Daniel A Novak1, Ronan Hallowell, Ron Ben-Ari, Donna Elliott. 1. D.A. Novak is assistant professor of clinical medical education, Department of Medical Education, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. R. Hallowell is assistant professor of clinical medical education, Department of Medical Education, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. R. Ben-Ari is associate professor of clinical medicine, associate dean for continuing medical education, and associate dean for curriculum, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. D. Elliott is professor of clinical pediatrics and medical education, vice dean for medical education, and chair, Department of Medical Education, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since 2010, medical schools across the United States have engaged in a new cycle of curricular revision and renewal for their undergraduate medical curricula. But what structures, features, and trends have emerged in U.S. medical schools as a result of deliberate curricular redesign efforts? An analysis of the ways that medical schools have approached the reorganization of their curricula to prepare their students for the growing complexity of medical practice is presented. METHOD: This study drew a total pool of 40 U.S. MD-granting programs, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The authors used a qualitative coding approach to materials from the undergraduate medical education (UME) program websites to identify 4 dimensions of strategies that these programs used to renew their curricula. RESULTS: The analysis of the curricular maps and website content of the UME programs provided evidence for a continuum approach to the description of innovation strategies: 96% of schools employed a cohort-based linear pathway, 80% of schools used thematic basic science blocks, 47% placed their Step 1 exams outside of the second year, and 68% moved their clerkships to the second year. CONCLUSIONS: The Continuum of Innovation strategies will enable programs to renew their curricula in ways that promote deliberate curricular changes that are consistent with emerging needs in the field. This study and future research may be useful for UME programs with limited resources by providing consensus practices that enable them to plan curricular changes in ways that best serve their institutions.
PURPOSE: Since 2010, medical schools across the United States have engaged in a new cycle of curricular revision and renewal for their undergraduate medical curricula. But what structures, features, and trends have emerged in U.S. medical schools as a result of deliberate curricular redesign efforts? An analysis of the ways that medical schools have approached the reorganization of their curricula to prepare their students for the growing complexity of medical practice is presented. METHOD: This study drew a total pool of 40 U.S. MD-granting programs, of which 25 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The authors used a qualitative coding approach to materials from the undergraduate medical education (UME) program websites to identify 4 dimensions of strategies that these programs used to renew their curricula. RESULTS: The analysis of the curricular maps and website content of the UME programs provided evidence for a continuum approach to the description of innovation strategies: 96% of schools employed a cohort-based linear pathway, 80% of schools used thematic basic science blocks, 47% placed their Step 1 exams outside of the second year, and 68% moved their clerkships to the second year. CONCLUSIONS: The Continuum of Innovation strategies will enable programs to renew their curricula in ways that promote deliberate curricular changes that are consistent with emerging needs in the field. This study and future research may be useful for UME programs with limited resources by providing consensus practices that enable them to plan curricular changes in ways that best serve their institutions.