Literature DB >> 7873005

Developing a "clinical presentation" curriculum at the University of Calgary.

H Mandin1, P Harasym, C Eagle, M Watanabe.   

Abstract

Currently, medical curricula are structured according to disciplines, body systems, or clinical problems. Beginning in 1988, the faculty of the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine (U of C) carefully evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of each of these models in seeking to revise their school's curriculum. However, all three models fell short of a curricular structure based on current knowledge and principles of adult learning, clinical problem solving, community demands, and curriculum management. By 1991, the U of C had formulated a strategic plan for a revised curriculum structure based on the way patients present to physicians, and implementation of this plan has begun. In creating the new curriculum, 120 clinical presentations (e.g., "loss of consciousness/syncope") were defined and each was assigned to an individual or small group of faculty for development based on faculty expertise and interest. Terminal objectives (i.e., "what to do") were defined for each presentation to describe the appropriate clinical behaviors of a graduating physician. Experts developed schemes that outlined how they differentiated one cause (i.e., disease category) from another. The underlying enabling objectives (i.e., knowledge, skills, and attitudes) for reaching the terminal objectives for each clinical presentation were assigned as departmental responsibilities. A new administrative structure evolved in which there is a partnership between a centralized multidisciplinary curriculum committee and the departments. This new competency-based, clinical presentation curriculum is expected to significantly enhance students' development of clinical problem-solving skills and affirms the premise that prudent, continuous updating is essential for improving the quality of medical education.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7873005     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199503000-00008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  20 in total

1.  What kind of curriculum can better address community needs? Problems arisen by hypothetical-deductive reasoning.

Authors:  A Haeri; P Hemmati; H Yaman
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching.

Authors:  Adam D Peets; Lara Cooke; Bruce Wright; Sylvain Coderre; Kevin McLaughlin
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 2.463

3.  Learning Sciences Theories, Principles, and Practices Comprising a Framework for Designing a New Approach to Health Professions Education.

Authors:  Frank J Papa
Journal:  Med Sci Educ       Date:  2020-10-27

4.  First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity.

Authors:  Laurence Biro; Kaiwen Song; Joyce Nyhof-Young
Journal:  Can Med Educ J       Date:  2021-04-30

5.  Observation of the Effectiveness of a Diagnostic Model for Acute Abdominal Pain Based on the Etiology Checklist and Process Thinking.

Authors:  Hong-Ming Pan; Hong-Ling Li; Zhang-Shun Shen; Hui Guo; Qian Zhao; Jian-Guo Li
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2021-02-26

6.  Conceptualization of category-oriented likelihood ratio: a useful tool for clinical diagnostic reasoning.

Authors:  Hamideh Moosapour; Mohsin Raza; Mehdi Rambod; Akbar Soltani
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  Interactive seminars or small group tutorials in preclinical medical education: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Zuzana de Jong; Jessica Ab van Nies; Sonja Wm Peters; Sylvia Vink; Friedo W Dekker; Albert Scherpbier
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  Real patient learning integrated in a preclinical block musculoskeletal disorders. Does it make a difference?

Authors:  Anne de Boer; Debbie Melchers; Sylvia Vink; Friedo Dekker; Liesbeth Beaart; Zuzana de Jong
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  Involvement in teaching improves learning in medical students: a randomized cross-over study.

Authors:  Adam D Peets; Sylvain Coderre; Bruce Wright; Deirdre Jenkins; Kelly Burak; Shannon Leskosky; Kevin McLaughlin
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  Medical education: past, present and future.

Authors:  Geoff Norman
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2012-02-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.