Literature DB >> 25607941

What makes a top research medical school? A call for a new model to evaluate academic physicians and medical school performance.

Matthew J Goldstein1, Mitchell R Lunn, Lily Peng.   

Abstract

Since the publication of the Flexner Report in 1910, the medical education enterprise has undergone many changes to ensure that medical schools meet a minimum standard for the curricula and clinical training they offer students. Although the efforts of the licensing and accrediting bodies have raised the quality of medical education, the educational processes that produce the physicians who provide the best patient care and conduct the best biomedical research have not been identified. Comparative analyses are powerful tools to understand the differences between institutions, but they are challenging to carry out. As a result, the analysis performed by U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR) has become the default tool to compare U.S. medical schools. Medical educators must explore more rigorous and equitable approaches to analyze and understand the performance of medical schools. In particular, a better understanding and more thorough evaluation of the most successful institutions in producing academic physicians with biomedical research careers are needed. In this Perspective, the authors present a new model to evaluate medical schools' production of academic physicians who advance medicine through basic, clinical, translational, and implementation science research. This model is based on relevant and accessible objective criteria that should replace the subjective criteria used in the current USN&WR rankings system. By fostering a national discussion about the most meaningful criteria that should be measured and reported, the authors hope to increase transparency of assessment standards and ultimately improve educational quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25607941     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000646

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  5 in total

1.  Endoscopist factors that influence serrated polyp detection: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Seth D Crockett; Rebecca A Gourevitch; Michele Morris; David S Carrell; Sherri Rose; Zhuo Shi; Julia B Greer; Robert E Schoen; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 10.093

2.  Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Ateev Mehrotra; Michele Morris; Rebecca A Gourevitch; David S Carrell; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Julia B Greer; Seth D Crockett; Andrew Baer; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Supervision and autonomy of ophthalmology residents in the outpatient Clinic in the United States: a survey of ACGME-accredited programs.

Authors:  Eric L Singman; Divya Srikumaran; Laura Green; Jing Tian; Peter McDonnell
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 4.  Bridging the Chasm: Challenges, Opportunities, and Resources for Integrating a Dissemination and Implementation Science Curriculum into Medical Education.

Authors:  Tamar Ginossar; Carolyn J Heckman; Deborah Cragun; Lisa M Quintiliani; Enola K Proctor; David A Chambers; Ted Skolarus; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  J Med Educ Curric Dev       Date:  2018-04-04

5.  Women Physicians Are Underrepresented in Recognition Awards From the Association of Academic Physiatrists.

Authors:  Julie K Silver; Cheri A Blauwet; Saurabha Bhatnagar; Chloe S Slocum; Adam S Tenforde; Jeffrey C Schneider; Ross D Zafonte; Richard Goldstein; Vanessa Gallegos-Kearin; Julia M Reilly; Nicole L Mazwi
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.159

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.