More Information Released on College of Medicine's Accreditation Status
Belmont released significantly more specific information on why the College of Medicine's accreditation status was placed on probation by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and what it’s doing to improve.
This information was in response to nine pages of anonymous letters sent to the Vision, local media, Provost David Gregory and President Greg Jones. Neither Belmont nor the Vision were able to identify the author or authors of the letters. The Nashville Banner also reported on the letters.
The letters made bold, condemning claims about College of Medicine academics, leadership and institutional culture, alleging that concerns raised by faculty have been silenced by college leadership. The Vision has not been able to independently verify these claims.
“We are unable to verify the identity, affiliation or number of individuals involved, and we are unable to engage with the senders about their claims, many of which are unsubstantiated,” said Belmont in a statement.
Five faculty members declined to comment and others did not respond to a request for comment. In addition, the Vision was told by Dr. Sarah See, associate professor of internal medicine, that faculty members are not allowed to be interviewed.
See told the Vision to contact the university’s media team. However, University Communications told the Vision that it is allowed to request an interview from any professor without clearing it first.
Belmont also provided the Vision with a slide deck, which was shown to the College of Medicine’s faculty. It gives significantly more detail than Belmont originally provided on its Accreditation Status FAQ web page.
The web page identifies three broad categories where improvement was needed: “Student Resources and Responsiveness,” “Governance, Policies and Oversight” and “Academic Experience and Learning Environment.”
The slide deck shows the LCME identified 10 specific areas listed unsatisfactory and five areas listed satisfactory with monitoring.
Here are the areas in which Belmont was not up to the LCME’s standards:
Unsatisfactory:
Continuous quality improvement
Dean authority & governance
Administrative support
Research opportunities
Curriculum mapping
Responding to student feedback
Student workload & self-directed learning time
Admissions governance
Academic advising
Career advising
Satisfactory with monitoring:
Faculty sufficiency
Faculty scholarship
Student space at clinical sites
Required clinical experience
Financial aid & student debt
Many areas have not had clear, consistent processes, and many resources have not had consistent availability, according to the slides. And student feedback showed that academic and career advising, administrative support, research resources and educational resources have not been readily available, according to the slides.
The anonymous letters also included these findings, along with even more claims regarding a lack of administrative support and resources for students and faculty; claims Belmont denies.
"Other claims in these letters are false, inconsistent with the accreditation record or mischaracterize statements and decisions made by college leadership," said Belmont in a statement.
"While the University will not comment on any specific individual personnel matters, Belmont takes any concern involving workplace conduct, student safety or professional standards seriously and reviews those matters through the appropriate channels."
Belmont said it's working to improve all these findings in a timely manner.
“The Thomas F. Frist, Jr. College of Medicine has developed a comprehensive action plan addressing every area identified by LCME,” said Belmont.
“New medical education learning specialists and a director of career advising have been hired, alongside expanded academic advising resources,” said Belmont.
In addition, the College of Medicine implemented a centralized research mentor database, created new leadership roles and clarified decision-making processes across the college.
It's also partnering with clinical sites to continue to improve student space.
The college is in the final stages of hiring three new faculty members who will “further strengthen the college's academic foundation and support its continued development,” said Belmont.
Written by Olivia Abernathy
The allegations against the faculty member must be investigated to their fullest extent before they become national news and tank the university
What exactly is “false” in the letters that were sent to the President, Provost and press? Most everything in the letter is verifiable information, like the retention, promotion and defense of a faculty member who is a possible sexual abuser that is being sued by a former student.
Btw, in the Nashville Banner article, FCOM leadership called the letter authors “sick individuals”. The letter was written by faculty at FCOM—so the Dean is basically calling his own faculty that teaches students and delivers the curriculum “sick”. That man needs to be shown the door.