LCME Accreditation

Dean pageDear Larner Community,

I am delighted to announce that the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) has awarded full accreditation of the UVM Larner College of Medicine for another eight-year term, through 2029.

As many of you know, the reaccreditation process involves 18 months of self-study followed by a site visit. Our work in this process was complicated by the unique circumstances and limitations presented by the pandemic and the additional challenge of a cyberattack on the UVM Medical Center. Despite those challenges, and thanks to the amazing ingenuity, resilience and energy of the more than 300 people from across our community – faculty, staff and students both in Vermont and Connecticut – our self-study was completed in full and on time.

Our subsequent virtual site visit by the LCME in April provided additional information necessary for determination of reaccreditation. I want to thank our LCME Steering Committee and Subcommittees, the Independent Student Analysis Task Force, and the COMTS and Medical Communications staff who went the extra mile, as they did throughout the self-study. Three individuals were critical to every step in this process, and our entire community owes great thanks to Associate Dean for Public Health and Health Policy Jan Carney, M.D., M.P.H., Director of Facilities Administration and Projects Eric Gagnon, M.Ed., M.S.S., and Senior Associate Dean for Medical Education Christa Zehle, M.D. This truly took a village.

The accreditation process is designed to identify areas for improvement and thereby enhance the quality of medical education. Of the 93 elements examined by the LCME, 84 were found to be fully satisfactory. In the coming weeks we will provide more detail on our plans to address areas needing additional attention, as we prepare for an interim report to the LCME in December 2022. Furthermore, through our Continuous Quality Improvement Committee, we will continue to systematically address all standards and elements in an ongoing fashion in preparation for our next LCME Site Visit in 2029.

Reaccreditation is ultimately focused on our students and optimizing their educational experience. Our medical students were full participants in the reaccreditation effort, as demonstrated by their exceptionally high participation in the Graduation Questionnaire and Independent Student Analysis Surveys. Their engagement, and that of our entire community, surely impressed our site-visitors and played an important part in our receiving full accreditation.

My thanks again to everyone who contributed to the LCME reaccreditation process, and to each member of the Larner Community for all you do.

Sincerely,

rick

Richard L. Page, M.D.
Dean

Satisfactory with Monitoring
ElementLCME Finding

2.4 Sufficiency of administrative staff

Recent changes in leadership positions in medical education and student affairs show improvements in the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire survey data. These improvements will need monitoring. 

3.2 Community of Scholar/Research Opportunities

The degree of dissatisfaction in gaining access to research opportunities from students in the Independent Student Assessment (ISA) (overall 31% dissatisfied) led to it being listed by the students as an area needing improvement. The school has made efforts to address this concern, and the ISA data suggest improved satisfaction with each successive class year. Whether this improvement is sustainable remains to be demonstrated.

8.3 Curricular Design, Review,

Revision/Content Monitoring

Although 20% of M2 and 21% of M3 ISA respondents were dissatisfied with the pre-clerkship curriculum, only 4% of M1 respondents were dissatisfied (8% considered the question not applicable). The sustainability of this level of student satisfaction with content coordination/integration throughout the pre-clerkship period will require monitoring.

 

Unsatisfactory 
ElementLCME Finding

3.3 Diversity/pipeline programs and partnerships

The Self-study report and Independent Student Analysis report both identified diversity as an area of concern. Faculty diversity is low and while the diversity office has a process that identifies targeted groups, there is no mission-appropriate diversity policy at the college level that identifies
diversity groups for students, faculty, and senior administrative staff.
5.11 Study/lounge/storage space/call rooms)Based on ISA data, the adequacy of study and relaxation space, particularly within clinical sites, was an area noted for improvement by respondents. Specifically, 45% (M3) and 37% (M4) of respondents were dissatisfied with study space at hospitals/clinical sites, and 47% (M3) and 50% (M4) of respondents were satisfied with relaxation space at hospitals/clinical sites.

6.3 Self-directed and life-long learning


While students are positive about the new curriculum that includes more self-directed learning opportunities, the ISA reveals that 34% (M1) and 28% (M2) of respondents are dissatisfied with the amount of time available to prepare for these activities.
8.5 Medical Student FeedbackThe ISA reports that 27% of respondents are dissatisfied with the college’s response to feedback related to clerkships. The medical education leadership team has increased communication about how the feedback is used, but insufficient evidence was available to demonstrate that these
changes effectively addressed student concerns.
11.2 Career advisingISA data show that 23-27% of M2, M3, and M4 respondents were dissatisfied with the adequacy of career counseling offered. Adequacy of counseling about elective choices was rated by respondents as an area in need of improvement; 33% of M3s and 35% of M4s reported they were dissatisfied. While the school has made a number of changes in the career advising system in response to low satisfaction levels reported in the ISA, insufficient evidence was available at the time of the visit to know if these changes are sufficient.
12.1 Financial aid/debt management counseling/student educational debt

ISA data regarding the adequacy of current debt management counseling offered to the student body show that overall, 32% of respondents reported they are dissatisfied. Additionally, 24% of all respondents reported that they are dissatisfied with the quality of financial aid administrative services. Among M4 respondents, 39% reported dissatisfaction with current debt management counseling and 30% noted dissatisfaction with financial aid administrative services.