DAY 1 – LEVEL 2 COLLABORATIVE EARLY INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR COMLEX SUCCESS

Sess ion Learn ing Object ives

• Appraise a collaborative early intervention process for COMLEX success

• Share best practices and barriers to collaborative early intervention strategies for COMLEX success

Sess ion Out l ine

• Desired Outcomes for Process Improvement

• Highlights of our Redesigned Process

• Outcomes

• Discussion

• References

Desi red Outcomes for Process Improvement

• A cross-departmental team

• A well-defined and documented process

• Improved intervention strategies and student support, and student outcomes

Col laborat ive Systems Approach

• A collection of sub-units working together to produce an outcome that would not have been attained through independent effort

Character is t ics of Approach

• Interaction across various sub-units

• Timely communication of student data

• Immediate feedback and reflective action

• Mutual trust, commitment, and communication encapsulates the administrative goals of our early intervention strategies

Col laborat ive Systems Framework

Failed COMLEX: Meet with CSP

et al

Develop board preparation study plan

Retake the Exam - Decision made

Sess ion Out l ine

• Desired Outcomes for Process Improvement

• Highlights of our Redesigned Process

• Outcomes

• Discussion

• References

Highl ights of our Redes igned Process

• Goals for our Redesigned Process

• Parameters: Timing and Graduation Requirements

• Published Guidelines for Student Intervention– Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Exam

(COMLEX) Requirements for Heritage College Students– Determination of Eligibility for COMLEX Level 1

• Administrative Process Documents– Role Definitions and Student Intervention Timeline– Student Intervention Tracking Template

Goals for our Redes igned Process

• A shared frame of reference and roles within this collaborative system, guided by the policy and processes

• Collaborative systems approach to support timely communication and to improve our outcomes

Learning specialists

Student

Faculty

CSP team

Parameters T i m i n g R e q u i r e m e n t s a n d G r a d u a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s

Pass Level COMLEX 1

& 2 CE

Pass COMLEX

Level 2 PE

Graduate (D.O)

COMSAE

• After completing majority of the pre-clinical Medical Knowledge coursework Year 2

COMLEX Leve1 & 2

CE

• Level1 CE before beginning clinical rotation Year 3

• Level 2 CE after completing clinical rotation Year 3 ->4

COMLEX Level 2 PE

• After completing Year 3 OSCE

• Level 2 PE after Level 2 CE no later than December 4th year

Publ ished Guidel ines for Student Inter vent ion

Adminis t rate Process DocumentT i m e l i n e f o r S t u d e n t I n t e r v e n t i o n

Adminis t rate Process DocumentS t u d e n t I n t e r v e n t i o n Tr a c k i n g Te m p l a t e

Sess ion Out l ine

• Desired Outcomes for Process Improvement

• Highlights of our Redesigned Process

• Outcomes

• Discussion

• References

Outcomes

• How effective was our process redesign?

• What were our lessons learned?

Outcomes

Formalized the use of board prep exam (COMSAE) by making it proctored and timed so as to truly identify students needing support with remedial work prior to taking COMLEX

Graph 1: Outcomes before and after the process redesign was implemented for graduating class of 2017

Outcomes

Graduating class

Board Preparation exam pass rates

Identified for remediation

Level1: First-time Pass rate

Level 2PE: First-time Pass rate

Level 2CE: First-time Pass rate

First time Second time

2015 82% 89% 17% 97% 93% 95%

2016 78% 87% 21% 91% 94% 93%

2017 58% 75% 25% 95% 12/2016 01/2017

2018 28% 03/2016 06/2016

Graph 2: Outcomes before and after the process redesign was implemented for graduating class of 2017

Sess ion Out l ine

• Desired Outcomes for Process Improvement

• Highlights of our Redesigned Process

• Outcomes

• Discussion

• References

Discuss ion

• What is your schools’ process of early intervention?

• What challenges or barriers does your school have with your process?

• What ideas do you have on how we can improve our process?

References

Cleland, J.A, Knight, L.V., Rees, C. E., Tracey, S. & Bond, C.M. Is it me or is it them? Factors that influence the passing of underperforming students. Medical Education Vol. 42, pp800-809. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03113.x

Banta, T.W. (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Higher learning Commission; Criteria for accreditation, no. CRRT.B.10.010

Isaak, M.1, Graves, K.M & Mayers,B.0 (2007). Academic, motivational, and emotional problems identified by colleges students in academic jeopardy. J. College Student Retention, Vol. 8(2)171-183.

O’Neill, G. (2012). UCD Teaching and Learning/ Resources; UCD Assessment Redesign Project: The Balance between Assessment for and of learning. Retrieved from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLA0044.pdf

Terenzini, P. T. “Assessment with Open Eyes: Pitfalls in Studying Student Outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 1989, 60, 644–664.

Volkwein, J.F (2010). Assessing Student Learning in the Major Field of Study. In Volkwein, J.F. (2010). Assessing Student Outcomes: Why, Who, What, How? New Directions for Institutional Research (101-109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Wiley, Inc., Publishers

Images

Image on slide 2: http://www.tnphtc.org/training/web-modules/quality-process-improvement/

Image on slide 3: based upon research conducted by the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN). https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/topic-research/program-implementation