individual incidents.

The following pages are a guide to SimCom-T, providing behavioral examples representative of each score for the SimCom-T

competencies.

Score Performance Level Description – The team…

1 Limited ….consistently demonstrates novice and / or dysfunctional team attributes

2 Basic ….inconsistently operates at a functional level

3 Progressing ….demonstrates basic and average attributes

4 Proficient ….proficient and consistent in performance

5 Advanced ….experienced and performing at a significant expert level

CNE Not applicable ….A factor could not be evaluated for some reason

Competency Lower

Quality

Higher

Quality

1 Leadership establishment and maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

2 Global awareness 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

3 Recognition of critical events 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

4 Information exchange 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

5 Team support 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

6 External team support 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

7 Patient support 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

8 Mutual trust and respect 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

9 Flexibility 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

10 Overall Team Performance 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

1. Leadership Establishment and Maintenance

Team members both establish leadership and maintain leadership throughout.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Leader not

established

▪ Roles not assigned

▪ No discussion

regarding role

assignment

▪ Unable to identify

leader

▪ Many leaders

▪ No clear role

definition

▪ Leadership not

explicit throughout

event

▪ Leadership not

maintained

throughout the event

▪ Role switching

without leader

involvement

▪ Leader explicitly

identified

▪ Roles defined

▪ Leadership explicitly

identified and

maintained

▪ Roles defined and

maintained

▪ Leader delegates

responsibility

Examples ▪ Team operating

dysfunctionally

without a leader

▪ Team members

taking on similar roles

and role switching

consistently

▪ Team members

unsure of who is

responsible for

different tasks

▪ Leader timid and

does not take charge

▪ Team member roles

unclear and/or

inconsistent

▪ A team member asks,

“Who is running the

code?” and another

says, “I am,” but does

not take communicate

leadership

responsibilities.

▪ Team members are

assigned roles but do

not take on the

assignment

▪ Team members

select a leader

▪ A team member

volunteers to handle

the situation

▪ Roles clearly defined

by team members

and/or leader

▪ Leadership and roles

are established very

early in the event and

is maintained

throughout the event

▪ Clarity of leadership

and roles is evident

throughout the event

and with the team

members

2. Global Awareness

Team members monitor and appropriately respond to the total situation, i.e. the work environmental and the patient’s condition.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Does not monitor the

environment and

patient

▪ Does not respond to

changes in the

environment and

patient

▪ Monitoring and

response to changes

in the environment

and patient rarely

occur

▪ Fixation errors

▪ Monitoring and

response to the

environment and

patient are not evident

throughout the event

▪ Monitors the

environment and

patient

▪ Respond to changes

in the environment

and patient

▪ Consistently monitors

the environment and

patient

▪ Consistently respond

to changes in the

environment and

patient

Examples ▪ There is no summary

of procedures, labs

ordered, or results of

labs

▪ Team is task oriented

and does not

communicate about

the event

▪ Event manager loses

focus and becomes

task oriented

▪ There is no clear

review of the lab

results and/or

summary of

procedures.

▪ Leader says, “Team,

lets review our

differential diagnosis

and labs,” and team

does not respond to

the leader.

▪ Some of the team

members discuss

among themselves

results and possible

problems.

▪ Leader says, “Team,

lets review our

differential diagnosis

and labs,” and team

reviews the situation.

▪

▪ Event manager

remains at the foot of

the bed keeping a

global assessment of

the situation

▪ Leader announces

plan of action for the

event.

3. Recognition of Critical Events

Team promptly notes and responds to critical changes in the patient’s status and / or environment.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Does not monitor or

respond to critical

deviations from steady

state

▪ Fails to recognize or

acknowledge crisis

▪ “Tunnel Vision”

▪ Fixation errors are

consistently apparent

▪

▪ Team reactive rather

than proactive

▪ Critical deviations

from steady state are

not announced for

other members

▪ Monitors and

responds to critical

deviations from steady

state

▪ Recognizes need for

action

▪ All team members

consistently monitors

and responds to

critical deviations from

steady state

▪ Anticipates potential

problems

▪ Practices a proactive

approach and attitude

▪ Recognizes need for

action

▪ “Big Picture”

Examples ▪ Patient stops

breathing, and team

does not recognize

the situation

throughout the event

▪ Patient is pulseless,

and no CPR is started

throughout the event

▪ Patient stops

breathing, and team

does not recognize

this situation for a

critical time period

▪ Patient is pulseless,

and no CPR is started

for a critical time

period

▪ ▪ Leader says, “Team,

lets review our

differential diagnosis,

are there any

additional tests that

we should request?”

▪ “John, the sats are

dropping, please be

ready, we might have

to intubate.”

▪ “Melissa, the blood

pressure is dropping.

Get ready to start the

2nd IV and order a

type and cross.”

4. Information Exchange

Patient and procedural information is exchanged clearly.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Communication

between team

members is not

noticeable

▪ Requests by others

are not acknowledged

▪ No feedback loop

▪ No orders given

▪ Vague

communication

between team

members

▪ Not acknowledging

requests by others

▪ Feedback loop left

opened

▪ Orders not clearly

given

▪ Communication

between team and

response to requests

by others inconsistent

▪ Feedback loops open

and closed

▪ Orders not directed to

a specific team

member

▪ Team communicates

and acknowledges

requests throughout

the event

▪ Feedback loops

closed

▪ Explicit

communication

consistently

throughout the event

▪ Team acknowledges

communication

▪ Closed loop

communication

throughout event

Examples ▪ No summary of

events.

▪ No additional

information sought

from the team

members.

▪ Event manager says,

“I need a defibrillator,

we might have to

shock this patient,”

and no team member

acknowledges the

order. The request

was not given

explicitly to a team

member.

▪

▪ One team member

says to another in a

low voice, “We need

to place a chest tube,”

but the event

manager does not

hear the

communication.

▪ Event manager

requests a

defibrillator, but not

explicitly to a

particular team

member; several

team members

attempt to get the

defibrillator

▪ Jonathan says to

event manager, “We

need to place a chest

tube.” Event manager

responds, “OK, get

ready for it.”

▪ Leader says, “Team,

lets summarizes what

has been done so

far.”

▪ Leader says, “Mary

please start an IV.”

Mary responds,

“Sorry, I do not know

how, please ask

someone else to do

it.”

▪ Event manager

summarizes events.

▪ Event manager seeks

additional information

from all team

members

▪ Event manager says,

“Peter, I want you to

get the defibrillator,

we might have to

shock this patient.”

Peter responds, “Yes,

I know where it is and

I’ll get it.”

5. Team Support

The team works as a unit, asking for or offering assistance when needed vs. team members “going it alone.”

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ No assistance or help

asked for or offered

▪ Team members act

unilaterally

▪ No recognition of

mistakes

▪ Team members

watching and not

participating

▪ Team members take

over when not

needed

▪ Mistakes not

addressed to the

team

▪ Negative feedback

▪ Assistance is offered

when needed only

after multiple requests

▪ Team recognizes

mistakes and

constructively

addresses them

▪ Team member(s)

ask(s) for help when

needed

▪ Assistance provided

to team member(s)

who need(s) it

Examples ▪ During a shoulder

dystocia event, the

critical situation is

recognized, but no

help is requested or

attempts to resolve

situation on their own

▪ Wrong blood type

delivered and

administered, an no

backup behaviors to

correct the mistake

▪ Team member

administers

medication without

consulting the event

manager

▪ Charles knows that

the patient is a

Jehovah Witness and

does not let the team

know when a T&C is

ordered.

▪ Team does not

communicate that

he/she doesn’t know

how to use a

defibrillator and

attempts to do it

anyways and fails.

▪ ▪ ▪ During a shoulder

dystocia event, the

critical situation is

recognized, and event

manager calls for help

▪ Wrong blood type

delivered, attempt

made by team

member to administer

the blood but another

team member

recognizes the

mistake and stops the

transfusion before it

starts

▪ Team member

consults with the

event manager before

administering

medication

6. External Team Support

Work team provides “external team” (family members and / or other health care professionals) with information and support as

needed

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Team fails to

recognize or interact

with other significant

people who are

present during the

encounter

▪ Team recognizes

other significant

people who are

present during the

encounter but

ignores to interact

with them

▪ Team inconsistently

interacts with other

significant people who

are present during the

encounter

▪ Team interacts with

other significant

people who are

present during the

encounter

▪ Team effectively

interacts with other

significant people who

are present during the

encounter

Examples ▪ Team fails to interact

with a distraught

family member and/or

para-professional

▪ Team fails to interact

appropriately with a

distraught family

member

▪ Team does not

cooperate with a

para-professional

▪ ▪ ▪

7. Patient Support

Work team provides the patient and significant others with information and emotional support as needed.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Team fails to interact

with patient if

conscious

▪ Team fails to show

empathy or respect

for a patient

(conscious or

unconscious)

▪ Team fails to provide

appropriate

information when

requested to do so

▪ Teams interaction

with patient is

minimal and when

done so is lacking in

respect or empathy

▪ Team inconsistently

shows empathy or

respect for a patient

(conscious or

unconscious)

▪ Team inconsistently

provides information

when requested to do

▪ Team shows empathy

toward patient

▪ Team provides

appropriate

information when

requested to do so

▪ Team demonstrates

consistent and

significant respect

and empathy for

patient

▪ Appropriate

information is

provided consistently

Examples ▪ Team deals with an

unconscious patient

with a lack of respect,

e.g. by joking about

his / her condition

▪ Charles knows that

the patient is a

Jehovah Witness and

does not let the team

know when a T&C is

ordered.

▪ ▪ ▪ Charles lets the

leader know that the

patient is a Jehovah

Witness and that she

refused blood

products.

▪

8. Mutual Trust and Respect

The team demonstrates civility, courtesy and trust in collective judgment.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Team exhibits e.g.

rudeness, overt

distrust/mistrust,

anger or overt doubt

or suspicion toward

each other

▪ Few team members

exhibit rudeness,

overt distrust, anger

or suspicion toward

each other

▪ Team inconsistently

demonstrates respect,

rudeness, distrust or

anger toward each

other

▪ Team exhibits e.g.

civility, courtesy, and

trust in collective

judgment

▪ Team is significantly

respectful of each

other

▪ Praise when

appropriate

Examples ▪ Angry, stressed event

manager says to team

member, “I can’t

believe you can’t

intubate the patient.

What’s the matter with

you?”

▪ Team member says

to another, “You don’t

know what you’re

doing-let me do it for

you.”

▪ Event manager

recognizes a chest

tube is needed, and

barks, “Michelle, I

want you to put in a

chest tube, I want you

to do it now, and I

want you to do it right

on your first attempt.”

▪ Leader overbearing

and intimidating

▪ ▪ Stressed but

composed leader

recognizes a team

member cannot

intubate the patient

and offers assistance

▪ Team member says

to another, “Are you

OK? Let me know if I

can help you.”

▪ Event manager

recognizes a chest

tube is needed and

says, “Michelle, this

patient needs a chest

tube-can you put it in

now?”

▪ Leader is clear, direct,

and calm.

▪ Team members will

thank each other

when appropriate.

9. Flexibility

The team adapts to challenges, multitasks effectively, reallocates functions, and uses resources effectively; team self correction.

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Team rigidly adheres

to individual team

roles

▪ Inefficient resource

allocation / use

▪ Minimal adaptability

and/or hesitation to

changing situations

▪ Team can adapt to

certain situations, but

not all

▪ Generally very flexible

▪ Multi-tasks effectively

▪ Reallocates functions

▪ Uses resources

effectively

▪ Team adapts to

challenges

consistently

▪ Engages selfcorrection

Examples ▪ Ambu-bag not

working, and no

reallocation of

resources established

▪ Team members stay

in individual roles,

failing to support each

other e.g. by failing to

recognize fatigue of

those giving CPR

▪ Patient’s hysterical

family member

disrupts the team and

team continues

providing care,

ignoring disruptive

relative

▪ ▪ ▪ Ambu-bag not

working, and an

airway team member

gives mouth-to-mouth

with a mask and

event manager asks

another team member

to retrieve a working

ambu-bag

▪ Team members

alternate giving CPR,

recognizing fatigue of

those giving CPR

▪ Patient’s hysterical

family member

disrupts the team and

a team manages the

situation, e.g.

removes, counsels, or

reassures the family

member

▪

10. Overall Team Performance

Lower Quality Higher Quality

Score 1 2 3 4 5 CNE

Level Limited Basic Progressing Proficient Advanced

Description ▪ Consistently

operating at a novice

training level

▪ Demonstrates

inconsistent efforts to

operate at a

functional level

▪ Inconsistently

demonstrates below

and average

attributes

▪ Demonstrates

significant

cohesiveness as a

team unit;

▪ Performs proficiently

▪ Consistently operates

at an experienced

and professional

level; performs as

experts

Training

Level

▪ Team requires

training at all levels;

unable to function

independently

▪ Team needs training

at multiple levels to

function

independently

▪ Team needs focused

training to function

independently

▪ Team can function

independently with

supervision

▪ Team functions

independently

Case A – Dizziness, Acute

Student ___________________________ Student ID _________ SP ID _________

History Scoring: Give students credit (Yes) if they ask any of the following questions and / or SPs

give the following responses. If question(s) not asked or response(s) not give, give no credit (No).

HISTORY CHECKLIST Yes No

1 ONSET, e.g. “When did dizziness start?”

• “The dizziness started last night when I was cleaning up after dinner.”

2 PAST MEDICAL HISTORY OF PROBLEM, e.g. “Ever had this problem

before?”

􀂃 “I almost passed out once in restaurant a few months ago. The EMT

truck came and checked me out and they thought I was dehydrated

from exercising. I had just come from the gym.”

3 QUALITY, e.g. “Describe the dizziness.”

• “Every few minutes or so I get the feeling the room is spinning and I

feel a little nauseous, then it goes away and I feel OK. Then it starts all

over again.”

4 AGGRAVATING, e.g. “What makes the dizziness worse?”

􀂃 “Standing up with my eyes open makes me feel dizzy.”

5 PALLIATIVE, e.g. “What makes the dizziness better?”

􀂃 “Closing my eyes and laying down makes the dizziness better.”

6 HEAD INJURIES, e.g. “Have you bumped or injured your head?”

• “No head injuries.”

7 PAST MEDICAL HISTORY, e.g. “How is your health in general?”

􀂃 “In general I’ve been very healthy.”

8 MEDICATIONS, e.g. “Are you taking any medications for this problem or

anything else?”

􀂃 “I’m not taking anything. I thought of taking Dramamine but I wasn’t

sure it would help.”

9 DIET, e.g. “What do you eat in a typical day?”

􀂃 “A regular diet, toast and coffee in the morning, usually take out for

lunch, Chinese, a pizza or sub, something like that, and a regular meal

at night.”

10 TOBACCO USE, e.g. “Do you smoke?”

• “I used to smoke ó a pack a day, but now I’m down to 4 or 5,

sometimes a couple more if I’m stressed.”

11 ADLs, e.g. “How is this affecting your life?”

􀂃 “I couldn’t go to work today.”

Case A – Dizziness, Acute

PE SCORING:

􀂃 COLUMN 1: NO CREDIT: If any box is checked, exam was done “incorrectly” or

“incompletely.” Checked “Incorrect Details” box records reason(s) why.

􀂃 COLUMN 2: FULL CREDIT: If “Correct” box is checked, exam was done “Correctly /

Completely.”

􀂃 COLUMN 3: NO CREDIT: If “Not Done” box is checked, exam was not attempted at all.

Physical Examination Checklist 1

Incorrect

Details

Correct

Not

Done

12 Perform fundoscopic examination

􀂃 Did not ask the patient to fix their gaze at point in

front of them.

􀂃 Exam room not darkened.

􀂃 Otoscope used instead of ophthalmoscope

􀂃 “Left eye-left hand-left eye” or “right eye-right

hand -right eye rule” not followed.

􀂃 Exam not bilateral.

□

13 Assess Cranial Nerve II – Optic – Assess Visual

Fields by Confrontation

􀂃 Examiner not at approximate eye-level with

patient, and / or no eye contact.

􀂃 Examiner’s hands not placed outside of patient’s

field of vision.

􀂃 Did not ask “Tell me when you see my fingers.”

􀂃 Did not test both upper and lower fields, and / or

bilaterally.

□

14 Assess Cranial Nerves II and III – Optic and

Oculomotor: Assess direct and consensual

reactions

􀂃 Did not shine a light obliquely into each pupil

twice to check both the direct reaction and

consensual reaction.

􀂃 Did not assess bilaterally.

□

15 Assess Cranial Nerves II and III – Optic and

Oculomotor: Assess near reaction and near

response

􀂃 Did not test in normal room light.

􀂃 Finger, pencil, etc. placed too close or too far

from the patient’s eye.

􀂃 Did not ask the patient to look alternately at the

finger or pencil and into the distance.

□

Case A – Dizziness, Acute

PE SCORING:

􀂃 COLUMN 1: NO CREDIT: If any box is checked, exam was done “incorrectly” or

“incompletely.” Checked “Incorrect Details” box records reason(s) why.

􀂃 COLUMN 2: FULL CREDIT: If “Correct” box is checked, exam was done “Correctly /

Completely.”

􀂃 COLUMN 3: NO CREDIT: If “Not Done” box is checked, exam was not attempted at all.

Incorrect

Details

Correct

Not

Done

16 Assess Cranial Nerve III – Oculomotor: Assess

convergence

􀂃 Did not ask the patient to follow his / her finger or

pencil as he / she moves it in toward the bridge of

the nose.

□

17 Assess Cranial Nerve III, IV and VI – Oculomotor,

trochlear and abducens: Assessing extraocular

muscle movement

􀂃 Examiner did not assess extra-ocular muscle

movements in at least 6 positions of gaze using,

for example, the “H” pattern.

􀂃 Did not instruct patient to not move the head

during the exam.

□

18 Assess Cranial Nerve VIII – Acoustic / Weber test

􀂃 Did not produce a sound from tuning fork, e.g. by

not holding the fork at the base

􀂃 Did not place the base of the tuning fork firmly on

top middle of the patient’s head.

􀂃 Did not ask the patient where the sound appears

to be coming from.

□

19 Assess Cranial Nerve VIII – Acoustic / Rinne test

􀂃 Did not produce a sound from tuning fork, e.g. by

not holding the fork at the base

􀂃 Did not place the base of the tuning fork against

the mastoid bone behind the ear.

􀂃 Did not ask patient to say when he / she no longer

hears the sound, hold the end of the fork near the

patient’s ear and ask if he / she can hear the

vibration.

􀂃 Did not tap again for the second ear.

􀂃 Did not assess bilaterally.

□

20 Assess Gait

􀂃 Did not ask patient to walk, turn and come back to

look for imbalance, postural, asymmetry and type

of gait (e.g. shuffling, walking on toes, etc.)

□

21 Perform Romberg Test

􀂃 Did not direct patient to stand with feet together,

eyes closed, for at least 20 seconds without

support.

􀂃 Did not stand in a supportive position, e.g. behind

patient or with hand behind patient.

□

Case A – Dizziness, Acute

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

To what degree did the student …

Lower Higher

Quality Quality

1 Establish and maintain rapport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 Demonstrate empathy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 Instill confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4 Use appropriate body language 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

EXAMINATION QUALITY

To what degree did the student …

Lower Higher

Quality Quality

5 Elicit information clearly, effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6 Actively listen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 Provide timely feedback / information / counseling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8 Perform a thorough, careful physical exam or

treatment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3. Clinical Clerkship Evaluations / NBOME Subject Exams

Data compiled from 3rd/4th year clerkships includes:

 Student Performance Evaluations from specific hospitals (attending/supervising

physicians, and/or residents) based upon the 7 core Osteopathic Competencies.

Data is broken down further by student cohort: traditional, BS/DO, and Émigré

and is quantified according to curricular track (Lecture Discussion-Based and

Doctor Patient Continuum);

 NBOME Subject Exam scores for each of the (6) core clerkships and OMM.

Core clerkships include:

a) Family Medicine

b) Medicine

c) OB-GYN

d) Pediatrics

e) Psychiatry

f) Surgery

NBOME Subject Exam statistics are shared with 3rd year students as a frame of

reference to determine their performance relative to their NYCOM peers. These

data also serve as a general guide for COMLEX II CE preparation and

performance;

 Students provide feedback on their clinical experiences during their clerkships,

via the “PDA project”:

a) The PDA is a tool utilized for monitoring clerkship activities. The

DEALS (Daily Educational Activities Logs Submission) focuses on

educational activities, while the LOG portion focuses on all major

student-patient encounters. A rich data set is available for comparing

patient encounters and educational activities across all sites for all

clerkships.

b) PDA data is used as a multimodal quality assessment tool for curricular

exposure as well as OMM integration across all hospitals (including

“outside” clerkships) for Patient Encounters and Educational Activities.

 Reports from student focus groups—these reports are based upon in-person group

interviews by a full-time NYCOM Medical Educator and feedback is analyzed in

order to ensure consistency in clerkship education and experiences, as well as for

program improvement indicators.

Specific forms/questionnaires utilized to capture the above-detailed information include the

following:

 Clinical Clerkship Student Performance Evaluation

Samples of the forms/questionnaires follow

NEW YORK COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE

OFFICE OF CLINICAL EDUCATION

Northern Boulevard -– Old Westbury, NY 11568-8000

Tel.: 516-686-3718 – Fax: 516-686-3833

(*) Only ONE form, with COMPOSITE GRADE & COMMENTS should be sent to the Hospital’s Office of

Medical Education

for the DME SIGNATURE .

COURSE # _______________________________(For NYCOM Purpose

ONLY)

STUDENT: _____________________,_______________Class Year:

______HOSPITAL:_______________________

Last First

ROTATION(Specialty)_____________________________ROTATION DATES:

____/____/____ ____/____/____

From

EVALUATOR: _________________________________________ TITLE:

_______________________________________

(Attending Physician / Faculty Preceptor)

A. Student logs by PDA  REVIEWED (at least 10 patients)  NOT REVIEWED

B. Student’s unique “STRENGTHS” (Very Important –To be incorporated into the

College’s Dean’s Letter)

______________________________________________________________________________

____________

C. Student’s LIMITATIONS (areas requiring special attention for future professional growth)

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________

D. For items below CIRCLE the most appropriate number corresponding to the

following rating scale:

Exceptional=5 Very Good = 4 Average = 3 Marginal = 2 1 = FAILURE N/A OR no opportunity to observe

CORE COMPETENCY (See definitions on reverse side) RATING

Patient Care 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Medical Knowledge 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Practice-Based Learning & Improvement 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Professionalism 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

System-Based Practice 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Interpersonal and Communication Skills 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

OVERALL GRADE 5 4 3 2 1(FAILURE

Evaluator Signature:____________________________________________________ Date:

_______/________/_______

Student Signature: ____________________________________________________ Date:

_______/________/_______

(Ideally at Exit Conference)

(*) DME Signature: _________________________________________________ Date:

_______/________/_______

Please Return to:  Hospital’s Office of Medical Education

OVER 

The Seven Osteopathic Medical Competencies

Physician Competency is a measurable demonstration of suitable or sufficient

knowledge, skill sets, experience, values, and behaviors, that meet established

professional standards, supported by the best available medical evidence, that are in

the best interest of the well-being and health of the patient.

Patient Care: Osteopathic patient care is the ability to effectively determine and

monitor the nature of a patient’s concern or problem; to develop, maintain, and to

bring to closure the therapeutic physician-patient relationship; to appropriately

incorporate osteopathic principles, practices and manipulative treatment; and to

implement effective diagnostic and treatment plans, including appropriate patient

education and follow-up, that are based on best medical evidence.

Medical Knowledge: Medical Knowledge is the understanding and

application of biomedical, clinical, epidemiological, biomechanical, and social and

behavioral sciences in the context of patient-centered care.

Practice-Based Learning & Improvement: Practice-Based learning

and improvement is the continuous evaluation of clinical practice utilizing evidence-based

medicine approaches to develop best practices that will result in optimal patient care

outcomes.

Professionalism: Medical professionalism is a duty to consistently demonstrate

behaviors that uphold the highest moral and ethical standards of the osteopathic profession.

This includes a commitment to continuous learning and the exhibition of personal and social

accountability. Medical professionalism extends to those normative behaviors ordinarily

expected in the conduct of medical education, training, research, and practice.

System-Based Practice: System-based practice is an awareness of and

responsiveness to the larger context and system of health care, and the ability to effectively

identify and integrate system resources to provide care that is of optimal value to individuals

and society at large.

Interpersonal & Communication Skills: Interpersonal and

communication skills are written, verbal, and non-verbal behaviors that facilitate

understanding the patient’s perspective. These skills include building the physician-patient

relationship, opening the discussion, gathering information, empathy, listening, sharing

information, reaching agreement on problems and plans, and providing closure. These skills

extend to communication with patients, families, and members of the health care team.

Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine: Osteopathic philosophy is a holistic

approach that encompasses the psychosocial, biomedical, and biomechanical aspects of both

health and disease, and stresses the relationship between structure and function, with

particular regard to the musculoskeletal system.

Definitions Provided by the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners

(NBOME)

4. Student feedback (assessment) of courses / Clinical clerkship / PDA project

 Data received on courses and faculty through the newly implemented, innovative

Course / Faculty Assessment program (see below-NYCOM Student Guide for

Curriculum and Faculty Assessment). Students (randomly) assigned (by teams)

to evaluate one course (and associated faculty) during 2-year pre-clinical

curriculum. Outcome of student-team assessment is presented to Curriculum

Committee, in the form of a one-page Comprehensive Report;

 Clerkship Feedback (quantitative and “open-ended” feedback) provided through

“Matchstix” (web-based feedback program): this information is shared with

NYCOM Deans and Clinical Chairs, Hospital Director’s of Medical Education

(DMEs), Hospital Department Chairs and Clerkship Supervisors. Also, the

information is posted on the “web” to assist and facilitate 2nd year students

choosing 3rd year Core Clerkship Sites (transparency). This data is also utilized

via two (2) year comparisons of quantitative data and student feedback shared

with NYCOM Deans & Chairs, as well as Hospital DMEs;

 Clerkship Feedback via PDA: quantitative and open-ended (qualitative) feedback

on all clerkships is collected via student PDA submission. The information is

utilized as a catalyst for clerkship quality enhancement. This data-set is used as a

multimodal quality assessment tool for curricular exposure as well as OMM

integration across all hospitals (including “outside” clerkships) for Patient

Encounters and Educational Activities;

 Reports from student focus groups—these reports are based upon in-person group

interviews by a full-time NYCOM Medical Educator and feedback is analyzed in

order to ensure consistency in clerkship education and experiences, as well as for

program improvement indicators;

Specific forms/questionnaires utilized to capture the above-detailed information include the

following:

 NYCOM Student Guide for Curriculum and Faculty Assessment

 Clerkship (site) feedback from Clerkship students

 Clinical Clerkship Focus Group Form

 4th Year PDA Feedback Questionnaire

 Student End-of-Semester Program Evaluations (DPC)

 DPC Program Assessment Plan

 Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM) Assessment Forms

Samples of the forms/questionnaires follow

Site Feedback

Rotation: Surgery

Site: (*) MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER

This is an anonymous feedback form. No student identification data is transmitted.

Questions marked with * are mandatory.

Section I. Please respond to each statement in this section according to the following

scale.

STRONGLY DISAGREE <-> STRONGLY AGREE

1* There were adequate learning opportunities (teaching patients, diversity of pathology and

diagnostic procedures)