TEXILA AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

PREFACE
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 University Critchlow, Woolford Avenue Georgetown, Guyana, South America. E-mail: aco8@tauedu.org

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

CONTENT
GENERAL INFORMATION - An Overview - TAU Credentials - About Texila American University - PG Up-Gradation Program COURSE FEES: SESSION - Tuition Fee Structure

CONTACT DETAILS

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

APPENDIX

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

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

GENERAL INFORMATION
AN OVERVIEW ABOUT TEXILA AMERICAN UNIVERSITY 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 CREDENTIALS Registered with National Accreditation Council of Guyana (which is governed by Ministry of Education).
Listed in WHO (World Health Organization) Handbook. Member of IADR (International Association for Dental Research). Member of GAME (Global Alliance for Medical Education). Member of AMEE (International Association for Medical Education).

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.

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

REGULATIONS
ENTRY LEVEL Students are selected based on their educational qualification and experience. DURATION OF THE PROGRAM: S.No
1 2 3 4

Particulars
DNB - Cleared DNB - Not Cleared PG Dip. With more than 5 years experience PG Dip. With less than 5 years experience

Duration
6 Months 1 Year 1.5 Years

2 Years

ENROLLMENT Enrollment of students takes place thrice a year January, May and September.
On official enrollment, the Program Consultant will design the curriculum to suit the needs of the

candidate. HOSPITAL AND MENTOR The 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. (Role of mentor is given in the Appendix- 3)
Details of the mentor have to be sent to the Academic Coordinator PG programs.

(email: aco8@tauedu.org )

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

COURSE DELIVERY & CONTENTS

ACADEMIC PROCESS Students are expected to undergo training as per the curriculum requirement.
Student will identify a mentor within a radius of 100 kms. The mentor will monitor the clinical work of the student. The university will identify a Program Consultant who will determine what the student has to study. Student 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.

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Students have to accomplish the following during the course:Case studies
12 cases for a 6 month program 24 cases for 1 year program 36 cases for 1.5 years program 48 cases for 2 years program

Conferences
1 conference for a 6 month program 2 for 1 year program 3 for 1.5 years program 4 for 2 years program

CME programs
1 conference for a 6 month program 2 for 1 year program 3 for 1.5 years program 4 for 2 years program

Interesting cases attended

3 cases for a 6 month program 6 for 1 year program 9 for 1.5 years program 12 for 2 years program

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES The university expects a clinical based research work to be done by the students and the requirements are as follows
Not required for 6 months, 1 year and 1.5 years. Applicable for 2 years program only

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 examiners The 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 REVIEWS Writing review article is an essential component of higher learning which will
Enhance students understanding in to the subject, Orient students to the contemporary development in the field Help students to contextualize his learning skills

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:
1 to 2 articles for a 6 month program 2 to 4 for 1 year program 4 to 6 for 1.5 years program 6 to 8 for 2 years program

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)

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

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:
1 2 4 6

to to to to

2 4 6 8

articles articles articles articles

published for a 6 month program published for 1 year program published for 1.5 years program 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

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

DETAILS OF THE MENTORS: The following are the approved MENTORS of the PG Up-gradation programs of Texila American University Dr. Muthu Krishnan Pediatrics, Coimbatore Dr. Vaibhav M. Dedhia Internal Medicine,Mumbai Dr. Sanjeevkumar Ramchandra Kalkekar Internal Medicine,Navi Mumbai Prof. Dr. P.K. Ratheesh Orthopedics,Chennai Dr. M.O. Krishna Murthy Orthopedics, Nellore Dr. Venkatakrishnan Rheumatology, Andhra Pradesh Dr. Sathish Jain Gen. Surgery, Ludhiana Dr. S. Siva Sunder Radiology, Chennai Dr. Joseph Philips Internal Medicine, Kerala Dr. Sowmya Pediatrics, Puducherry

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

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

practicals
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

Practical Long Case

Short Case Table Viva Thesis Viva

Students should have submitted the following before the final examinations to receive the Masters Degree
Case studies Conferences CME programs Interesting cases attended Article Reviews Proof of publication

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

transcripts and the Masters Degree from Texila American University.

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

ACADEMIC STANDARD
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 POSTGRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr. A. Anand, PhD Director- External Programs Texila American University Prof. Dr. B. Jayaraman MS, MNAMS, MCH ,MNAMS, FCCP(USA), MAMS (VIENNA0), MBA(HM) Cardio Thoracic Surgeon DEAN PG Programs, Texila American University

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

COURSE FEE
TUITION FEE STRUCTURE Students pursuing a 6 month program will have to pay the entire tuition fee at the time of enrollment.
Students pursuing a 1 year program will have to pay the entire tuition fee at the time of enrollment. Similarly, for 1.5 years program youll have to pay the entire 1st year tuition fee at the time of

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

the second year after completion of 10 months of the program.

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

APPENDIX- 1
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:

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

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.

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

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.

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

APPENDIX- 2
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.

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

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.

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

APPENDIX- 4
WEEKLY REPORT FORMAT
S.No No. Types of cases 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

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org

APPENDIX- 5
LIST OF HOSPITALS Some of the associated hospitals where our students are pursuing their PG Up-gradation programs 1. Kesavaa Hospitals, Kanyakumari. 2. MNRI scans Pvt. Ltd.., Chennai. 3. Ludhiana Mediciti Hospitals, Ludhiana.

CONTACT US
Academic Coordinator PG Programs Texila American University Email aco8@tauedu.org Contact Number - + 91 - 422 4559925

PG UP-GRADATION PROGRAM Student handbook

2012

www.tauedu.org