Search

Scientific research has been changing medical practice at an increasing pace. To keep up with this change, physicians of the future will need to be lifelong learners with the skills to engage with emerging science and translate it into clinical care. How medical schools can best prepare students for ongoing scientific change remains unclear. Adding to the challenge is reduced time allocated to basic science in curricula and rapid expansion of relevant scientific fields. A return to science with greater depth after clinical clerkships has been suggested, although few schools have adopted such curricula and implementation can present challenges. The authors describe an innovation at Harvard Medical School, the Advanced Integrated Science Courses (AISCs), which are taken after core clerkships. Students are required to take 2 such courses, which are offered in a variety of topics. Rather than factual content, the learning objectives are a set of generalizable skills to enable students to critically evaluate emerging research and its relationship to medical practice. Making these generalizable skills the defining principle of the courses has several important advantages: it allows standardization of acquired skills to be combined with diverse course topics ranging from basic to translational and population sciences; students can choose courses and projects aligned with their interests, thereby enhancing engagement, curiosity, and career relevance; schools can tailor course offerings to the interests of local faculty; and the generalizable skills delineate a unique purpose of these courses within the overall medical school curriculum. For the 3 years AISCs have been offered, students rated the courses highly and reported learning the intended skill set effectively. The AISC concept addresses the challenge of preparing students for this era of rapidly expanding science and should be readily adaptable to other medical schools.

As the U.S. health care system changes and technology alters how doctors work and learn, medical schools and their faculty are compelled to modify their curricula and teaching methods. In this article, educational leaders and key faculty describe how the Pathways curriculum was conceived, designed, and implemented at Harvard Medical School. Faculty were committed to the principle that educators should focus on how students learn and their ability to apply what they learn in the evaluation and care of patients. Using the best evidence from the cognitive sciences about adult learning, they made major changes in the pedagogical approach employed in the classroom and clinic. The curriculum was built upon 4 foundational principles: to enhance critical thinking and provide developmentally appropriate content; to ensure both horizontal integration between courses and vertical integration between phases of the curriculum; to engage learners, foster curiosity, and reinforce the importance of student ownership and responsibility for their learning; and to support students' transformation to a professional dedicated to the care of their patients and to their obligations for lifelong, self-directed learning.The practice of medicine is rapidly evolving and will undoubtedly change in multiple ways over the career of a physician. By emphasizing personal responsibility, professionalism, and thinking skills over content transfer, the authors believe this curriculum will prepare students not only for the first day of practice but also for an uncertain future in the biological sciences, health and disease, and the nation's health care system, which they will encounter in the decades to come.

An excellent physician has a range of talents, including the knowledge and critical thinking abilities to work with the rapidly changing biomedical and social science content of the profession as well as the interpersonal and communication skills to build meaningful relationships with patients and families. The Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) was revised in 2015 to focus more on analytical reasoning skills and behavioral and social sciences knowledge to ensure that future physicians have the capabilities needed to care for patients in the 21st century and to allow admissions committees to identify applicants who have demonstrated proficiency in these areas. With these changes, scores continue to be predictive of student performance in the preclerkship curriculum.In this Invited Commentary, the author argues that, as educators struggle to define the characteristics of the "right" candidates for medical school and design processes to identify and admit those applicants, it is important to consider the message being sent by calls for the MCAT exam to play a reduced role in admissions decisions. Educators must avoid diminishing the importance of intellectual rigor and, while pursuing goals for a more diverse physician workforce, maintain standards that ensure medicine's commitment to patients. The author concludes with suggestions for how educators can work with under-resourced colleges and premedical programs to help disadvantaged students get the preparation they need to succeed in medical school and throughout their careers. Taking these steps will allow educators to support students, prepare them for practice, and fulfill their obligation to the public to produce excellent physicians.

Critical thinking is essential to a health professional's competence to assess, diagnose, and care for patients. Defined as the ability to apply higher-order cognitive skills (conceptualization, analysis, evaluation) and the disposition to be deliberate about thinking (being open-minded or intellectually honest) that lead to action that is logical and appropriate, critical thinking represents a "meta-competency" that transcends other knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors required in health care professions. Despite its importance, the developmental stages of critical thinking have not been delineated for nurses and physicians. As part of a task force of educators who considered different developmental stage theories, the authors have iteratively refined and proposed milestones in critical thinking. The attributes associated with unreflective, beginning, practicing, advanced, accomplished, and challenged critical thinkers are conceived as independent of an individual's level of training. Depending on circumstances and environmental factors, even the most experienced clinician may demonstrate attributes associated with a challenged thinker. The authors use the illustrative case of a patient with abdominal pain to demonstrate how critical thinking may manifest in learners at different stages of development, analyzing how the learner at each stage applies information obtained in the patient interaction to arrive at a differential diagnosis and plan for evaluation. The authors share important considerations and provide this work as a foundation for the development of effective approaches to teaching and promoting critical thinking and to establishing expectations for learners in this essential meta-competency.

The authors of this commentary discuss the recently completed review of the current Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), which has been used since 1991, and describe the blueprint for the new test that will be introduced in 2015. The design of the MCAT exam reflects changes in medical education, medical science, health care delivery, and the needs of the populations served by graduates of U.S. and Canadian medical schools. The authors describe how balancing the ambitious goals for the new exam and the varying priorities of the testing program's many stakeholders made blueprint design complex. They discuss the tensions and trade-offs that characterized the design process as well as the deliberations and data that shaped the blueprint.The blueprint for the MCAT exam balances the assessment of a broad range of competencies in the natural, social, and behavioral sciences and critical analysis and reasoning skills that are essential to entering students' success in medical school. The exam will include four sections: Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems; Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems; Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior; and Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills.The authors also offer recommendations for admission committees, advising them to review applicants' test scores, course work, and other academic, personal, and experiential credentials as part of a holistic admission process and in relation to their institutions' educational, scientific, clinical, and service-oriented goals.

The last several decades have seen a large increase in knowledge of the underlying biological mechanisms that serve learning and memory. The insights gleaned from neurobiological and cognitive neuroscientific experimentation in humans and in animal models have identified many of the processes at the molecular, cellular, and systems levels that occur during learning and the formation, storage, and recall of memories. Moreover, with the advent of noninvasive technologies to monitor patterns of neural activity during various forms of human cognition, the efficacy of different strategies for effective teaching can be compared. Considerable insight has also been developed as to how to most effectively engage these processes to facilitate learning, retention, recall, and effective use and application of the learned information. However, this knowledge has not systematically found its way into the medical education process. Thus, there are considerable opportunities for the integration of current knowledge about the biology of learning with educational strategies and curricular design. By teaching medical students in ways that use this knowledge, there is an opportunity to make medical education easier and more effective. The authors present 10 key aspects of learning that they believe can be incorporated into effective teaching paradigms in multiple ways. They also present recommendations for applying the current knowledge of the neurobiology of learning throughout the medical education continuum.

Purpose In May 2007, the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Carl J. Shapiro Institute for Education and Research cosponsored "Millennium Conference 2007: A Collaborative Approach to Educational Research" (MC07). Educational leaders from eight U.S. medical schools and the host school (Harvard Medical School) sought to develop an operational list of the national medical education research priorities identified at the MC07. Method The authors asked a diverse group of medical educators to evaluate the research priorities broadly outlined by MC07 participants, further refining the priorities, framing them into research questions with testable hypotheses, and ranking them. Through an iterative process among representatives from each of the MC07 participating institutions, 11 research priorities were identified, and each was reframed as a problem to be addressed with a testable hypothesis. Then, in a multiinstitutional survey, MC07 participants ranked each priority by its perceived national importance, feasibility, fundability, and amenability for multiinstitutional research. Results The impact of medical school simulation training on residents' performance emerged as the highest-rated priority, and the impact of faculty development on learner outcomes was the lowest-rated priority among MC07 participating schools. Conclusions The process of framing medical education priorities in the form of testable hypotheses with measurable outcomes was an effective way for a diverse group of national medical education leaders to develop an agenda for educational research. The authors hope that this list will inform the national discussion on priorities in medical education research and will serve to help move this agenda forward.

Peer assessment of teaching can improve the quality of instruction and contribute to summative evaluation of teaching effectiveness integral to high-stakes decision making. There is, however, a paucity of validated, criterion-based peer assessment instruments. The authors describe development and pilot testing of one such instrument and share lessons learned. The report provides a description of how a task force of the Shapiro Institute for Education and Research at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center used the Delphi method to engage academic faculty leaders to develop a new instrument for peer assessment of medical lecturing. The authors describe how they used consensus building to determine the criteria, scoring rubric, and behavioral anchors for the rating scale. To pilot test the instrument, participants assessed a series of medical school lectures. Statistical analysis revealed high internal consistency of the instrument's scores (alpha = 0.87, 95% bootstrap confidence interval [BCI] = 0.80 to 0.91), yet low interrater agreement across all criteria and the global measure (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.27, 95% BCI = -0.08 to 0.44).The authors describe the importance of faculty involvement in determining a cohesive set of criteria to assess lectures. They discuss how providing evidence that a peer assessment instrument is credible and reliable increases the faculty's trust in feedback. The authors point to the need for proper peer rater training to obtain high interrater agreement measures, and posit that once such measures are obtained, reliable and accurate peer assessment of teaching could be used to inform the academic promotion process.

A longitudinal clerkship was designed at Harvard Medical School (HMS) in 2004-2005 to emphasize continuity, empathy, learner-centeredness, and patient-centered care. In 2005-2006, the curriculum was piloted with eight students who voluntarily enrolled in the third-year curriculum, which focused on longitudinal mentorship and feedback, interdisciplinary care, integration of clinical and basic science, and humanism in patient care. Eighteen traditional curriculum (TC) students at HMS who were comparable at baseline served as a comparison group. SHELF exams and OSCE performance, monthly and end-of-year surveys, and focus groups provided comparisons between pilot and TC students on their performance, perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction. Pilot students performed as well as or better than their peers in standardized measures of clinical aptitude. They demonstrated statistically significant greater preservation of patient-centered attitudes compared with declining values for TC students. Pilot students rated the atmosphere of learning, effective integration of basic and clinical sciences, mentorship, feedback, clerkship satisfaction, and end-of-year patient-care preparedness significantly higher than TC students. The authors conclude that implementation of a longitudinal third-year curriculum, with only modest alterations in existing clinical training frameworks, is feasible and effective in meeting its stated goals. "Exposing" the hidden curriculum through specific longitudinal activities may prevent degradation of student attitudes about patient-centered care. Minimizing the disjointed nature of clinical training during a critical time in students' training by providing a cohesive longitudinal curriculum in parallel to clinical clerkships, led by faculty with consistent contact with students, can have positive effects on both professional performance and satisfaction.