Brian R Smith1, Malek Kamoun, John Hickner. 1. B.R. Smith is professor and chair, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. M. Kamoun is professor, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. J. Hickner is head, Department of Family Clinical Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the current state of laboratory medicine education at U.S. medical schools. METHOD: From 2013 to 2014, the authors surveyed the appropriate dean, department chair, or undergraduate education director at each U.S. medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education about the state of laboratory medicine education, curriculum and competency assessment, and barriers to education at his or her institution. The authors used descriptive statistics to analyze the results. RESULTS: The authors received 98 (75%) responses. Eighty-two schools (84%) offered course work in laboratory medicine; 76 (78%) required it. The median number of hours of required course work was 12.5, with 8.0 devoted to lectures and 4.5 to small-group, problem-based learning and/or laboratory sessions. Only 8 schools required training in a clinical setting. Fewer than half reported regular, formal review of the laboratory medicine curriculum. The assessment of students' competency in laboratory medicine was rare (8 schools), and only half of respondents were aware of published curriculum guidelines. Barriers to teaching laboratory medicine included lack of sufficient time in the preclinical curriculum (86; 88%) or clinical curriculum (84; 86%), lack of knowledge of best laboratory practices by residents (70; 72%), lack of student interest (62; 63%), and lack of knowledge by attending physicians (58; 59%). Half of respondents were likely to use a national standardized examination to assess competency in laboratory medicine, if one was available. CONCLUSIONS: Significant opportunities exist to improve laboratory medicine education, including in the proper use and interpretation of clinical laboratory testing.
PURPOSE: To assess the current state of laboratory medicine education at U.S. medical schools. METHOD: From 2013 to 2014, the authors surveyed the appropriate dean, department chair, or undergraduate education director at each U.S. medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education about the state of laboratory medicine education, curriculum and competency assessment, and barriers to education at his or her institution. The authors used descriptive statistics to analyze the results. RESULTS: The authors received 98 (75%) responses. Eighty-two schools (84%) offered course work in laboratory medicine; 76 (78%) required it. The median number of hours of required course work was 12.5, with 8.0 devoted to lectures and 4.5 to small-group, problem-based learning and/or laboratory sessions. Only 8 schools required training in a clinical setting. Fewer than half reported regular, formal review of the laboratory medicine curriculum. The assessment of students' competency in laboratory medicine was rare (8 schools), and only half of respondents were aware of published curriculum guidelines. Barriers to teaching laboratory medicine included lack of sufficient time in the preclinical curriculum (86; 88%) or clinical curriculum (84; 86%), lack of knowledge of best laboratory practices by residents (70; 72%), lack of student interest (62; 63%), and lack of knowledge by attending physicians (58; 59%). Half of respondents were likely to use a national standardized examination to assess competency in laboratory medicine, if one was available. CONCLUSIONS: Significant opportunities exist to improve laboratory medicine education, including in the proper use and interpretation of clinical laboratory testing.
Authors: Brian R Smith; Maria Aguero-Rosenfeld; John Anastasi; Beverly Baron; Anders Berg; Jay L Bock; Sheldon Campbell; Kendall P Crookston; Robert Fitzgerald; Mark Fung; Richard Haspel; John Greg Howe; Jeffrey Jhang; Malek Kamoun; Susan Koethe; Matthew D Krasowski; Marie L Landry; Marisa B Marques; Henry M Rinder; William Roberts; William E Schreiber; Steven L Spitalnik; Christopher A Tormey; Paul Wolf; Yan Yun Wu Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Gijsbert Wieringa; Simone Zerah; Rob Jansen; Ana-Maria Simundic; José Queralto; Bogdan Solnica; Damien Gruson; Karel Tomberg; Leena Riittinen; Hannsjörg Baum; Jean-Philippe Brochet; Gerald Buhagiar; Charis Charilaou; Camelia Grigore; Anders H Johnsen; Janos Kappelmayer; Nada Majkic-Singh; Giuseppe Nubile; John O'Mullane; Matthias Opp; Silvija Pupure; Jaroslav Racek; Henrique Reguengo; Demetrios Rizos; Dunja Rogic; Július Špaňár; Greta Štrakl; Thomas Szekeres; Kamen Tzatchev; Dalius Vitkus; Pierre Wallemacq; Hans Wallinder Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: John Hickner; Pamela J Thompson; Tom Wilkinson; Paul Epner; Meghan Sheehan; Anne M Pollock; Jim Lee; Christopher C Duke; Brian R Jackson; Julie R Taylor Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Ross J Molinaro; Anne M Winkler; Colleen S Kraft; Corinne R Fantz; Sean R Stowell; James C Ritchie; David D Koch; Sheryl Heron; Jason Liebzeit; Sally A Santen; Jeannette Guarner Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Richard L Haspel; Parul Bhargava; Hannah Gilmore; Sarah Kane; Amy Powers; Alireza Sepehr; Amy R Weinstein; Richard M Schwartzstein; David H Roberts Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.534