Dora J Melber1, Arianne Teherani2, Brian S Schwartz3. 1. University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. 2. University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine. 3. University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases, University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A strong foundational understanding of microbiology is crucial for the 21st century physician. Given recent major advances in medical microbiology, curricular changes will likely be needed. Before transforming curricula, we must first obtain a comprehensive understanding of contemporary medical student microbiology education. METHODS: We disseminated a 38-question survey to microbiology course directors and curriculum deans at 142 US medical schools accredited by the Liason Committee on Medical Education. Survey questions focused on course leadership, curricular structure, course content, and educator perceptions about microbiology education locally and nationally. RESULTS: One hundred and four (73%) of 142 schools completed the survey. Ninety-four (90%) schools identified a course director. Of these, 48% were led by microbiologists alone, 23% co-led by a microbiologist and a clinician, 20% by a clinician alone, and 8% by a laboratory medicine physician with or without a co-director. At 55 (53%) schools, the curricula were organized in a single block or course and at 47 (45%) it was integrated into other curricula. Areas of emerging importance, such as antimicrobial stewardship, global health, infection control, and the microbiome, were addressed at 66%, 65%, 64%, and 47% of institutions, respectively. Respondents reported the following concerns: challenges integrating microbiology into other courses, reduced total teaching hours, and difficulty balancing basic and clinical science topics. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical microbiology course directors report significant challenges in meeting the needs of changing curriculum structure and content. Enhanced local collaboration between microbiologists and clinicians, as well as national collaboration among relevant societies to design best practices and support research, may be strategies for future success.
BACKGROUND: A strong foundational understanding of microbiology is crucial for the 21st century physician. Given recent major advances in medical microbiology, curricular changes will likely be needed. Before transforming curricula, we must first obtain a comprehensive understanding of contemporary medical student microbiology education. METHODS: We disseminated a 38-question survey to microbiology course directors and curriculum deans at 142 US medical schools accredited by the Liason Committee on Medical Education. Survey questions focused on course leadership, curricular structure, course content, and educator perceptions about microbiology education locally and nationally. RESULTS: One hundred and four (73%) of 142 schools completed the survey. Ninety-four (90%) schools identified a course director. Of these, 48% were led by microbiologists alone, 23% co-led by a microbiologist and a clinician, 20% by a clinician alone, and 8% by a laboratory medicine physician with or without a co-director. At 55 (53%) schools, the curricula were organized in a single block or course and at 47 (45%) it was integrated into other curricula. Areas of emerging importance, such as antimicrobial stewardship, global health, infection control, and the microbiome, were addressed at 66%, 65%, 64%, and 47% of institutions, respectively. Respondents reported the following concerns: challenges integrating microbiology into other courses, reduced total teaching hours, and difficulty balancing basic and clinical science topics. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical microbiology course directors report significant challenges in meeting the needs of changing curriculum structure and content. Enhanced local collaboration between microbiologists and clinicians, as well as national collaboration among relevant societies to design best practices and support research, may be strategies for future success.
Authors: Sharon F Chen; Jennifer Deitz; Jason N Batten; Jennifer DeCoste-Lopez; Maya Adam; J Andrew Alspaugh; Manuel R Amieva; Pauline Becker; Bryn Boslett; Jan Carline; Peter Chin-Hong; Deborah L Engle; Kristen N Hayward; Andrew Nevins; Aarti Porwal; Paul S Pottinger; Brian S Schwartz; Sherilyn Smith; Mohamed Sow; Arianne Teherani; Charles G Prober Journal: Acad Med Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Clair A Kronk; Avery R Everhart; Florence Ashley; Hale M Thompson; Theodore E Schall; Teddy G Goetz; Laurel Hiatt; Zackary Derrick; Roz Queen; A Ram; E Mae Guthman; Olivia M Danforth; Elle Lett; Emery Potter; Simón E D Sun; Zack Marshall; Ryan Karnoski Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Priya Nori; Theresa Madaline; Iona Munjal; Shubha Bhar; Yi Guo; Susan K Seo; Andrea Porrovecchio; Elizabeth Gancher; Joshua Nosanchuk; Liise-Anne Pirofski; Belinda Ostrowsky Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Conan MacDougall; Brian S Schwartz; Lisa Kim; Mari Nanamori; Sharmin Shekarchian; Peter V Chin-Hong Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: E Yusuf; D S Y Ong; A Martin-Quiros; C Skevaki; J Cortez; K Dedić; A E Maraolo; D Dušek; P J Maver; M Sanguinetti; E Tacconelli Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 3.267