Cirila Estela Vasquez Guzman1, Andrew L Sussman2, Miria Kano3, Christina M Getrich4, Robert L Williams5. 1. C.E. Vasquez Guzman is a family medicine postdoctoral fellow, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 2. A.L. Sussman is associate professor, Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 3. M. Kano is assistant professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 4. C.M. Getrich is associate professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 5. R.L. Williams is Distinguished Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Twenty years have passed since the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) mandated cultural competence training at U.S. medical schools. There remain multiple challenges to implementation of this training, including curricular constraints, varying interpretations of cultural competence, and evidence supporting the efficacy of such training. This study explored how medical schools have worked to implement cultural competence training. METHOD: Fifteen regionally diverse public and private U.S. medical schools participated in the study. In 2012-2014, the authors conducted 125 interviews with 52 administrators, 51 faculty or staff members, and 22 third- and fourth-year medical students, along with 29 focus groups with an additional 196 medical students. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo 10 software for qualitative data analysis. Queries captured topics related to students' preparedness to work with diverse patients, engagement with sociocultural issues, and general perception of preclinical and clinical curricula. RESULTS: Three thematic areas emerged regarding cultural competence training: formal curriculum, conditions of teaching, and institutional commitment. At the formal curricular level, schools offered a range of courses collectively emphasizing communication skills, patient-centered care, and community-based projects. Conditions of teaching emphasized integration of cultural competence into the preclinical years and reflection on the delivery of content. At the institutional level, commitment to institutional diversity, development of programs, and degree of prioritization of cultural competence varied. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in how medical schools approach cultural competence. Among the 15 participating schools, longitudinal and experiential learning emerged as important, highlighting the needs beyond mere integration of cultural competence content into the formal curriculum. To determine efficacy of cultural competence programming, it is critical to conduct systematic assessment to identify and address gaps. While LCME standards have transformed aspects of medical education, further research is needed to clarify evidence-based, effective approaches to this training.
PURPOSE: Twenty years have passed since the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) mandated cultural competence training at U.S. medical schools. There remain multiple challenges to implementation of this training, including curricular constraints, varying interpretations of cultural competence, and evidence supporting the efficacy of such training. This study explored how medical schools have worked to implement cultural competence training. METHOD: Fifteen regionally diverse public and private U.S. medical schools participated in the study. In 2012-2014, the authors conducted 125 interviews with 52 administrators, 51 faculty or staff members, and 22 third- and fourth-year medical students, along with 29 focus groups with an additional 196 medical students. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo 10 software for qualitative data analysis. Queries captured topics related to students' preparedness to work with diverse patients, engagement with sociocultural issues, and general perception of preclinical and clinical curricula. RESULTS: Three thematic areas emerged regarding cultural competence training: formal curriculum, conditions of teaching, and institutional commitment. At the formal curricular level, schools offered a range of courses collectively emphasizing communication skills, patient-centered care, and community-based projects. Conditions of teaching emphasized integration of cultural competence into the preclinical years and reflection on the delivery of content. At the institutional level, commitment to institutional diversity, development of programs, and degree of prioritization of cultural competence varied. CONCLUSIONS: There is variation in how medical schools approach cultural competence. Among the 15 participating schools, longitudinal and experiential learning emerged as important, highlighting the needs beyond mere integration of cultural competence content into the formal curriculum. To determine efficacy of cultural competence programming, it is critical to conduct systematic assessment to identify and address gaps. While LCME standards have transformed aspects of medical education, further research is needed to clarify evidence-based, effective approaches to this training.
Authors: Thomas K Le; Hursuong Vongsachang; Sharon Pang; George Q Zhang; Taibo Li; Jason T C Lee; Shari M Lawson Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 3.263