Integration of basic sciences in health's courses

Pathology teaching in different undergraduate medical curricula within and outside the United States: a pilot study

Pathology education is taught using different curricula in the United States (USA) and abroad. We evaluate and compare the hours spent in different forms of pathology teaching such as lectures, team-based learning (TBL), problem-based learning (PBL), and other methods taught in general and systemic pathology amongst different medical schools within the USA and outside the USA. The total number of lecture hours taught in general and systemic pathology combined was greater in outside schools than within the USA (141 h vs 97.8 h, respectively). Three subjects in general pathology and six subjects in systemic pathology had a significantly greater lecture hours in outside medical schools. The greatest difference was the hours spent in labs were longer for both general and systems pathology in schools outside the USA. The overall utilization of PBL in general and systemic pathology teaching combined was much greater outside the USA compared to within the USA (average overall hours PBL - 97.2 outside vs 16.5 in the USA), however, the reverse was observed for using TBL (average overall hours TBL - 59.5 outside vs 84.5 in USA). Average hours used with other methods of teaching was also greater in outside medical schools compared to USA medical schools (80.8 h vs 44 h, respectively). Pathology teaching in both general and systemic pathology has more extensive lecture hours, laboratory hours, PBL, and other methods of teaching pathology in outside medical schools with different curricula than USA medical schools. TBL is utilized more extensively in USA medical schools.

A scoping review of health professional curricula: Implications for developing integration in pharmacy

BACKGROUND

Integrated health professions curricula aim to produce graduates who are capable of meeting current and future healthcare needs. This is reflected in pharmacy education where integration is increasingly advocated by pharmacy regulators as the perceived optimal way of preparing students for registration as pharmacists. There is, however, no definition of integration. Integration can be described according to a model of horizontal, vertical or spiral integration. It can also be described by the themes used to integrate, such as a systems-based approach or by integrative teaching and learning approaches. The level of integration can also be described.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to explore health professions education literature to inform the optimal design of integrated pharmacy curricula. This review asks: what is meant by integration in health professions curricula?

METHODS

The Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework was utilised. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and ERIC were searched. Models of integration, themes for integration, integrative teaching and learning approaches, and level of integration were defined and supported data extraction.

RESULTS

There were 9696 records screened and of these 137 were included. The majority of studies (n = 88) described horizontal integration. Systems-based teaching (n = 56) was the most common theme reported. Various integrative teaching and learning approaches were described, including experiential (n = 43), case-based (n = 42) and problem-based (n = 38) learning. The majority of the curricula could be classified as levels 5-7 on Harden's ladder (n = 102). Perception outcomes were reported for 81 studies, and only 3 reported outcomes beyond perception. Reported outcomes were generally positive and included knowledge gains and increased motivation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for integration to be explicitly defined by curriculum developers and researchers. Attention should be given to describing the model, theme, teaching and learning approach and level of integration. There remains a lack of evidence for integration.

Exploring the pros and cons of mechanistic case diagrams for problem-based learning

PURPOSE

Mechanistic case diagram (MCD) was recommended for increasing the depth of understanding of disease, but with few articles on its specific methods. We address the experience of making MCD in the fullest depth to identify the pros and cons of using MCDs in such ways.

METHODS

During problem-based learning, we gave guidelines of MCD for its mechanistic exploration from subcellular processes to clinical features, being laid out in as much detail as possible. To understand the students' attitudes and depth of study using MCDs, we analyzed the results of a questionnaire in an open format about experiencing MCDs and examined the resulting products.

RESULTS

Through the responses to questionnaire, we found several favorable outcomes, major of which was deeper insight and comprehensive understanding of disease facilitated by the process of making well-organized diagram. The main disadvantages of these guidelines were the feeling of too much workload and difficulty of finding mechanisms. Students gave suggestions to overcome these problems: cautious reading of comprehensive texts, additional guidance from staff about depth and focus of mechanisms, and cooperative group work. From the analysis of maps, we recognized there should be allowance of diversities in the appearance of maps and many hypothetical connections, which could be related to an insufficient understanding of mechanisms in nature.

CONCLUSION

The more detailed an MCD task is, the better students can become acquainted with deep knowledges. However, this advantage should be balanced by the results that there are many ensuing difficulties for the work and deliberate help plans should be prepared.

Addressing challenges of training a new generation of clinician-innovators through an interdisciplinary medical technology design program: Bench-to-Bedside

Graduate medical education has traditionally focused on training future physicians to be outstanding clinicians with basic and clinical science research skills. This focus has resulted in substantial knowledge gains, but a modest return on investment based on direct improvements in clinical care. In today's shifting healthcare landscape, a number of important challenges must be overcome to not only improve the delivery of healthcare, but to prepare future physicians to think outside the box, focus on and create healthcare innovations, and navigate the complex legal, business and regulatory hurdles of bringing innovation to the bedside. We created an interdisciplinary and experiential medical technology design competition to address these challenges and train medical students interested in moving new and innovative clinical solutions to the forefront of medicine. Medical students were partnered with business, law, design and engineering students to form interdisciplinary teams focused on developing solutions to unmet clinical needs. Over the course of six months teams were provided access to clinical and industry mentors, $500 prototyping funds, development facilities, and non-mandatory didactic lectures in ideation, design, intellectual property, FDA regulatory requirements, prototyping, market analysis, business plan development and capital acquisition. After four years of implementation, the program has supported 396 participants, seen the development of 91 novel medical devices, and launched the formation of 24 new companies. From our perspective, medical education programs that develop innovation training programs and shift incentives from purely traditional basic and clinical science research to also include high-risk innovation will see increased student engagement in improving healthcare delivery and an increase in the quality and quantity of innovative solutions to medical problems being brought to market.