MEDINE Executive Board Meeting

Document Sample
MEDINE Executive Board Meeting Powered By Docstoc
					                        MEDINE Executive Board Meeting

                           Concorde Hotel Antalya Turkey

                     09.00-17.00 Thursday 13th September 2007


Chair: Professor Gareth Williams, University of Bristol

Professor Allan Cumming, University of Edinburgh
Professor Maria Rosa Fenoll-Brunet, Reus University, Spain (representing AMSE)
Mr Karel van Liempt, Antwerp University
Dr Bernard Maillet, Brussels (representing UEMS)
Professor Madalena Patricio, Lisbon University (Representing AMEE)
Mr Paul De Roos, VUMC, Amsterdam (representing EMSA)
Dr Veronika Komives – Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary

By Invitation:
Professor Chris Van Schravendijk, Vrije University Brussels

Apologies: Professor Kiki Thermos, University of Crete (representing the ECTS
Medicine Association)
Dr Hans Karle (representing the World Federation for Medical Education)

In attendance:
Tim Jones, University of Bristol
Claire Axel-Berg, University of Bristol
Alison Paton, University of Bristol

1. Welcome

The agenda was revised following the news that the MEDINE2 submission had not
been successful.
There were a relatively small number of attendees at the conference but the core
group of interested people were attending.
No feedback had yet been received from Brussels, and no clear indication as yet as
to where weaknesses might have lain.
GW suggested having a “next steps” meeting after lunch in place of planning for
MEDINE2, to project a positive attitude.
Concentration needed to be on the Final Report to ensure a forceful delivery.

2. Minutes of the meeting held on Saturday 12 May 2007 in Oslo.

Received and approved
Small point from MP- suggested a private area be developed on the web site for the
Executive Board to have access to fuller meeting notes, to remind the Board of the
progression of the debate.

3. Matters arising

Minute 4 - Chris VS to feedback later in the meeting (Minute 4 – TF5)

4. MEDINE Final Report and financial reconciliation.
Requirements, format and timelines
                                Page 1 of 5
    MEDINE Executive Board Meeting (1 of 2 within conference) – Minutes – 13
                         September 2007 - Antalya
Financial Update: There would be unspent grant to return to the Commission.
The deadline for submitting any expenditure to MEDINE was 30 September 2007,
which was the end of the eligibility period.
GW outlined the importance of the financial guidelines and sticking to the
Commission’s rules and the governance of finance.

Text: GW referred to section 3 of the Final Report form (text), circulated in the

The number of characters were discussed, with specific reference to how tight the
word count would be.
Each Task Force would have a maximum of 350 characters (around 50/60 words) in
which to summarise their activities.
This elicited some concern when it was realised how limited the word count was.

   Page 17 – Section 3.1 - this should explain what had been done, as an indicator
    of what was contained in the rest of the document.
   Page 18 – Section 3.1 table – this should contain all the outcomes from the
    network activities. This would be the first sight the Commission would have of the
    full scope of activities.
   Codes were needed by Task Forces to fulfil this section and were subsequently
    tabled. Additional comments referred to the problems related to working on only
    part of a document without sight of the whole.
   Page 19 –
    Section 3.2(a) Project achievements – needed a punchy 40-word summary (350
    characters) per Task Force Section and Executive Board. The restricted word
    count was a real challenge.
    Section 3.2 (b) Added Value: there was some debate over the meaning of the
    term when used by the Commission. Suggestions included: elements not
    originally part of the plan, things adding to the sum of knowledge, outcomes
    which might have innovative aspects and which may be beneficial by-products
    from the core activity. AC asked if it was compulsory that each Task Force made
    a contribution in each section of the report. GW confirmed that submission was
    only required where relevant.
    Section 3.2 (c) Transnational – as before – word-count issues.
    Section 3.2 (d) Sustainability – it was important to demonstrate how the work
    would continue beyond the life of the network.
   Pages 20-22 – Review of the project workplan. Any modifications to original
    Project Work Plan would require explanation. There was a space for this on the
   Each phase of the project ran from Oct to Sept, so MEDINE phase 1 ran from Oct
    2004 (regardless of when activities began) to Sept 2005 etc.

 All accounting documentation to Alison Paton by 30 September.
 Task Force completed forms and text for master document to AP by 12 Oct 2007.
 Final draft of Final Report available for circulation to Executive Board – Friday 16
   November 2007.
 Report mailed to Commission - 14 December 2007.

Task Force 1: Tuning
 AC reported on the Tuning Validation Conference in June: the submitted
   brochure was tabled. There had been criticism by the assessors at the
   conference of the statistics evidence.

                                Page 2 of 5
    MEDINE Executive Board Meeting (1 of 2 within conference) – Minutes – 13
                         September 2007 - Antalya
   The subsequent response document “supplement and corrections” contained
    more relevant and better-formulated statistics, and so would be incorporated in
    the Final Report.
   The original objectives of Task Force 1 were met in terms of Tuning.
   Work on the element of translating competences into educational units and
    activities had begun but there were no specific outputs as yet.
   The Task Force did not have time to begin work on the assessment element.

Task Force 2: Recognition of Qualifications
 KVL:Task Force 2 had 3 action lines:
 Action line 1 – was a survey and a manual, to be shown the next day by Ulrike
   Arnold. Survey started 2 years ago, giving very useful information, leading to an
   article in “Medical Teacher”, “Bologna with Student Eyes” and the EUA “Trends V
   Report”. Action 1 had been fulfilled. The manual was almost complete and would
   be placed on the website of MEDINE.
 Action line 2 – the conclusion was that implementation of ECTS by medical
   schools was far from achieved. The original objectives stated there would be a
   dialogue with Dentistry – but this did not happen. The objectives were changed
   to identifying whether there was more opportunity for inter-disciplinary
   cooperation. Results were inconclusive. Mobility could be achieved only under
   the right conditions.
 Action line 3 – Exploration of the possibilities for the use of ECTS at
   Postgraduate level highlighted the need to differentiate between training for
   specialisation and continuing medical education. The outcome was an
   exploratory note identifying the need to allocate credit points to specific activities
   and the learning objectives.

Task Force 3: Quality
 As a result of the Task Force’s work, a publication entitled “Global standards for
   Quality Improvement in Medical Education: European Specifications” had been
   published and was available online in English, Russian and Turkish.
 Specific problems lay in data gathering, as a wide variety of agencies were
   involved in each country and CPD information proved hard to extract.
 The full report for MEDINE was already completed; targets had been fully met,
   and The Lancet article is in press, not yet published.

Task Force 4: Transparency
 MP: MedEdCentral was up and running and all objectives had been met.
 48 Countries were represented in MedEdCentral – only the Slovak Republic was
 Bologna Process data gathering had been difficult here too, as many people were
   unsure about implementation in their own countries. The questionnaire had been
   sent to government authorities to establish policies, but in the end most of the
   data had been acquired from the Bologna representatives in institutions.

Task Force 5: Research
 CVS: the recommendations of the last paragraph had been revised and refined.
 The Task Force had achieved its goals, and the final report was ready to be
 A tool had been developed to demonstrate the relationship between medical
   education and research, enabling data mining and mapping exercises.
 Individual institutions that participated in the questionnaire could be given a
   personal performance indicator as an additional output of the project.

                                Page 3 of 5
    MEDINE Executive Board Meeting (1 of 2 within conference) – Minutes – 13
                         September 2007 - Antalya
GW observed that in light of the disappointing news from Brussels, there were now
three options:

             Accept the decision and close the work
             Appeal against the decision
             Decide to resubmit at the next opportunity

PDR: suggested continuing unfunded, but it would be very difficult. He felt that
students had been well represented in the project, but there was scope for further
broadening of their involvement. He suggested that areas with innovative elements
be revisited to see if the application had been pushed to the limits.

KVL: felt that the content was not at fault, though he felt the panel might not have
understood the objectives and methods of achieving them. He felt issues of
sustainability and lobbying needed addressing and warned against creating a
vacuum for other groups to move into.

Lobbying was accepted generally as an area of possible lost opportunity. Decisions
needed to be made as to whether the group stayed together and lobbied as a strong

BM: the Network now had genuine representation across the field, which would have
proved a major advantage to MEDINE2.

VK: Commented that Brussels knew the importance of MEDINE but hoped the work
would continue without their support. Lobbying was necessary to persuade them that
funding was essential.

GW: The external assessors might have had too little understanding of the medical
education field specialist areas. However, since assessments were contracted out it
was unlikely that any political agenda was involved in the decision.

AC: Commented that DG Education was possibly not happy that the application had

MP: The Network was not really a Network, but a collection of small teams.
Workshops and meetings were all very well but it would be a challenge to transform
the organisation into a Network.

TLJ: One demonstration it had been a network was in the numbers attending
conferences. The membership representation contained in the application did not
contain all 31 countries required. This might have cost points.

AC: The network was the Task Force. Perhaps another time some issues should be
handled by the whole group. The emphasis should shift to inclusiveness and these
should be continued to increase the membership.

AC: Felt that the website was not sufficiently attractive or useful and should be re
worked as a priority. PDR: agreed to work with Alison to initiate a re-design.

MRFB: Self-criticism was important and feedback from participants was essential.
The brand was not well recognised and more self-promotion was required. The
feedback from Brussels was needed to move forward, and a message needed
sending to the relevant commissioners to promote MEDINE’s interests.

                                Page 4 of 5
    MEDINE Executive Board Meeting (1 of 2 within conference) – Minutes – 13
                         September 2007 - Antalya
CVS: It was essential that the Final Report was excellent. He suggested the
relationship between Medical Education and research be revisited for any future

GW: ended the meeting reiterating the current positions on the application.

                                Page 5 of 5
    MEDINE Executive Board Meeting (1 of 2 within conference) – Minutes – 13
                         September 2007 - Antalya