LCME Teams
The Independent Student Analysis (ISA)
The ISA is one of three major sources of student-based information that the survey team will use when it evaluates the medical education program. It is based on a comprehensive survey of students from all years of the curriculum. The credibility of the data require a response rate to the survey of at least 70-80% in total and for each class year. The other two sources of information are the AAMC GQ and the students who meet with survey team members during the survey visit, who will help to clarify issues for the survey team.
The Independent Student Analysis (ISA) is the responsibility of medical students. The ISA involves creating and distributing a student opinion survey, analyzing the responses, and writing an ISA report. The report includes the survey results and an analysis and interpretation of the responses.
The ISA is typically organized by student government members, who then invite students from all years of the medical curriculum to form a team. The team is responsible for: Planning the questionnaire, Conducting the survey, Analyzing the findings, and Summarizing the results in the ISA.
The committee should be broad-based to ensure that all perspectives are represented in the final report. The survey should be sent to students in all classes to create a comprehensive picture of students' perceptions of their medical school.
The administration may provide logistical support, but the ISA is the responsibility of the students. The Checklist of Requirements for Completing the Independent Student Analysis (ISA) for Full Accreditation is available on the LCME website.
ISA Team Chairs
- Class of 2026 Alexander In
- Class of 2027 Adam Hoch
- Class of 2028 Jordan Peck
ISA Team Members
- Class of 28 Anne Phillip
- Class of 27 Eva Scheibe
- Class of 26 Kelly Boutelle (Gordon)
- The Faculty Accreditation Leader (FAL) led the team charge on August 30, 2024.
- Caitlin Bassett joined the team providing technical support and training on September 20 and September 27, 2024.
- The ISA team began their work in October 2024
Data Collection Instrument
The Data Collection Instrument (DCI) is a document used by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) to evaluate an institution's performance against its 12 accreditation standards. The DCI is a central focus of the LCME's Institutional Self-Study process. The DCI is organized by the 12 LCME standards and the elements that make up each standard, totaling 93 elements. The standards cover all aspects of an institution, including mission and leadership, learning environment, curriculum, faculty, admissions, and student services. Schools must complete data tables within each element, respond to specific questions about policies and procedures, and provide supporting documentation for that element.
- Lee Learman MD, PhD, Dean
- Rebecca Pauly MD, FACP, Vice Dean
- David Musick PhD, Senior Dean for Faculty Affairs
- Jed Gonzalo MD, MSc, Senior Associate Dean for Medical Education
- Melanie Prusakowski MD, Associate Dean for Admissions
- Tarin Schmidt-Dalton MD, Associate Dean, Clinical Science and Skills, Years 1 and 2
- Leslie LaConte PhD, Associate Dean for Research, Director, Foundational Science Curriculum
- Amanda Murchison MD, Associate Dean for Student Affairs
- Arthur Ollendorff MD, Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education
- David Trinkle MD, Associate Dean, Community Engagement
- Aubrey Knight M.D. Phase 2 Curriculum Director
- Christi Stewart MD,FAAFP, FAAHPM, HMDC, Phase 3 Director
- Kemi Bankole MBBS, Chief Diversity Officer
- Lisa Uherick MD, Chief Well-Being Officer
- Brock Mutcheson PhD, MEd, Assistant Dean for Assessment and Program Evaluation
- Shari Whicker EdD, MEd, Assistant Dean, Faculty Development
- Alicia Besenyei MS, Assistant Dean for Advancement
- Sharon Barrett CPA, Assistant Dean for Finance and Administration
- Emily Holt Foerst PhD, Assistant Dean, Academic and Student Affairs
- Christie Neal EdS, MEd, Assistant Director, Academic Counseling and Enrichment Services
- Joanne Greenawald MD, Director, Problem-Based Learning
- Dani Backus MS, Sr. Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Accreditation
- Tracy Jones MHA, Sr. Director, Enrollment Management and Assistant Registrar
- Adam Bailey BS, Sr. Assistant Director Scholarships and Financial Aid
- Tim Mey MLIS, Head VTCSOM Library
- Josh Meyer MA, Director of Communications
- Brian Stanford CEFP, Director of Facilities
- Caitlin Bassett EdS, MA, Assessment and Evaluation Manager
Institutional Self-study
The accreditation process consists of institutional self-assessment and peer review. Information provided by the medical school is considered by both the institution and survey team in the context of the elements associated with each accreditation standard. The self-study process requires the participation of administrators, faculty members, students, and others associated with the medical education program, its clinical affiliates, and, if relevant, its sponsoring institution. The general steps in the self-study process are as follows:
1. Completion of the data collection instrument (DCI) and the independent student analysis (ISA), and compilation of supporting documents
2. Analysis of the DCI and other information sources, including the ISA, by an institutional self-study task force in the context of the LCME accreditation elements
Obtaining Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accreditation ensures that medical education programs are in compliance with accreditation standards and in satisfactory performance with their associated elements. The accreditation process has two general and related aims: to promote institutional self-assessment by members of the program’s medical education community as a guide for program improvement and to determine whether a medical education program meets accreditation standards.
In conducting its self-study, a medical education program brings together representatives of the administration, faculty, student body, and other constituencies to: (1) collect and review data and other information about the medical education program, (2) identify both institutional strengths and challenges that require attention in areas related to accreditation standards, and (3) define strategies to ensure that the strengths are maintained, and any problems are addressed effectively.
The usefulness of the self-study summary report as a guide for planning and change is enhanced when participation in its development and review is broad and representative, when the participants have engaged in a thoughtful process of institutional self-analysis and reflection, when concrete plans have been created to address identified problems, and when the results and conclusions are widely disseminated within the medical education program for review, consideration, and action.