Kulamakan Kulasegaram1,2,3, Maria Mylopoulos1,2,4, Paul Tonin1, Stacey Bernstein1,4, Pier Bryden1,5, Marcus Law1,2,3, Jana Lazor1,2,3, Richard Pittini1,6, Sanjeev Sockalingam1,2,5, Glendon R Tait1,5, Patricia Houston1,7. 1. a MD Program, Faculty of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada. 2. b The Wilson Centre , University Health Network , Toronto , Canada. 3. c Department of Family & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada. 4. d Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada. 5. e Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada. 6. f Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada. 7. g Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine , University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada.
Abstract
RATIONALE: There are perennial calls for MD curricula to reform in order to meet the changing needs of students, patients, and society. And yet, efforts at renewal have also been suggested to have minimal impact on the pedagogy and outcomes of medical education. One reason may be misalignment between the components of the curriculum during design and implementation. The University of Toronto MD program recently renewed its undergraduate preclinical Foundations curriculum. Mindful of the pitfalls of misalignment, the renewal process focused deliberately on alignment between the various components of the curriculum: instructional methods, student assessment, faculty development, and the larger purpose of serving students and society. INNOVATION: Educational evidence was used to drive the alignment process which resulted in three major changes. First, we created a spiral curriculum centered on 72 virtual patient cases designed to integrate content and prepare students for clinical learning. Second, we introduced a novel medical psychiatry component to address a core societal need in mental health. This exposed students early to experiences of complexity, ambiguity, and integrated patient care. Lastly, a shift to assessment for learning and programmatic assessment was designed and implemented concurrently to reinforce the pedagogy of the curriculum. Synchronous faculty development was developed for the new roles required of faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Early program evaluation shows alignment of these curricular components requires ongoing attention and resources in order to be successful. The potential benefits of this alignment are well prepared students who can meet the needs of their patients and society in an increasingly complex health system.
RATIONALE: There are perennial calls for MD curricula to reform in order to meet the changing needs of students, patients, and society. And yet, efforts at renewal have also been suggested to have minimal impact on the pedagogy and outcomes of medical education. One reason may be misalignment between the components of the curriculum during design and implementation. The University of Toronto MD program recently renewed its undergraduate preclinical Foundations curriculum. Mindful of the pitfalls of misalignment, the renewal process focused deliberately on alignment between the various components of the curriculum: instructional methods, student assessment, faculty development, and the larger purpose of serving students and society. INNOVATION: Educational evidence was used to drive the alignment process which resulted in three major changes. First, we created a spiral curriculum centered on 72 virtual patient cases designed to integrate content and prepare students for clinical learning. Second, we introduced a novel medical psychiatry component to address a core societal need in mental health. This exposed students early to experiences of complexity, ambiguity, and integrated patient care. Lastly, a shift to assessment for learning and programmatic assessment was designed and implemented concurrently to reinforce the pedagogy of the curriculum. Synchronous faculty development was developed for the new roles required of faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Early program evaluation shows alignment of these curricular components requires ongoing attention and resources in order to be successful. The potential benefits of this alignment are well prepared students who can meet the needs of their patients and society in an increasingly complex health system.