Pre-review assessment

The policy as outlined below describes the necessary steps when reviewing students for concerns about knowledge, skills, attitudes and/or behavior brought forward by anyone in the Medical Center and/or College of Medicine. A formal review is preceded by data-gathering and fact- finding performed by the academic program, to assure that there is sufficient information to refer the student for formal review.

Academic reviews are typically triggered by assessment data that do not meet stated requirements. Prior to referral, the student should have received performance feedback, and data regarding the standards in question.

Students who have failed to meet competencies may be required, as a condition of continued participation in the curriculum, to comply with academic or behavioral requirements that differ from those applied to students without a history of academic and/or behavioral difficulties.

Egregious behavior (actions that put patients, students, faculty, staff, and/or oneself at personal or professional risk) may require immediate action by the Dean or designee. Students in dual degree programs who encounter academic, behavioral, and/or professionalism difficulties in either component of their program must also go through the College of Medicine formal review process, the results of which may be communicated to the other program(s) as deemed appropriate.

Formal academic review levels

There are four levels of academic review, with responsibilities that are assigned by the Executive Curriculum Committee. A brief review of each is provided below, with more detailed discussions of each committee in the following sections.

Level I: Formative/Advisory Review (Support)

Level 1 Review is intended to assist the student in correcting academic or behavioral patterns that may be disruptive to their success in medical school or as a physician. Appearances before Level I Review groups will not be noted in the MSPE.

  • Student Review Committee (faculty only)
  • Honor and Professionalism Council (students only)

Level II: Disciplinary Review (Detailed Performance Analysis)

Level II Review committees have the authority to modify a student’s curricular progression and to recommend that a student be dismissed from the COM. Appearances before Level II Review committees and the subsequent actions taken are noted in the student’s electronic file. Alterations in a student’s curriculum that result in a break in or extension in training or adverse decisions from the reviewing committee, the medical school, or the University will be noted in the MSPE. As detailed below, some Level II Review committees allow the referred student to appear with a faculty or staff advocate. This advocate should not be one of the vice deans or associate deans.

  • Honor and Professional Council (faculty and students)
  • Technical Standards Advisory Committee (faculty only)
  • Violations Committee (faculty only)
  • Academic/Behavioral Review Committee (faculty only)
  • USMLE Review Committee (faculty only)

Level III: Assessment of Due Process

A Level III committee evaluates the process of the Level II committees in the event that a student is recommended for dismissal to ensure that decisions were fairly made with complete information. A Level III committee also evaluates requests for reinstatement to the College after a student has withdrawn or been dismissed. At the OSUCOM, there is a single Level III Committee:

  • Academic Review Board (faculty only)

Level IV: Final Decision Making

Final decision making for a student’s dismissal or reinstatement resides with the Dean of the College of Medicine or their designee, the Vice Dean for Education. In the event that a student demonstrates behavior felt to be significantly harmful to patients, students, staff, or faculty, the Dean may suspend or dismiss a student without using other levels of the review process.

Student review committee

Honor and professionalism council

Review of technical standards and the technical standards advisory commitee

Violations committee

The Violations Committee is responsible for the oversight of applicant and student self-disclosure, background checks, toxicology screens and other requirements of the professional student. The Violations Committee will make recommendations to the Admissions Committee (for recommendation of rescindment of admission), the Associate Dean for Admissions (for all other recommendations for a pre-matriculate), and/or the Associate Dean for Student Life (for matriculated students), as appropriate, in regard to positive findings on student/applicant self- disclosure, background checks, and toxicology screening.

Committee Composition

  • Associate Dean of Medical Education, Chair Part
  • 1 Co-Program Directors
  • Part 2 Program Director
  • Part 3 Program Director

If the recommendation is for other than dismissal, the Violations Committee has the authority to require an education contract and to dictate the stipulations therein. Education contracts are to be signed by the student, the Chair of the Violations Committee (Associate Dean for Medical Education) and the Vice Dean for Education (see Education Contracts, later in this section).

Academic and behavioral review committee

USMLE review committee

Academic review board

Other oversight committees

The Academic Review Process Committee is a systems committee responsible for overseeing the process of the multiple levels of student review detailed above. This committee will not meet with students directly.

This committee meets quarterly and will monitor the actions of all of the constituent committees that have occurred over the quarter. The committee will function in a quality assurance fashion to ensure that the academic review process is functioning in a manner that is consistent with the Educational Objectives and the mission, vision, and values of the College of Medicine.

The Academic Review Process Committee serves to maintain quality, outcomes-based decision making in all reviews. This committee is charged with monitoring the OSU College of Medicine review process for students who encounter academic and/or behavioral challenges within the curriculum, and providing feedback and recommendations for quality improvement to the constituent review committees. The chairperson of this committee is responsible for interfacing with the chairs of the component committees.

Committee Composition

  • Associate Dean for Medical Education
  • Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion
  • Associate Dean for Student Life
  • Associate Dean for Admissions
  • Directors of Competencies (Patient Care, Knowledge for Practice, Practice-Based Learning and
  • Improvement, Interpersonal Communication Skills, Professionalism, Systems-Based Practice,
  • Interprofessional Collaboration, and Personal and Professional Development)
  • Academic Program Directors, LSI Part 1, 2, and 3
  • Associate Academic Program Directors, LSI Part 1, 2, and 3
  • Directors of Integration, Part 2
  • Part 3 Unit Directors (AMHBC, AMRCC, Advanced Competencies/Clinical Tracks)
  • Faculty (10); from a mix of foundational and clinical science, at least two of whom are elected by the faculty at large, and at least two of whom are community faculty (or from affiliated programs).

Advancement committee

Responsibilities

  • This subcommittee is specifically charged with reviewing trends in student performance through monitoring of grades, exam scores and patterns of behavior. This committee will determine if students have a pattern of performance that requires intervention or formal review by the Academic/Behavioral Review or USMLE Review subcommittee. Prior to such a referral, the committee may ask for the student to meet with an Associate Dean or Counselor in an attempt to understand if there are outside factors affecting performance.
  • This subcommittee does not meet with students.
  • This subcommittee meets approximately twice a month to discuss the progress of all students.
  • This subcommittee will monitor the progress of all students seen by any other subcommittee (Academic/Behavioral Review or USMLE Review).
  • This subcommittee will be responsible for promotion of students to the next academic program or for graduation. Any students who are felt not to qualify for promotion will be referred to the appropriate level II committee.

Guidelines for Changing Student Academic Status Lights

(June 29, 2012, reviewed July 26, 2015)

Guiding principles:

  • “Academic” issues refer to all domains of competency, including: Patient Care, Knowledge for Practice; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; Interpersonal and Communication Skills; Professionalism; Systems-Based Practice; Interprofessional Collaboration; and Personal and Professional Development.
  • The purpose of the colored “light” designations is to better track student academic performance and/or alert educators about a student’s areas of difficulty.
  • Decisions about academic status changes (“lights”) are made after a comprehensive review of a student’s performance record and an understanding of a student’s progress and prognosis for future performance. Guidelines for decision-making have been developed, but the AAC has the discretion to modify them based upon their comprehensive review.
  • Consideration of performance on USMLE Steps 1 and 2CK is included in this review process. Please note: the light statuses detailed below will be visible within the COM electronic learning management system, VITALS.
    • Vitals green light Green light means “Good Academic Standing.” No areas of current concern and/or any initial issues have been clearly resolved and student has consistently demonstrated academic progress.
    • Vitals yellow light Yellow light means “Good Academic Standing/Minor Risk”. Student may be placed in “Good Academic Standing/Minor Risk” (yellow) when student initially encounters a challenge or failure to meet standards in any assessments or competencies. A student may return to green when the AAC determines the student has clearly resolved any issues and met assessment and/or competency standards.
    • Vitals orange light Orange light means “Good Academic Standing/Moderate Risk.” Students who are “Good Academic Standing/Moderate Risk” (orange) have an accumulation of academic and/or non-academic issues or challenges with competencies that need to be taken into consideration when assigning small group or clinical activities. Students will typically remain at this status for the duration of the academic program or academic year. In exceptional circumstances, the status may be changed to “Good Academic Standing” (green) if the AAC determines that the student has clearly resolved all issues and consistently demonstrated academic progress (i.e., consistently achieved assessment and competency standards).
      A student at the end of an academic program who is “Good Academic Standing/Moderate Risk” (orange) will remain at that status going into the next academic program until the AAC determines that the student has clearly resolved all issues and consistently demonstrated academic progress (i.e., consistently achieved assessment and competency standards).
    • Vitals brown light Brown light means “Good Academic Standing/High Risk.” Student who is at high risk of not meeting established academic competency or performance levels will be changed to “Good Academic Standing/High Risk” (brown). Students may not participate in longitudinal Advanced Competency experiences while on “brown” status in order for them to concentrate on achievement of core competencies. This student should be placed at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center facilities for clinical experiences and is not allowed to do away or international electives without permission from the Academic Program Director. Students in this status may rotate to our local affiliates only with permission from the Academic Program Director. The student will remain on “Good Academic Standing/High Risk” (brown) until the AAC determines that the student has clearly resolved all issues and consistently demonstrated academic progress (i.e., consistently achieved assessment and competency standards).
    • Vitals red light Red light means “Not in Good Academic Standing.” Student who is “Not in Good Academic Standing” (red) has failed a program or has a significant issue pending official action. This student should not be involved with any academic program activities unless approved by Dean's staff in conjunction with the appropriate Academic Program Director.
    • Vitals purple light Purple light means “Academic Standing Under Review”. The E and A team will change the status to purple if a student has not met a competency, pending further review at the next meeting of the Academic Advancement Committee.

A Note on Light Designation When Returning from LOA: A student retains their status from the time of taking an LOA until they return and the Advancement Committee or its designee have reviewed their performance and made a status determination.

Membership

The chair of this subcommittee is the Associate Dean for Medical Education or designee. The membership is as follows:

  • Associate Dean for Student Life
  • Each of the Academic and Associate Academic Program Directors (Part 1, 2, and 3)
  • Each of the Directors of Integration (Associate Directors of Integration and Unit Directors of Part 2 are encouraged to attend, but their attendance is not mandatory)
  • Unit Directors for Part 3 (AMHBC, AMRCC, Advanced Competencies/Clinical Tracks)
  • Directors of Competencies are invited, but their attendance is not mandatory
  • Others will also be invited (e.g., other curricular leaders [Personal & Professional Coaching, Longitudinal Practice, Longitudinal Group, etc.], the Director of Biomedical Education (BME), select BME staff, including staff of Evaluation and Assessments, select Student Life staff) but their attendance is not mandatory.

Function

Quorum is seven (of the 14 required members). Only required members vote. The chair votes unless stipulated otherwise; decisions are made by a majority of those voting. Abstentions are not counted. On a quarterly basis, the Committee will review all students who are not on “green” status, and all students, regardless of “light” designation, who have been reviewed by other ASC subcommittees (ABRC, USMLE Review).

Education contracts

As a consequence of the student review process, level II/III committees and the Dean (and their designee) have the authority to require the execution of an education contract as a provision of continuing in the curriculum. The requirements to be contained in the contract are stipulated by the requesting committee or the Dean or designee. The contract also dictates consequences of failure to meet the requirements/terms of the contract, up to and including recommendation for dismissal from the College. It should be noted that the requirements for successful progress in the curriculum stipulated in the contract may differ from those in place for students who have not encountered academic and/or behavioral difficulties. Education contracts are to be reviewed and signed by the student, the Associate Dean for Medical Education (or designee), the Associate Dean of Student Life and the Vice Dean for Education.

Appealing a committee decision

Students have the right to appeal adverse actions related to advancement, graduation, or dismissal rendered by any of the Level II review committees:

  • Academic Behavioral Review Committee (ABRC)
  • Honor and Professionalism Council (HPC)
  • United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Review Committee
  • Violations Committee

A student may request an appeal due to one of the following concerns:

  • The Academic Review Process Subcommittee making the decision or the referring Academic Program did not follow appropriate procedures in the consideration of the original adverse action decision
  • Significant information was unavailable at the time the subcommittee rendered the original decision
  • A potential conflict of interest or bias may have influenced the subcommittee in the consideration of the original adverse action decision

An apeal request must be made in writing by the student to the Associate Dean for Medical Education (or, for HPC referrals, to the Associate Dean for Student Life) within fourteen calendar days of receipt of the written notice of the decision. If the student does not make a timely appeal, the decision of the rendering committee is considered final and the action will be implemented.

If any of the above criteria are met, the Associate Dean of Medical Education will request a re- review of the decision (again, if dealing with the HPC, the Associate Dean for Student Life will request this review). The committee that rendered the original decision must meet within fourteen calendar days of the receipt of the request for the written appeal with a new quorum of faculty members. Faculty members who did not participate in the original determination should be selected. During an appeal meeting, the committee will otherwise follow normal operating procedures.

The chair of the committee will notify the student and the Associate Dean of Medical Education in writing regarding the committee’s decision within five business days of the decision. In addition, the chair or designee will attempt to contact the student by phone regarding the outcome. A report of the recommendations will be included in the student’s permanent file.

If the recommendation is for dismissal, the student may be placed on an immediate administrative leave of absence at the discretion of the Associate Dean for Medical Education until the Academic Review Board concludes its review.

Avoidance of conflict in faculty roles

Faculty at The Ohio State University College of Medicine accept an obligation to avoid conflicts of interest in carrying out their teaching and professional responsibilities. For purposes of this policy, an educational conflict of interest exists if:

  • Faculty member is currently or previously in a therapeutic relationship with the learner.
  • Faculty member is in a romantic or familial relationship with the learner.
  • Faculty member or admissions committee member is in a romantic or familial relationship with the applicant.
  • Faculty member is currently or previously in a therapeutic relationship with the applicant.

Having an educational conflict of interest may exert a substantial and improper influence upon a faculty member or admission committee member’s professional judgment in exercising learner or applicant evaluation. Faculty members with an educational conflict of interest must not evaluate a learner’s (for which there exists a conflict) performance or participate in any component of academic due process for that learner. Admissions Committee Members with an educational conflict of interest must not participate in any component of the admissions process for the year in which the applicant with whom they have the educational conflict with is involved. As soon as they become aware of a potential educational conflict the faculty member must disclose this to the Associate Dean for Medical Education/Designee, Associate Dean for Health & Rehabilitation Sciences/Designee, Associate Dean for Graduate Education/Designee, or the Associate Dean of Graduate Medical Education/Designee. Admissions Committee Members with an educational conflict of interest must disclose this to the Associate Dean for Admissions/Designee or the appropriate admissions committee chair.

Ohio State University student conduct

Student Conduct is a department of the university Office of Student Life. Student Conduct administers the Code of Student Conduct and serves as a resource the university community. The Code of Student Conduct is established to foster and protect the core missions of the university, to foster the scholarly and civic development of the university's students in a safe and secure learning environment, and to protect the people, properties and processes that support the university and its missions. The Code of Student Conduct covers a broad range of prohibited conduct including but not limited to academic misconduct, endangering, stalking, sexual misconduct, destruction of property, theft, dangerous weapons, hazing, disorderly conduct, or violation of other university rules or federal, state or local laws.

All OSU students including students of the COM are subject to the Code of Student Conduct for the Ohio State University and the jurisdiction of Student Conduct. Student Conduct can receive reports of incidents of possible violations of the Code of Student Conduct from any source, including local police, University Housing, students, faculty and staff of the Ohio State University, or any other interested party. The processes of investigation, adjudication of complaints and appeals are outlined at the Student Conduct website. Sanctions determined by Student Conduct may include informal admonition, formal reprimand, disciplinary probation, suspension or dismissal from the university.

If a medical student is found guilty of misconduct and is given sanctions short of dismissal, they will be referred to the Academic Behavioral Review Committee within the College of Medicine for review of the misconduct and determination if the student’s behavior is consistent with the standards of professionalism of the College of Medicine. If Student Conduct determines that the sanction is dismissal, no further review will be performed through the College of Medicine.

Office of Student Life, Student Conduct

550 Lincoln Tower, 1800 Cannon Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Telephone: 614-292-0748
Fax: 614-292-2098
Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday http://studentconduct.osu.edu/
The entire OSU Code of Student Conduct may be accessed at http://studentlife.osu.edu/csc/