Â鶹´«Ã½¸ßÇå

1. Substandard medical student professional behavior is identified by:
   
   • Faculty interacting with or overseeing the student
   • Staff, patient or another student interacting with the student, in which case the concern is brought to a faculty member, course director, or directly to the Chair of the Professionalism Committee if the behavior is observed outside the curricular realm
   • The Honor Council if it determines that an alleged Honor Code violation is a professionalism issue
2. Minor concerns (i.e., late assignments, incomplete evaluations or requirements etc.) identified by grading committees and staff are documented for tracking purposes and included in the Trek Dashfolio, but not automatically reviewed by the Student Professionalism Committee. Instead, these are reviewed for patterns by the Chair of the Student Professionalism Committee to identify students of concern to be included in Trek Progress Committee reviews.
3. Otherwise, the faculty member or staff meets with the student, provides feedback on the Professionalism Lapse, and has a discussion.
   • Although in-person provision of feedback is preferred, conversations may also occur through web-conferencing, phone calls, or email (if appropriate for minor behavioral concerns)
   • To document the feedback communication, a Professionalism Feedback Form is filled out by the faculty member or staff and submitted. (NOTE: The faculty member or staff completing the form should give direct feedback to the student prior to submitting the form).

1. The Professionalism Feedback Form is reviewed by the Chair of the Student Professionalism Committee, along with any previous Feedback Forms for the student in order to track patterns of behavior over time.
2. The student is required to acknowledge the feedback communication and provide a written reflection (general comments or 5 standardized questions)
3. If the behavior relates to classroom absences, lack of timely completion of school requirements (including evaluations), or needing reminders for fulfillment of responsibilities, and is not a documented repeated behavior, the Chair of the Professionalism Committee may choose to follow up with the student individually rather than referring the matter to the Professionalism Committee for review. The Chair will provide the Professionalism Committee with an update on the number and general content of these Feedback Forms at each committee meeting.
4. If the behavior relates to the Honor Code, the Professionalism Committee Chair confers with the Chair of the Honor Council and refers the matter to the Honor Council if appropriate. The issue cannot be referred to both simultaneously.
5. Otherwise, the Chair of the Professionalism Committee refers the matter to the full Professionalism Committee for review. The Professionalism Committee will review the current and any prior Feedback Forms for the student and determine next steps which may include (but are not limited to):
   • Requiring the student to provide additional written responses or meet with the Chair or the Committee
   • Requesting additional information from the involved faculty/staff/peers
   • Requiring formative activities such as conversations and activities with COMPASS guides, OSL Assistant Deans, other faculty or CPHP
   • Developing a remediation plan
   • Referring the student to the Promotion’s Committee when the behavior is egregious, there is recidivism, or a remediation plan is not completed
6. COMPASS Guides and Trek Progress Committee discussions may contribute to the determination of required formative activities or remediation plan components.

1. After students have received feedback about egregious behavior or multiple instances/ reoccurring unprofessional behavior despite required formative activities and support, remediation plans are established.
2. Once the Professionalism Committee determines that a remediation plan is needed, the Professionalism Committee collaboratively develops a remediation plan based on the Feedback Forms, Trek Progress Committee discussions, and information gathered from meeting with the student (if necessary).
3. The Chair communicates the remediation plan to the student in writing.
4.  A copy of the plan and related feedback forms is submitted to the Assistant Deans of Student Affairs for tracking purposes and inclusion in Promotions Committee reviews, as well as Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) letters.
5. If the remediation plan is successfully completed, an update is provided to Student Affairs.
6. If there is a pattern of recidivism, or the student fails to complete the remediation plan, the matter is referred to the Promotions Committee.
7. In the case where students are referred to the Promotions Committee, the Professionalism Committee will remain available to assist in the development of further remediation plans when deemed appropriate by the Promotions Committee.
8. Remediation plans and related documents are also provided to the student’s COMPASS guide and the Trek Progress Committee. The Trek Progress Committee will review remediation plan compliance and outcomes to inform decision making related to student progression

1. Notice is provided to the faculty who submitted the Feedback Form as to the nature of the follow-up (no further action required vs. referral to Professionalism Committee or Promotion’s Committee) as well as ultimate completion of the remediation plan (if applicable).
2. Feedback Forms/comments are maintained in a secure electronic system accessible by the Chair of the Professionalism Committee as well as the Associate Dean for Student Life.
3. Minor concern documentation, Professionalism Feedback Forms, student response forms and 5 question written reflections are provided to the student’s COMPASS guide for review and minor concerns and lapses are included in the Trek Dashfolio
4. Professionalism concerns and lapse documented through the feedback process and student performance on required follow up will be included as part of Trek Progress Committee reviews

The Professionalism Committee shall prepare an annual report of its activities, in aggregate, for the Promotions Committee. These reports shall not include any information identifying specific students or cases.