18
2012 www.tauedu.org TEXILA AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

Pg Upgratation

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Pg Upgratation

2012www.tauedu.org

TEXILA AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAMStudent handbook

Page 2: Pg Upgratation

Texila American University (TAU), college of Medicine welcomes the prospective candidates for PG

Up-Gradation Program. This hand book provides information on the rules, regulations, policies and

procedures pertaining to the award of MS/MD degree.

The material containing in the hand book is subject to periodical review at least once in a year and the

alterations like additions and deletions will be updated and posted on the University website. All enquiries

or suggestions should be directed to:-

Texila American UniversityCritchlow, Woolford AvenueGeorgetown, Guyana, South America.E-mail: [email protected]

PREFACE

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Page 3: Pg Upgratation

CONTENT

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

GENERAL INFORMATION - An Overview - TAU Credentials - About Texila American University - PG Up-Gradation Program

REGULATIONS - Entry Level - Duration of the Program - Enrollment - Hospital and Mentor

COURSE DELIVERY AND CONTENTS - Academic Process - Program Requirements - Case Studies - Conferences - CME Programs - Interesting Cases Attended

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES - Article Reviews - What's an “Article Review”? - Research and Publication

COURSE TUTORS /STUDENT SUPPORT - Details of The Program Consultants - Details of The Mentors

ASSESSMENT - Examination - Practical - Award of Degree

ACADEMIC STANDARDS - Postgraduate Advisory Committee

COURSE FEES: SESSION - Tuition Fee Structure

CONTACT DETAILS

APPENDIX

Page 4: Pg Upgratation

GENERAL INFORMATION

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

AN OVERVIEW

ABOUT TEXILA AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

TAU CREDENTIALS

Texila American University (TAU) is located in Guyana, the only English speaking country in South America. TAU

offers Health Science programs with a high level of professionalism, exactness and problem solving skills, upon

which the foundations of specialist training and an independent medical practice can be built, which

facilitates further education and development of their knowledge throughout their life. The curriculum at the

TAU is structured after the best U.S. medical schools. The academic program is both accelerated and rigorous,

with a focus on preparing students for licensure in the United States, Caribbean and India.

TAU offers National Accreditation Commission (NAC) registered Programs, full-time programs in Medicine,

Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy and other Allied Health Science programs including Clinical Research. TAU offers

Behavioral Science programs such as public health, clinical psychology, counseling psychology etc into

distance learning mode. TAU's distance learning program helps the doctors, working professionals and

employees to study along with their job and family commitments.

PG Up-Gradation Program:PG up-gradation programs are a unique program offered by TAU, whereby the PG Diploma holders, DNB

candidates can pursue his/her MD/MS program under TAU.

ŸRegistered with National Accreditation Council of Guyana (which is governed by Ministry of Education).

ŸListed in WHO (World Health Organization) Handbook.

ŸMember of IADR (International Association for Dental Research).

ŸMember of GAME (Global Alliance for Medical Education).

ŸMember of AMEE (International Association for Medical Education).

Page 5: Pg Upgratation

REGULATIONS

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

ENTRY LEVEL

DURATION OF THE PROGRAM:

ENROLLMENT

HOSPITAL AND MENTOR

Students are selected based on their educational qualification and experience.

ŸEnrollment of students takes place thrice a year – January, May and September.

ŸOn official enrollment, the Program Consultant will design the curriculum to suit the needs of the candidate.

ŸThe student identifies a suitable hospital and mentor. The hospital should be 50 bedded specialty hospital or a 100 bedded multi-specialty hospital and as far as the mentor is concerned, he should have an MD/MS degree with minimum 3 years of teaching experience.

ŸDetails of the mentor have to be sent to the Academic Coordinator – PG programs.

(Role of mentor is given in the Appendix- 3)

(email: [email protected] )

S.No Particulars Duration

1 DNB - Cleared

DNB - Not Cleared

PG Dip. With more than 5 years experience

PG Dip. With less than 5 years experience

2

3

4

6 Months6 Months

1 Year

1.5 Years

2 Years

Page 6: Pg Upgratation

COURSE DELIVERY & CONTENTS

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

ACADEMIC PROCESS

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTSStudents have to accomplish the following during the course:-

ŸStudents are expected to undergo training as per the curriculum requirement.

ŸStudent will identify a mentor within a radius of 100 kms.

ŸThe mentor will monitor the clinical work of the student.

ŸThe university will identify a Program Consultant who will determine what the student has to study.

ŸStudent sends the weekly report as per the format given to them (Refer: Appendix- 4) and the mentor submits a monthly report which in turn will be assessed by the Program Consultant and the Dean.

Case studies

Ÿ 12 cases for a 6 month program

Ÿ24 cases for 1 year program

Ÿ36 cases for 1.5 years program

Ÿ48 cases for 2 years program

Conferences

Ÿ1 conference for a 6 month program

Ÿ2 for 1 year program

Ÿ3 for 1.5 years program

Ÿ4 for 2 years program

CME programs

Ÿ1 conference for a 6 month program

Ÿ2 for 1 year program

Ÿ3 for 1.5 years program

Ÿ4 for 2 years program

Interesting cases attended

Ÿ3 cases for a 6 month program

Ÿ6 for 1 year program

Ÿ9 for 1.5 years program

Ÿ12 for 2 years program

Page 7: Pg Upgratation

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

RESEARCH ACTIVITIESThe university expects a clinical based research work to be done by the students and the requirements are

as follows

Ÿ Not required for 6 months, 1 year and 1.5 years.Ÿ Applicable for 2 years program only

ŸEnhance students understanding in to the subject,

ŸOrient students to the contemporary development in the field

ŸHelp students to contextualize his learning skills

Ÿ1 to 2 articles for a 6 month program

Ÿ2 to 4 for 1 year program

Ÿ4 to 6 for 1.5 years program

Ÿ6 to 8 for 2 years program

THESIS SUBMISSION:Students pursuing 2 years program are encouraged to conduct clinical based research. They will submit

FIVE copies of thesis to the university Out of the five copies one will be retained by the university, one by

the student and the other three will be for the examinersThe student will have to send the draft format of the final thesis to the Dean PG program for his final

consent and approval. Students are advised to print the final hard copy after the approval of the Dean or the University

ARTICLE REVIEWSWriting review article is an essential component of higher learning which will

What's an “Article Review?”An “Article review” is an attempt by one or more writers to sum up the current state of the research on a

particular topic. Ideally, the writer searches for everything relevant to the topic and then sorts it all out

into a coherent view of the “state of the art” as it now stands. Article Review will teach you about:

Article Reviews are virtual gold mines if you want to find out what the key articles are for a given

topic. Unlike research articles, review articles are good places to get a basic idea about a topic.

Note: All article reviews submitted to the University will be subjected to review and later published in

an International journal.

(Reviewers Guideline is given in the Appendix- 1)

Page 8: Pg Upgratation

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Research and Publication:TAU is a research oriented university and firmly believes in promoting the research capability of its

postgraduate students and also assists students to publish their articles in the international journals.

Accordingly, the students should have the following number of articles published as shown below:

Ÿ 1 to 2 articles published for a 6 month programŸ 2 to 4 articles published for 1 year programŸ 4 to 6 articles published for 1.5 years programŸ 6 to 8 articles published for 2 years program

The university will assist the students to publish their article reviews and research in international

refereed and indexed journals.

COURSE TUTORS /STUDENT SUPPORT

The emphasis of the PG up-gradation program is to develop quality physician and surgeon, so the university makes all effort to monitor the quality training by appointing a mentor and a program consultant for each student. The mentors and the program consultant provide necessary support to the students during their training period

DETAILS OF THE PROGRAM CONSULTANTS:

The following are the approved PROGRAM CONSULTANTS of the PG Up-gradation programs of Texila American University

Dr. B. Ravi Chander,Pediatrics, Bangalore

Dr. Smita Khandekar, Obstetrics and Gynecology,UAE

Dr. T. Kanagarajan,Anesthesia, Coimbatore

Dr. P.M. Nanjundappan,Gen. Surgery,Coimbatore

Dr. Mugundhan, Orthopedics,Coimbatore

Dr. Raj Negi, Radiology, New Delhi

Page 9: Pg Upgratation

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Dr. Muthu KrishnanPediatrics, Coimbatore

Dr. Vaibhav M. DedhiaInternal Medicine,Mumbai

Dr. Sanjeevkumar Ramchandra KalkekarInternal Medicine,Navi Mumbai

Prof. Dr. P.K. Ratheesh Orthopedics,Chennai

Dr. M.O. Krishna MurthyOrthopedics, Nellore

Dr. Venkatakrishnan Rheumatology, Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Sathish JainGen. Surgery, Ludhiana

Dr. S. Siva Sunder Radiology, Chennai

Dr. Joseph Philips Internal Medicine, Kerala

Dr. Sowmya Pediatrics, Puducherry

DETAILS OF THE MENTORS:The following are the approved MENTORS of the PG Up-gradation programs of Texila American University

Page 10: Pg Upgratation

ASSESSMENT

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

EXAMINATION

Ÿ After the end of the term, students will have to give the final exams. It consists of 4 theory papers and 1

practical’sŸ

Ÿ Normally there will be 1 to 2 papers in applied basic sciences and 2 to 3 papers in Clinical subjects. The

number of basic science subjects would depend on the specialty

ŸLong Case

ŸShort Case

ŸTable Viva

ŸThesis Viva

ŸCase studies

ŸConferences

ŸCME programs

Ÿ Interesting cases attended

ŸArticle Reviews

ŸProof of publication

Practical

Students should have submitted the following before the final examinations to receive the Masters

Degree

NOTE : 20% of marks will be for the periodical submission of weekly reports, monthly reports, journal

discussions, article reviews, conferences, thesis, CME programs etc..,

AWARD OF DEGREE

Ÿ After successful completion of the program and passing the examination, the students will receive the

transcripts and the Masters Degree from Texila American University.

Page 11: Pg Upgratation

ACADEMIC STANDARD

COURSE FEE

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

The academic advisory board periodically reviews the PG up-gradation program. It monitors the conduct of

the program through the program consultant and also checks the quality through the students

TUITION FEE STRUCTURE

POSTGRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Dr. A. Anand, PhDDirector- External ProgramsTexila American University

Prof. Dr. B. Jayaraman MS, MNAMS, MCH ,MNAMS, FCCP(USA), MAMS (VIENNA0), MBA(HM)Cardio Thoracic SurgeonDEAN – PG Programs, Texila American University

Dr. T.Kanagarajan MBBS, MD, Dip in Anesthesia.Anesthesia, Coimbatore Medical College

Ÿ Students pursuing a 6 month program will have to pay the entire tuition fee at the time of enrollment.

Ÿ Students pursuing a 1 year program will have to pay the entire tuition fee at the time of enrollment.

Ÿ Similarly, for 1.5 years program you’ll have to pay the entire 1’st year tuition fee at the time of enrollment and the second year after completion of 10 months of the program.

Ÿ For 2 years program, you’ll have to pay the entire 1’st year tuition fee at the time of enrollment and the second year after completion of 10 months of the program.

Page 12: Pg Upgratation

APPENDIX- 1

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Reviewer Guidelines

How to Review a Journal Article:Suggestions for First-Time Reviewers and Reminders for Seasoned Experts

Guidelines for Reviewing

Here are nine things you should consider as you examine the manuscript and write your review:

Look for the "intellectual plot-line" of the article. You can do this from first skimming through the

manuscript and then giving it a once-over read. As you do this, ask the five major questions that are

central to the research review process:

What do the researchers want to find out?

Why is that important to investigate or understand?

How are the researchers investigating this? Are their research methods appropriate and adequate to the task?

What do they claim to have found out? Are the findings clearly stated?

How does this advance knowledge in the field? How well do the researchers place their findings within the

context of ongoing scholarly inquiry about this topic?

Look at the organization of the article. Can you find answers to the above questions quickly and easily?

Can you trace the logic of investigation consistently from the opening paragraphs to the conclusion?

Then go back to the opening paragraphs of the article. Are the research questions specifically stated? Is it

clear what the authors want to find out? Do they make the case that this is an important area for research

inquiry?

The next section is usually a review of the existing research literature on this topic. Do the authors

present a convincing line of argument here--or does it appear that they are just name-dropping (citing

sources that may be important, without a clear underlying logic for how they may be important)? Do the

authors focus on ideas, or merely on discrete facts or findings? Have they given sufficient attention to

theory--the cumulative attempts at prior explanations for the questions they are investigating? Are the

research questions or hypotheses clearly derivative of the theory and the literature review? In short: How

well do the authors set the stage for the research problem they are reporting?

The methods and procedures section is usually next; and this is where neophyte reviewers often start

(unwisely) to sharpen their knives. The selection of methods by which the researchers collect data always

involve compromises, and there are few studies that cannot be criticized for errors of commission or

omission in terms of textbook criteria for research design and data collection procedures. You could focus

on three questions here:

Page 13: Pg Upgratation

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook 2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Do the authors clearly describe their research strategies? Do they present sufficient detail about the

sample from which they have collected data; the operationalization of measures they have attempted to

employ; and the adequacy of these measures in terms of external and internal validity? In addition, there

should be no surprises here: The measures should be clearly matched to the research questions or the

hypotheses.

Are their choices of methods adequate to find out what they want to find out in this study? Would other

methods provide a substantial improvement; if so, would employing these methods be feasible or

practical?

Do they provide some justification for the methods they have chosen? Does this appear to be adequate?The section presenting research results is surely the heart of the article--though not its soul (which the

reader should find in the opening paragraphs and in the discussion section). Reviewers might consider four

questions here:

Does the results section tell a story--taking the reader from the research questions posed earlier to their

answers in the data? Is the logic clear?

Are the tables and figures clear and succinct? Can they be "read" easily for major findings by themselves,

or should there be additional information provided? Are the authors' tables consistent with the format of

currently accepted norms regarding data presentation?

Do the authors present too many tables or figures in the form of undigested findings? Are all of them

necessary in order to tell the story of this research inquiry; or can some be combined? Remember that

tables and figures are very expensive (from the standpoint of the journal) and that undigested data

obscure rather than advance the cumulative development of knowledge in a field.

Are the results presented both statistically and substantively meaningful? Have the authors stayed within

the bounds of the results their data will support?The discussion section is where the authors can give flight to their findings, so that they soar into the

heights of cumulative knowledge development about this topic--or crash into the depths of their CV's, with

few other scholars ever citing their findings. Of course few research reports will ever be cited as

cornerstones to the development of knowledge about any topic; but your review should encourage authors

to aspire to these heights. Consider the following as you evaluate their discussion section:

Do the authors present here a concise and accurate summary of their major findings? Does their

interpretation fairly represent the data as presented earlier in the article?

Do they attempt to integrate these findings in the context of a broader scholarly debate about these

issues? Specifically: Do they integrate their findings with the research literature they presented earlier in

their article--do they bring the findings back to the previous literature reviewed?

Have they gone beyond presenting facts--data--and made an effort to present explanations--

understanding? Have they responded to the conceptual or theoretical problems that were raised in the

introduction? This is how theory is developed.

Page 14: Pg Upgratation

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook 2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Do the authors thoughtfully address the limitations of their study?

The writing style is important. Consider the three guidelines for successful communication--to be clear,

concise, and correct---and whether the authors have achieved it:Is the writing clear? Do the authors communicate their ideas using direct, straightforward, and

unambiguous words and phrases? Have they avoided jargon (statistical or conceptual) that would interfere

with the communication of their procedures or ideas?Is the writing concise? Are too many words or paragraphs or sections used to present what could be

communicated more simply?Is the writing correct? Too many promising scientists have only a rudimentary grasp of grammar and

punctuation that result in meandering commas, clauses in complex sentences that are struggling to find

their verbs and adjectives or even nouns that remain quite ambiguous about their antecedents in the

sentence. These are not merely technical issues of grammar to be somehow dealt with by a copy-editor

down the line. Rather they involve the successful communication of a set of ideas to an audience; and this

is the basis of scholarship today.

Your evaluation to the editor: Should this paper be (a) rejected for this journal? (b) or does it show

sufficient promise for revision, in ways that you have clearly demonstrated in your review, to encourage

the authors to invest weeks and months in revision for this journal?

Your bottom-line advice to the editor is crucial. Make a decision; state it clearly (in your confidential

remarks to the editor on the page provided).

Remember that only a few of the articles submitted to a journal will result in publication. Rates vary from

5% to 25% of initial submissions.

Some reasons to reject a manuscript:(a) The research questions have already been addressed in prior studies; (b) The data have been collected in such a way as to preclude useful investigation; (c) The manuscript is not ready for publication--incomplete, improper format, or error-ridden.

Good Reviews and Bad Reviews

A good review is supportive, constructive, thoughtful, and fair. It identifies both strengths and weaknesses,

and offers concrete suggestions for improvements. It acknowledges the reviewer's biases where

appropriate, and justifies the reviewer's conclusions.

A bad review is superficial, nasty, petty, self-serving, or arrogant. It indulges the reviewer's biases with no

justification. It focuses exclusively on weaknesses and offers no specific suggestions for improvement.

Page 15: Pg Upgratation

APPENDIX- 2

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Sample Article Review

Research Article Review Example

Citation:Ellison, Christopher. 1991. “An Eye for an Eye: A Note on the Southern Subculture of Violence Thesis.”

Social Forces 69(4): 1223-1239.

Basic Summary:

This article discusses the subculture of violence thesis in relation to the South. The subculture of violence

thesis provides an explanation for the disparate rates of homicide in the southern region of the United

States; the culture of this region must be supportive of violence. Ellison discusses previous research in this

area, criticizing much of it for relying on dummy variables as a measure of culture, instead of measuring

attitudes, values or beliefs of Southerners. Ellison mentions that perhaps violence is used more often for

defense in the South, and this use of violence may be affecting the region's rate of homicide and violent

crime. Ellison also states that previous research has not explored conservative religion in reference to this

issue. He attempts to remedy these problems by using survey data on attitudes toward violence and religious attitudes in his study.

Hypotheses:

Ellison mentioned several expectations, but did not explicitly state and label hypotheses. Some of his

expectations were that southerners would hold higher levels of approval toward violence in defensive

situations, and that values from conservative Protestantism (especially relating to a vengeful God) may

help legitimize the use of violence in certain situations.

Data Source and Method of Collection:

Ellison used data from the 1983 General Social Survey, a survey on a variety of social issues, conducted

semiannually in the form of personal interviews. The N (sample size) ranged from 1443 to 1449, depending

on the specific variables in the model.

Variables:

Ellison had two dependent variables, defensive and retaliatory violence. Defensive violence was measured

by three scenarios where there was a clear implication of defending property or persons. Retaliatory

violence was measured using two scenarios where there was no clear defensive justification.

The independent variables measured whether a respondent was a native Southerner, an in-migrant, or an

out-migrant. To test assumptions about religion, Ellison included measures of religious attendance (how

many times the respondent indicated attending church services or activities weekly) and a variable

indicating “hierarchical images of God” (p1229), indicating the “likelihood that God is a master, king,

judge, and father” (p1229). Several additional variables were included, measuring urban residence,

gender, race, age, education, family income, level of social interaction, TV viewing, and exposure to

violence.

Page 16: Pg Upgratation

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

Major Findings:

Ellison pointed out several major findings. He did find support for the southern subculture of violence, as

native southerners were more likely to support defensive violence, even after controlling for the influence

of other variables. There were links with the religious culture of the South as well, since those with

hierarchical images of God were also supportive of defensive violence, and religious attendance for

southerners was positively associated with support for defensive violence. Also, younger southern natives

seemed less supportive of defensive violence than older natives.

Conclusions:

Several conclusions were drawn from this research, supporting the notion of a southern subculture of

violence. However, the finding that younger southern natives were less supportive suggests that either the

subculture of violence is disappearing, or that a significant amount of time spent in the South is required

before the subculture is internalized. Support is also found for the expectations regarding religion,

indicating that conservative Protestant religious values may further reinforce the use of violence for

defense. I would, however, agree with the author when he states that more research is needed on this

end. The questions regarding images of God do not seem to capture what he discusses as important in

terms of conservative religious doctrine focusing on vengeance and “an eye for an eye” at the beginning of

his paper.

Reference: http://www.uncp.edu/home/marson/Personal/Syllabi/3610%20example%20of%20article.htm

APPENDIX- 3

Role of Mentors

Maintain regular contact with the mentee, spending at least 6 hour/week in one-on-one contact. This includes in-person contact, phone calls, e-mail, postal mail and group activities. Time together should be pre-scheduled to avoid conflict for everyone involved.

Commit to spending the entire duration as mentor with the mentee till the mentee graduates. A evaluation will occur once in three months as per the guidelines of the University and the same will be sent to the Board of studies for Post Graduate program of the University.

Keep the mentoring coordinator informed monthly of the activities done by the mentee and myself. Information should detail the frequency and length of the activities.

Check the Log Sheets of the Mentee regularly and guide the mentee accordingly.

Periodically access the CAR ( Clinical Assessment Report) of the mentee and submit the report of the mentee to the mentoring co-coordinator once in three months.

Access the FAR ( Formative Assessment Report)of the mentee and submit the report of the mentee to the mentoring co-coordinator once in three months.

Discuss at least one long case and two short cases per month.

Provide advice and guidance on professional development.

Advice and support student to bring out a dissertation thesis & also to bring out periodic publications the student is mandated to do as per the requirement of TAU and the program.

Page 17: Pg Upgratation

APPENDIX- 4

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

WEEKLY REPORT FORMAT

S.NoNo.

of casesTypes

of cases

Abstract of the case with diagnosis

and management

Zest of discussion/mentor

and mentee discussion

References if any about the

case. From journal etc

Knowledge and skills Learnt

Remarks from Program consultant

Page 18: Pg Upgratation

APPENDIX- 5

2012 www.tauedu.orgPG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM

Student handbook

LIST OF HOSPITALS

Some of the associated hospitals where our students are pursuing their PG Up-gradation programs1. Kesavaa Hospitals, Kanyakumari.2. MNRI scans Pvt. Ltd.., Chennai.3. Ludhiana Mediciti Hospitals, Ludhiana.

CONTACT US

Academic Coordinator – PG Programs

Texila American University

Email–

Contact Number - + 91 - 422 4559925

[email protected]