Narrative Data and Tables

SECTION I.   INSTITUTIONAL SETTING
Part B: Narrative Data and Tables

IS-1. Each medical school must engage in a planning process that sets the direction for the institution and results in measurable outcomes.

To assure ongoing vitality and successful adaptation to the rapidly changing environment of academic medicine, schools need to establish periodic or cyclical institutional planning processes or activities.  Planning efforts that have proven successful in medical schools and other professional or business milieus typically involve the definition and periodic reassessment of both short-term and long-range goals for the successful accomplishment of institutional missions.  By framing goals in terms of measurable outcomes wherever circumstances permit, a school can more readily track progress toward their achievement.  The manner in which a school engages in institutional planning will vary according to available resources and local circumstances, but all schools should be able to document their vision, mission, and goals; evidence indicating their achievement; and strategies for periodic or ongoing assessment of successes and unmet challenges.

a.  Provide a brief statement of the mission and goals of the medical school.  

The mission of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM) is to educate medical students, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows in accordance with the highest professional standards; to prepare clinicians to practice patient-centered medicine of the highest standard; and to identiify and answer fundemental questions in the mechanisms, prevention and treatment of disease, in health care delivery and in the basic sciences.

The founding principles of the JHUSOM (1893) integrated rigorous basic science education with intensive clinical mentoring, to foster a bench-to-bedside concept for medicine resulting in our mission of research, education, patient care and service to the community.  The School strives to inspire students and faculty to be international leaders in the application of medical knowledge to patient care.

b. Provide an executive summary of the current medical school strategic plan, if any

 Planning for the JHUSOM is done within the context of Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM) Strategic Priorities:
1. Achieve the highest possible standards of quality in research, education and patient care in full compliance with internal and external requirements.
2. Coordinate growth across the research, education and patient care missions of JHM.
3. Provide the human resources and infrastructure for JHM to operate efficiently and effectively.
4. Develop relationships necessary to fulfill the mission of JHM.
5. Set and achieve financial targets and maintain a strong financial position across JHM.

The JHUSOM strategies are as follows:

Research:
• Focus on safety as the number one priority in human subjects research
• Maintain a competitive edge in technology
• Engage industry to improve technology transfer
• Provide increased opportunities for medical students to participate in research
• Promote the bench-to-bedside principles JHUSOM was founded upon
• Maintain ample funding for cutting-edge research
• Ensure adequate space for research is reserved in new buildings
• Increase funding from sources other than NIH and the Maryland State Government

 Education:
• Integrate a focus on safety into all academic activities
• Reform the medical school curriculum to incorporate the challenges posed by a rapidly changing medical world:
o Allow for more patient care in the first two years of medical school
o Foster the bench-to-bedside ideals upon which JHUSOM was founded
o Better incorporate new technologies and medical science into the curriculum
• Increase multidisciplinary learning
• Foster professionalism and communication skills among all levels of learners: medical students to physicians
• Expand the use of new technologies as teaching tools:
o Simulation Center
o Online learning tools
• Ensure adequate space for teaching is reserved in any new buildings and ample funds are secured
• Focus on faculty development t
o Clarify promotion tracts, placing equal emphasis on the importance of scholarly achievement in teaching, as well as research and patient care
o Attain resources to recruit and retain the very best faculty
o Foster multidisciplinary interactions across JHM
o Improve diversity among the faculty
o Ensure faculty are motivated to meet teaching requirements

 Patient Care:
• Emphasize patient safety and risk management
• Expand the use of technology to improve efficiency and effectiveness
• Support patient access initiatives
• Allow medical students more patient contact in their first two years
• Provide longitudinal patient contact for students, spanning across the four-year curriculum

Service to the East Baltimore Community:
• Enhance community outreach programs with the local East Baltimore community
• Better integrate and organize community service initiatives into the medical school curriculum
• Collaborate across all educational entities of JHM to improve East Baltimore’s health.  Entities in East Baltimore include: The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

c.  Date of most recent review or revision of the strategic plan:  

d.  How often is the plan reviewed or revised?

            Every three years.

e. Briefly summarize or outline the planning process, including the main participants and the names or titles of individuals or groups whose approval is required to finalize the plan.

The JHM planning process is overseen by the Executive Office of JHM (of which David Nichols, M.D., Vice Dean for Education is a member), under the direction of Toby Gordon, Sc.D., Vice President, Strategic Planning and Market Research (SPMR).  Dr. Gordon and her team conduct an annual situation assessment of the current status of JHM and its member organizations, including the JHUSOM.  Using information gleaned from the situation assessment, JHM Strategic Priorities are set. 

Each member organization develops a strategic plan, according to the JHM strategic plan “gold standard,” that is based on the information derived from the JHM situation assessment.  The strategic plan consists of the organization’s mission, vision and values, the situation assessment, long-range goals and their relationship to JHM strategic priorities, and annual operating plan, including management objectives, targets and budgets.  The strategic plan must be reviewed and approved by the senior leadership of JHUSOM and  Edward Miller, M.D., Dean/CEO of JHM, must provide the final sign-off.

IS-2. A medical school should be part of a not-for-profit university or chartered as a not-for-profit institution by the government of the jurisdiction in which it operates.

Accreditation will be conferred only on those programs that are legally authorized under applicable law to provide a program of education beyond secondary education.

a. Year of initial chartering:       

b. Type of charter (check one):    
 

IS-3. If not a component of a regionally accredited institution, a U.S. medical school must achieve institutional accreditation from the appropriate regional accrediting body.

The LCME is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as an accrediting agency for educational programs, specifically for the accreditation of medical education programs leading to the M.D. degree.  Because the LCME is not recognized as an institutional accrediting agency, it lacks standing to accredit stand-alone medical schools as institutions of higher education.

Institutional accreditation is granted by regional accrediting agencies, and is required to qualify for federal financial assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Some regional accrediting bodies grant “pre-accreditation” as a first step to achieving full accreditation.  In such circumstances the attainment of pre-accreditation status would meet the requirements of this standard.

a. Regional accrediting body (check one):

b. Current institutional accreditation status: 

c. Year of next regional accreditation survey:

 IS- 4. The manner in which the medical school is organized, including the responsibilities and privileges of administrative officers, faculty, students and committees must be promulgated in medical school or university bylaws.

1. Provide a copy of the faculty bylaws that apply to the medical school, or the URL of the web site where they can be viewed. 

In 2005, a formal Governance and Organization of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine document was drafted and approved by Dean and Chairman of the Board of Trustees in September 2005.  These bylaws are located in Appendix document, IS-4a (2005): "Organizationand Governance."

b. Date of their most recent revision:  

c. Briefly describe how they are communicated to the faculty.

The School of Medicine By-Laws are publicy available on the World Wide Web.

The governance and organizational structure of the School of Medicine are outlined in the Faulty Professional Guide (a.k.a. The Silver Book), which is distributed to all new faculty appointees, and available on the Internet (http://insidehopkinsmedicine.org/silverbook/index.html)

IS- 5. The governing board responsible for oversight of the medical school must be composed of persons who have no personal or pecuniary interest or other conflict of interest in the operation of the school, its associated hospitals, or any related enterprises. 

IS-6. Terms of governing board members should be overlapping and sufficiently long to permit them to gain an understanding of the programs of the medical school.

a. Check any units for which the governing board is directly responsible:

b. Name of board chair

c. Year of board chair’s appointment

d.  Summarize the procedure for appointment and renewal of board members, including the chair.  Describe the length of term for members and the staggering of appointments, if appropriate.  Note any specific mechanisms intended to prevent conflicts of interest among board members.  If the medical school has its own board of trustees, or is overseen directly by a subcommittee of the university or health science center board, provide a separate description for appointment and renewal of its members.

The bylaws for the Board of Trustees are located at http://trustees.jhu.edu/Welcome

The Committee on Trusteeship, Nominations and By-Laws nominates candidates for election to the Board of Trustees and also recommends re-election of Trustees whose terms are about to expire.  Article I, Section 8a. Upon nomination by the Committee on Trusteeship, Nominations and By0Laws, Trustees may be elected by the Board of Trustees to fill any vacancies in the Board and an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees in office at the time of the election shall be necessary for a choice. Article XI, Section 9b. The Committee for Trusteeship, Nominations and By-Laws shall identify qualified candidates for possible nomination ad, form time to time, present to the Board nominations for membership.

Regular Trustees (defined in Article I, Section 1c) and Alumni Trustees (defined in Article I, Section 2) serve six-year terms.  There are no limits on the number of terms a regular Trustee may serve.  Alumni Trustees may serve only one term in that capacity, but may be re-elected as regular Trustees. Young Trustees (defined in Article I, Section 3) serve four-year terms, which are not renewable.

A list of current, active Trustees with the dates when they were originally elected and the dates when their current terms end is located in Appendix Document, IS-6, “Terms of Trustees.”

The Board of Trustees has a Conflict of Interest Policy, adopted November 11, 1987, and each Trustee is required to submit a disclosure form annually.  Copies of the policy and form are attached in Appendix Document, IS 5.d, “Intermediate Sanctions/Disclosure Statements.”

IS- 7. Administrative officers and members of a medical school faculty must be appointed by, or on the authority of, the governing board of the medical school or its parent university.

Briefly describe the role of the governing board in the appointment of administrative officers and faculty of the medical school. 

Faculty in the School of Medicine are appointed and promoted in accordance with the “Policies and Guidelines Governing Appointments, Promotions, and Professional Activities of the Full-Time Faculty of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.”  This document, also known as the “Gold Book” (copy attached) is made available to all faculty members.

Members of the faculty are nominated by the Director(s) of the Academic Department(s) in which they will be performing their primary work.  Appointment is contingent upon several factors.  These include verification of credentials from primary sources and documentation for suitability for medical licensure and\or all other formal credentialing that may be necessary to perform their clinical and research duties.  Faculty nominated for appointment must be presented to the appropriate faculty promotion committee. These committees are comprised of faculty at that level of rank or higher in the School of Medicine.  The promotion committees adhere to a standardized set of criteria for appointment and promotion and recommend, decline to recommend, or place on hold recommendations for appointment and\or promotion.

Nominations are then presented to the Advisory Board of the Medical Faculty.  This Board is chaired by the President of the University and includes, among its voting members, the Dean and all Department Directors of the School of Medicine.  All new faculty must be approved by the Advisory Board; all promotions must also be approved by this same body as well.  Promotion is based on performance as measured by the tripartite mission of clinical care, teaching, and research.  Whatever the strengths in other areas, faculty must demonstrate a progressive level of independent and influential research for continued advancement.  Faculty who do not advance academic rank within the proscribed period are reviewed by the Advisory Board and a determination made as to further action ranging from extension of contraction to advisement of intent to terminate.  Considerations for retention include acceptable performance in teaching and clinical care.

IS-8. The chief official of the medical school, who usually holds the title “dean,” must have ready access to the university president or other university official charged with final responsibility for the school, and to other university officials as are necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the dean’s office.

IS-9. There must be clear understanding of the authority and responsibility for medical school matters among the vice president for health affairs, the dean of the medical school, the faculty, and the directors of the other components of the medical center and university.

a. Provide a job description for the dean and, if applicable, the vice president for health affairs or equivalent. 

The Dean/Chief Executive Officer of Johns Hopkins Medicine is the chief academic and executive officer of the School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System. Also, he serves as the Vice President of medicine for the Johns Hopkins University.

The current incumbent is the first person to hold the combined positions of Dean of the Medical Faculty and Chief Executive Officer of Johns Hopkins Medicine – Responsible for the people, resources, and facilities for all aspects of teaching, research, and patient care. Trustees of both Boards of the Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Johns Hopkins Health System consolidated what was formerly two positions into one.

As Dean, he is formally responsible to the President of The Johns Hopkins University. As Chief Executive Officer of Johns Hopkins Medicine, he reports to an Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees chaired by the President of the University.

The Presidents of all components of The Johns Hopkins Health System, including The Johns Hopkins Hospital, report to the Dean/CEO.

The Dean receives guidance and advice from the faculty and department directors through the Advisory Board of the Medical Faculty which meets monthly and is chaired by the President of the University. He is assisted in his duties by his management team, including vice deans, associate deans, assistant deans, and management of the Hospital/Health System.

b. Supply a chart showing the relationships between the medical school and university administration, other schools and colleges, institutes, centers, etc. Include, if appropriate, the reporting relationships for the director of any teaching hospitals owned or operated by the medical school or university.

Please see appendix document "IS-9b. JHM Organizational Structure"

IS-10. The dean must be qualified by education and experience to provide leadership in medical education, scholarly activity, and care of patients. 

Attach a brief resume of the dean’s academic and administrative experience (not a full curriculum vitae).

EDWARD D. MILLER, M.D.
Dean of the Medical Faculty
Chief Executive Officer
Johns Hopkins Medicine

DR. EDWARD MILLER was named Chief Executive Officer of Johns Hopkins Medicine, the 13th Dean of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Vice President for Medicine of The Johns Hopkins University in January 1997. His appointment followed a year-long national search for the first-ever CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine, a new organization which formally integrates operations and planning of the School of Medicine with The Johns Hopkins Health System and Hospital to ensure their continued preeminence in education, discovery and patient care. As CEO, he is responsible for both the School and the Health System and reports directly to the University President and the Chairman of the Board of Johns Hopkins Medicine.

Under his aegis, both The Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicinecontinue to be ranked among the very best in the nation by U.S. News & World Report, and the School continues to rank at the top in NIH research funding.  Johns Hopkins Medicine’s expansion in the past eight years ranged from the acquisition of Howard County General Hospital – strategically located between Baltimore and Washington – to the establishment of Johns Hopkins Singapore, from construction of new outpatient centers in surrounding counties to the opening of clinical and research buildings for the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins.  Currently, Dr. Miller is implementing a master plan designed to replace aging facilities on the East Baltimore Medical Campus and cooperating with the city and state on development of a Life Sciences Park that will serve as the linchpin for redevelopment of a deteriorating neighborhood near the campus.

To insure that Johns Hopkins Medicine plays a leadership role in protecting patients and research volunteers, Dr. Miller has established the Center for Innovation in Quality Patient Care.  Continuing the Hopkins tradition of leadership in medical education, he established an academic computing center that is developing “The Living Textbook.”

An anesthesiologist who has authored or co-authored more than 150 scientific papers, abstracts and book chapters, Dr. Miller joined Hopkins in 1994 as Professor and Director of the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, a post he held until May 1999. He was named Interim Dean of the School of Medicine in 1996. He came to Hopkins after eight years at Columbia University in New York, where he served as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Prior to that, he spent 11 years at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, where he rose from Assistant Professor to Professor of anesthesiology and surgery and Medical Director of the Surgical Intensive Care Unit.

Dr. Miller’s research has focused on the cardiovascular effects of anesthetic drugs and vascular smooth muscle relaxation. The recipient of an NIH Career Research Development Award (1978-1983), he has served as President of the Association of University Anesthesiologists (1990-1992), editor of Anesthesia and Analgesia (1982-1992), and editor of Critical Care Medicine (1996-1997). Elected to the Royal College of Anaesthetists in London in 1993, he has served on the board of the International Anesthesia Research Society and from 1991-94 was Chairman of the FDA’s Advisory Committee on Anesthesia and Life Support Drugs.

Dr. Miller is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.  He is also a member of the State of Maryland’s Health Care Access and Cost Commission.  He serves on the boards of the Greater Baltimore Committee and the Mercantile Safe Deposit and Trust Fund.

Born in February 1943 in Rochester, N.Y., Dr. Miller received his A.B. from Ohio Wesleyan University and his M.D. from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. He was a Surgical Intern at University Hospital in Boston, Chief Resident in Anesthesiology at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston, and a Research Fellow in Physiology at the Harvard Medical School. In 1981-82, he spent a sabbatical year as Senior Scientist in the Department of Pharmacology and Physiology of Hopital Necker in Paris.  He and his wife, Lynne, are the parents of four adult children.

IS-11. The medical school administration should include such associate or assistant deans, department chairs, leaders of other organizational units, and staff as are necessary to accomplish the missions of the medical school.

There should not be excessive turnover or long-standing vacancies in medical school leadership. Medical school leaders include the dean, vice/associate deans, department chairs, and others where a vacancy could negatively impact institutional stability, especially planning for or implementing the educational program. Areas that commonly require administrative support include admissions, student affairs, academic affairs, faculty affairs, graduate education, continuing education, hospital relationships, research, business and planning, and fund raising.

a. Attach a chart showing the organization of the dean’s office. 

See Appendix Document IS-11.a.1 to IS-11a.8

b. List the percent of effort which each associate and assistant dean contributes for the administrative support of the medical school.

c. Indicate the term of appointment for department chairs, and the number of times it can be renewed. 

e. Briefly describe the budgetary authority of department chairs, and the sources of funding for departmental budgets.

The financial and budgetary responsibilities within the School of Medicine have traditionally been broadly delegated to the Department Directors.  Although the School and University manage the financial infrastructure, set overall financial objectives and targets, and are accountable to Boards of Trustees for School-wide finances, a high degree of financial authority and accountability rests at the academic department level.  Department Chairs are responsible for managing the finances of their departments, under All Funds method of budgeting and reporting, on a bottom-line basis, i.e. responsibility for both revenues and expenditures.  The financial structure is designed as an incentive-based system such that departments retain funds earned through bottom line surpluses.  Clinical Departments with faculty incentive plans may share portions of those earned funds through performance supplements.

Departmental budgets are typically funded from a number of different sources – Sponsored Programs (federal and other government grants and contracts, private grants and contracts), Clinical Services (for Clinical Departments only), Reimbursement from Hospitals and other affiliates for services provided to those entities (primarily Clinical Departments), Proceeds from Fundraising, Payout on Endowments, General Funds Appropriations from the School to cover teaching and other administrative/support activities, and other revenue sources such as royalty income, CME proceeds, dowry/start-up funding and consulting work.

See also Part A, item (a.) in this section of the database.

IS-12 A medical school should be a component of a university offering other graduate and professional degree programs that contribute to the academic environment of the medical school.

There should be regular and formal review of all graduate and professional programs in which medical school faculty participate, to foster adherence to high standards of quality in education, research, and scholarship, and to facilitate the progress and achievement of the trainees. 

a. Numbers of students enrolled in PhD and master’s programs (in basic sciences and other related disciplines, such as biomedical engineering, medical informatics) and postgraduate fellows receiving further training:

b. Average time to complete: 

c.   Describe any procedures to provide systematic review or evaluation of the graduate education programs (PhD, master’s). Note any major successes or significant problems identified in the most recent such review.

Review of Graduate Programs.  The School of Medicine (SOM) takes responsibility for administration of 15 graduate programs, including those that grant the MA degree (1 program), the MS degree (1 program) and the PhD degree (13 programs).  To ensure that each program adheres to the highest academic standards, the Advisory Board of the School of Medicine has established the MA/PhD Committee as a venue for (a) formal SOM administrative approval of all MA, MS and PhD theses, (b) ongoing discussion of issues and policies that face our graduate programs and their students, and (c) periodic review of the individual graduate programs.  The MA/PhD Committee is comprised of the Directors of each graduate program, the Associate Dean of Graduate Student Affairs, the Registrar, two students selected by the Graduate Student Association, and a senior (in rank) SOM faculty member experienced in matters relevant to graduate education but who is not also a program director.  The MA/PhD Committee meets monthly during the academic year.  Two of these meetings are devoted largely to presentation and approval of degree candidates by their program directors; the remaining meetings allow opportunities for discussion of policies that directly affect student benefits and responsibilities.

Currently, it is our policy that at two or three of these meetings each year, one of the SOM graduate programs presents its credentials for recertification, with a decision to approve or disapprove, with or without conditions, delayed until the next regular meeting.  Programs that petition for recertification are must address a variety of issues, including but not limited to (a) educational objectives, required courses and overlap (if any) with other graduate programs, (b) standards for admission, (c) applicant and matriculant profiles (GRE scores, academic prowess, etc), (c) recruiting of under-represented students, (d) distribution of students among faculty, (e) standards and procedures for admitting and maintaining an adequate training faculty, (f) ongoing oversight of student performance, (g) financial support for students, (h) mechanisms to resolve disputes within the program, (i) initiatives to inform students about research ethics and conflicts of interest, (j) long-term trends in the discipline that may affect the program, and if relevant (k) major changes in the administrative structure or educational objectives of the program.  In similar fashion, any new degree-granting program must first present its credentials for approval by the MA/PhD committee. 

This system of ongoing review typically enables the MA/PhD committee to completely scan the landscape of the SOM educational programs over a 4-5 year period.  This time is sufficient to allow the community to provide constructive advice to programs of long-standing and to give new programs sufficient time to build a track record for substantive review.  These methods work especially well at providing needed feedback to new programs.  This is illustrated by the Program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, which has grown substantially over the past 15 years since its inception.  During its first 5-year review cycle, the program was encouraged to build upon the research interests of physician-scientists outside the traditional basic science departments and to develop its own distinctive educational infrastructure.  By doing so, it was able to recruit a first-rate student body that brought breadth to the Institution without diminishing other programs. The success of this approach is illustrated by noting that our program in Cellular and Molecular Medicine, which now ranks third in size among SOM PhD-granting programs, was the first of its kind in the nation to receive a training grant from the NIH; the program learned recently this training grant was enthusiastically renewed for a second 5-year cycle.

See also Part A, item (b.) in this section of the database.

d.  Provide the following information regarding ACGME Institutional Review of graduate medical education programs sponsored by the school or its major teaching hospital(s):

e. If the medical school or its clinical affiliates are accredited by the ACCME to sponsor continuing medical education for physicians, indicate each program’s current accreditation status, length of accreditation granted, and year of the next accreditation review.

f. Describe how CME programs contribute to the education of medical students.

CME programs contribute to the education of medical students in several ways.  First, medical students regularly attend and learn from some CME programs such as Medical Grand Rounds.  Second, CME programs offer the faculty opportunities to improve their teaching skills, to learn new skills, and to acquire knowledge, which in turn help make the faculty more effective in educating medical students.

See also Part A, item (c.) in this section of the database.

IS-13. The program of medical education leading to the MD degree must be conducted in an environment that fosters the intellectual challenge and spirit of inquiry appropriate to a community of scholars.

Summarize institutional efforts or programs to address research ethics, scientific misconduct, conflicts of interest, and human subjects protection.  Which administrative units oversee such programs, and who are their target audiences?

Institutional Policies are publicized on the Hopkins website at:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/faculty/policies/index.html

As part of a research university committed to the highest standards of integrity, the School of Medicine fosters understanding of these areas through policy dissemination, on-line training, and didactic courses.  General research ethics, including responsible conduct of research, animal research, and other areas are formally taught several courses listed below.   The specific target audiences for each course are listed at the course URL.

The courses include:

•     a one-day didactic an online programs titled Course On Research Ethics (C.O.R.E.), administered by the Office of Continuing Medical Education (https://secure.lwservers.net/courseDescription.cfm?intCID=5&mode=JHMRCT);

•     an online course on animal care and use, administered by the Office of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, (https://secure.lwservers.net/courseDescription.cfm?intCID=3&mode=JHMRCT); and

•     an online courses on privacy issues in research, administered by the Johns Hopkins Medicine HIPAA Office, (https://secure.lwservers.net/courseDescription.cfm?intCID=8&mode=JHHCT). 

An annual day-long New Faculty Orientation also addresses these areas as well as risk factors and procedures for addressing issues of scientific misconduct. 

The School places a premium on human subject protection.  The operations of the Johns Hopkins Medicine IRBs are administered by the Office of Human Subject Research (OHSR). (See http://irb.jhmi.edu/)  The IRBs operate in compliance with the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Title 45 Part 46 entitled "Protection of Human Subjects" as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations Title 21 Part 50 entitled "Protection of Human Subjects."  OHSR administers an online training course in human subjects research (https://secure.lwservers.net/courseDescription.cfm?intCID=2&mode=JHMRCT).

The School of Medicine’s Policy on Conflict of Interest (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/faculty_staff/policies/facultypolicies/conflict_interest) is administered by the Office of Policy Coordination.  The policy is designed to comply with PHS 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart F and other applicable regulations.  All faculty, staff, trainees, and students are required to complete an online training course in conflict of interest and conflict of commitment (https://secure.lwservers.net/courseDescription.cfm?intCID=4&mode=JHMRCT). 

See also Part A, item (e .) in Section V of the database.

IS-14. Students should have the opportunity to participate in research and other scholarly activities of the faculty.

Briefly describe the opportunities for medical students to participate in research, including the times when students may do so, the general level of student involvement, and funding available for such activities.

See also Part A, item (d.) in this section of the database. 

Research is a vital part of this institution's mission and a significant majority of our students participate in investigational pursuits at some point during their time here.  The summer after the first year of preclinical sciences is used by a majority of students to take part in such research.  However, the third and fourth year curriculum affords extraordinary flexibility and many students also undertake research electives in addition to their clinical rotations.

All of these experiences count toward credits required for graduation.  

            In addition, some students seek more in-depth, longitudinal research experience and take a leave of absence from the medical school curriculum.  Students participate in these experiences both here and at other institutions.  The funding for these pursuits as well as those mentioned above come from various sources.  This funding includes the

following: 

1.  Summer research stipends:  A majority of the first-year class participates in this experience.  Students receive financial support in the form of a stipend of $2600.  Monies for this stipend come from a combination of federal work/study dollars as well as funds from the Office of Student Affairs earmarked to support research efforts by students. 

2. Student-in-residence researchers:  The Office of Student Affairs can support up to 8 students in any given fiscal year at one-half a first-year graduate student stipend plus benefits.  The balance of funding for this year of research comes from the Hopkins investigator with whom the student is working. 

 3. Howard Hughes Fellowships:  Several students each year apply for and are granted fellowships from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  These students are funded to conduct research with faculty members here at Johns Hopkins for at least one full year. 

4.  Howard Hughes Cloisters Program:  Occasionally, students will apply for the "Cloisters" program at the NIH and will conduct a year of research on the Bethesda campus.  Funding is through the HHMI. 

5.  Doris Duke Fellowships:  One to two students per year participate in this program in which they conduct clinically-oriented research at one of ten outside institutions.  Funding is through the Doris Duke Foundation. 

6.  Sarnoff Fellowship:  One to two students per year typically are granted a fellowship through this program to conduct cardiovascular-oriented research at an outside institution for one year.           

            The level of student involvement in these research experiences is significant.  A majority of student participants eventually gain authorship on peer-reviewed publications and present their findings at refereed meetings.  The Office of Student Affairs helps to defray costs for travel for such national presentations.

Describe any organized activities or events that promote faculty collaboration in the achievement of the school’s missions, such as integrated teaching efforts, collaborative research projects or programs, or faculty development activities.

IS-15. All medical school faculty members should work closely together in teaching, research, and health care delivery.

Because the education of both medical students and graduate physicians requires an academic environment that provides close interaction among faculty members, those skilled in teaching and research in the basic sciences must maintain awareness of the relevance of their disciplines to clinical problems. Conversely, clinicians must maintain awareness of the contributions that basic sciences bring to the understanding of clinical problems.  These reciprocal obligations emphasize the importance of collegiality among medical school faculty across disciplinary boundaries and throughout the continuum of medical education.

Describe any organized activities or events that promote faculty collaboration in the achievement of the school’s missions, such as integrated teaching efforts, collaborative research projects or programs, or faculty development activities.

Education
The School’s first and second year medical curricula contain courses that are taught by both basic scientists and clinical department clinicians or physician-scientists.  For example, the Molecules and Cells course for the first year students contains clinical correlation presentations.  The introduction to Blood cells as a Cell Biology lecture, for example, has ample examples of clinical manifestations of disorders of blood cell production or destruction.  Likewise, the Physiology course is integrated and taught by basic and clinical scientists.  Departmental grand rounds are also rich sources and bridges between basic findings and clinical applications.

Training
Courses such as a two-week summer lecture series on clinical investigation are opened to basic and clinical students and investigators.  Johns Hopkins Medicine enjoys a great number of NIH training grants, in particular, ones that are based in the clinical departments.  These training opportunities are structured such that clinical fellows enjoy intense basic science exposure and conversely, basic investigators are invited to more clinically oriented didactic opportunities.  The school is committed to the development of clinician-scientists through its own internal Clinician-scientist Award program designed to protect up to 80% effort for laboratory research training.  This program, since its inception in the 1980’s, has generated over 15 full professors from clinical trainees here at Hopkins alone.  Core facilities, supported and sanctioned by the School, have recurrent hands-on workshops every year.  For example, workshops on microscopy, gene expression microarray analysis, and proteomics methods are constantly available to the community.

Research
Although Hopkins Medicine research is largely departmentally based from an administrative perspective, several new efforts have cut across departmental boundaries to stimulate larger scale interdisciplinary research projects.  The School committed to three research institutes as well as key core facilities to stimulate cross-talks between clinical and basic science departments.  The McKusick-Nathans Institute for Genetic Medicine, under the leadership of Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti, brings together over six departments to address the genetic basis of complex disorders and other genetics research problems.  The Institute for Cell Engineering, under the supervision of Dean Chi Dang, comprises of four core research programs related to stem cell biology that spans 8 clinical and basic science departments.  The Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences, under the directorship of Dr. Steve Desiderio, seeks four major research areas that span basic science to clinical applications as well as commercialization.  The institutional commitment to these programs totals to well over $70 million.

END OF SECTION I