Administrative relationships between medical schools and community preceptors.

PURPOSE: To determine the current administrative relationships between medical schools and community preceptors, with special emphasis on arrangements for academic appointment, review, and promotion. METHOD: In 1999, administrative contacts at all 126 U.S. allopathic medical schools were mailed a ten-item questionnaire to elicit information concerning the current practices of the schools regarding community preceptors, who were defined as volunteer or part-time physician faculty, primarily practicing at non-university-owned facilities, who contribute to medical students' and/or residents' education in various specified ways. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71 (56%) of the schools; they were in general a representative sample of U.S. medical schools. The numbers of preceptors per school ranged from 40 to 3,500. Sixty-seven percent of reporting schools identified clinical departments as the main administrative interface with preceptors. Only three schools used a central office; none exclusively used a regionalized system. Forty-four schools (63.8%) reported using formal written criteria for all preceptor appointments. Sixty-six schools (93%) used consistent academic titling systems, with 83.3% using titles including the word "clinical." Thirty-three schools (47.8%) reported that their departments conducted regular preceptor reviews; an additional 28 reported reviews by some departments. Preceptors were eligible for promotion at 94.4% of the responding schools. At 46.8%, specific promotion criteria exist; four schools were developing such criteria. Preceptors' interest in academic promotion was perceived to be moderate or low. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of U.S. medical schools have taken action to recognize preceptors as a unique faculty group. The comments received indicate that this is an active area of development in faculty affairs policy.     

A snapshot of the status of problem-based learning in U. S. medical schools, 2003-04.

PURPOSE: Although the use of problem-based learning (PBL) is widespread in U.S. medical schools, its true prevalence is unknown. This study examined the prevalence of PBL in preclinical curricula. METHOD: In 2003, a Web-based questionnaire was sent to education deans or directors of medical education at the 123 Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools in the United States. The respondents indicated whether or not they were using PBL and what percentage of faculty-student contact hours in the preclinical years used PBL. RESULT: All 123 schools responded. Of them, 70% used PBL in the preclinical years. Of schools using PBL, 45% used it for less than 10% of their formal teaching, while 6% used it for more than half of their formal teaching. Of the 30% of schools not using PBL, 22% had used it in the past, and 2% had plans to incorporate it in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Use of PBL is widespread in the preclinical curricula of U.S. medical schools. That use is limited, however, since fewer than 6% of programs use it for more than 50% of their instruction.     

Rating educational quality: factors in the erosion of professional standards.

Changes in the health care environment are putting increasing pressure on medical schools to make faculty accountable and to document the quality of the medical education they provide. Faculty's ratings of students' performances and students' ratings of faculty's teaching are important elements in these efforts to document educational quality. This article discusses selected research related to factors affecting raters' judgments, analyzes how changes in the health care environment are influencing such judgments, and links these influences to the system that upholds professional standards. Ratings are known to have a positive bias (generosity error), provide limited discrimination, and often fail to document serious deficits. The potential sources of these problems relate to the mechanics of the rating task, the system used to obtain ratings, and factors affecting rater judgment. As managed care demands reduce the time faculty have for teaching, as system-wide disincentives to provide negative ratings proliferate, and as social engineering challenges, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, impose differential standards for students, the natural tendency to avoid giving negative ratings becomes even harder to resist. Ultimately, these forces compromise the capability of faculty to uphold the standards of the profession. The author calls for a national effort to stem the erosion of those standards.     

Clerkship directors' perceptions of the impact of HCFA documentation guidelines.

PURPOSE: Chart notes are used to support billing codes under the evaluation and management guidelines of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), in addition to serving as a record of the visit. To better understand the effect of the HCFA documentation guidelines, the authors collected data on how the guidelines affect participation by university- and community-based faculty in clinical education programs. METHOD: In 2000, the authors sent six copies of their questionnaire to the associate deans of the 125 U.S. medical schools and requested they distribute them to all core clerkship directors. The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice and short-answer questions regarding documentation of medical visits, participation of community-based faculty, understanding of HCFA documentation guidelines, and effects on education programs. RESULTS: The response rate was about 50%. Most of the 379 clerkship directors who responded (77%) stated they were aware the HCFA documentation guidelines include specifications regarding the role medical students can play and documentation of medical visits, and 64% indicated they were concerned the guidelines would affect their educational programs. Concerns included the loss of student independence and active participation in the patient care environment (37), time constraints and the changing balance between education and service (16), loss of faculty and decreased morale (11), and decreased quality of care for patients (7). CONCLUSION: Leaders of medical education must work to modify these guidelines to protect the quality of patients' care, while maximizing students' educational opportunity and participation.     

Trends in histology laboratory teaching in United States medical schools

Owing to competition for faculty time among the three major missions of today's academic medical centers, as well as the rapid development of computer-based instructional technologies, laboratory instruction in medical schools in the United States has been undergoing dramatic change. In order to determine recent trends in histology laboratory instruction at U.S. medical schools, a detailed Web survey was administered to histology course directors, with about two-thirds of schools responding. The survey was designed to identify trends in the number of hours of histology laboratory instruction that each medical student receives, the amount of faculty effort devoted to histology laboratory instruction, and the use of various computer-based technologies (including virtual microscopy and virtual slides) in histology laboratory instruction. Consistent with the long-term trend of declining total laboratory teaching hours in U.S. medical schools, there is an ongoing reduction in the number of hours of faculty-directed histology laboratory instruction that each medical student receives, with a concomitant reduction in hours of faculty time devoted to histology laboratory instruction. In terms of the tools used in the histology laboratory, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of various forms of computer-aided instruction (including virtual slides). The large increase in the number of schools using computer-aided instruction has not been accompanied by an equivalent decrease in the number of schools that utilize microscopes and glass slides. Rather, the clear trend has been toward a blending of the new computer-based instructional technologies with the long-standing use of microscopes and glass slides.     

The changing faces of promotion and tenure at U.S. medical schools

Faced with many potentially divisive questions related to tenure and promotion, leaders at medical schools have lacked an overview of examples of how other medical schools are adapting their faculty policies to reflect changing realities. This article reports results of a survey of U.S. medical school deans and of interviews with faculty affairs administrators regarding areas of change in faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure policies. Examples of adaptations are reported under the following headings: use of tenure; financial guarantees of tenure; criteria for award of tenure; probationary period; post-tenure review; advising faculty; clinician-educator tracks; and recruting women and minority faculty. Of these, the adaptation entailing the most activity and about which the most information was obtained concerns establishing a clinician-educator track. Numerous examples are provided of schools' evolutions of policies with regard to modifying titles of clinical-educators, defining promotion criteria, monitoring transfer between tracks, and defining contract periods, benefits, and privileges. The primary challenge for medical school administrators is to build sufficient flexibility into their promotion policies to show that the institution values the many different types of faculty needed, and at the same time to provide adequate security to essential faculty.     

Making a case for the teaching scholar.

Medical schools are increasingly cognizant of their inability to critically evaluate faculty who support the core mission of education. To address this need, the Project on Scholarship was initiated by the Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Building on and expanding previous definitions of scholarship and the associated criteria emerging in higher education, the project developed a set of "teacher as scholar" scenarios. These scenarios contained varied types of evidence for teaching scholarship and were discussed at the 1999 GEA regional meetings. Two major conclusions/recommendations emerged from these discussions: (1) the use of commonly accepted scholarship criteria (clear goals, appropriate methods, significant results, effective communication) provides a framework for identifying the types of evidence needed to document teaching scholarship, and (2) medical schools must create an infrastructure for promoting educational scholarship. This infrastructure must support the reliable and valid collection of evidence of educational scholarship and the continuous development of faculty as teaching scholars.     

The measurement of outcomes in the assessment of educational program effectiveness

Postsecondary accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, including the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), are required to evaluate educational program effectiveness by determining that institutions and programs document the achievement of their students and graduates in verifiable and consistent ways, indicating that institutional and program purposes are met. For the assessment of medical education programs this represents a departure from the traditional method of inferring quality from institutional compliance with standards for program organization and function. In the new assessment calculus, success is measured as the integrated product of the outcomes, the indicators of achievement that medical schools already are collecting from many sources, for instance, data on premedical achievement and attributes, medical school performance, graduate education ratings and test results, specialty certification, licensure, and practice. Although a recent LCME enquiry showed that 80% of U.S. medical schools were collecting outcome data on students and graduates, there was a lack of coherence and system, little integrated analysis, rare longitudinal study, and limited use of the information to evaluate and revise the curriculum or to validate admissions, promotion, and graduation criteria. The longitudinal study of the quantified results of educational programs need not resurrect old controversies about the linkage between learning in medical school and the quality of doctors' later practice. The purpose of examining outcomes is to gain sharper focus on the achievement of distinctive institutional goals, to facilitate program improvement and renewal, and to better assure the competence of graduates within the boundaries of achievement that schools have drawn as their educational objectives.     

End-of-life care in the curriculum: a national study of medical education deans.

PURPOSE: To describe attitudes and practices of end-of-life care teaching in the undergraduate medical curriculum in the United States as reported by administrative leadership and identify opportunities for improvement. METHOD: A telephone survey of associate deans for medical education or curricular affairs at a random sample of 62 accredited U.S. medical schools was conducted in 2002. RESULTS: Fifty-one deans participated (82% response rate). Most (84%) described end-of-life care education as "very important" and supported incorporating more end-of-life care teaching into the undergraduate curriculum. Sixty-seven percent reported that insufficient time is currently given to palliative care in their curriculum. Although a majority opposed required courses (59%) or clerkships (70%) that focused on end-of-life care, they did unanimously endorse integrating teaching end-of-life care into existing courses or clerkships. Key barriers to incorporating more end-of-life care into the curriculum included lack of time in the curriculum, lack of faculty expertise, and absence of a faculty leader. CONCLUSION: Associate deans for medical education or curricular affairs in the United States support integrating end-of-life care content into existing courses and clerkships throughout the undergraduate medical curriculum. Successful integration will require institutional investment in faculty development, including both the development of faculty leaders to drive change efforts, and the education of all faculty who teach students and exert influence as role models and mentors. The strong support for end-of-life care education expressed by academic leaders in this study, combined with the high level of interest expressed in the authors' 2001 national survey of students, provide evidence of the potential for meaningful change in the undergraduate medical curriculum.     

The continued evolution of faculty appointment and tenure policies at U.S. medical schools.

For the past several decades, financial uncertainty, changes in health care delivery and reimbursement, and changing workforce needs have prompted medical schools to continually refine their appointment and tenure policies. Studies during the past 30 years have examined the nature of these faculty appointment and tenure policies in U.S. medical schools, and in this article the authors present data from a 2005 survey on faculty personnel policies to extend this analysis.For both basic science and clinical faculty in U.S. medical schools, the authors describe tenure systems, trends in the number and percentage of full-time faculty on tenure-eligible tracks, the financial guarantee of tenure, and probationary period lengths. They review the status of flexible policies and highlight two current faculty policy changes that many institutions have made or are actively contemplating: the recognition of interdisciplinary and team science, and a broadening view of scholarship.Results show that although tenure systems remain well established in medical schools, the proportion of faculty on tenured or tenure-eligible tracks has continued to decline over time. Changes in the financial guarantee associated with tenure have transformed the fundamental concept of tenure at many medical schools, and the percentage of schools that have lengthened the probationary period for tenure-track faculty has steadily increased during the past 25 years. Tenure-clock-stopping policies and part-time tenure policies continue to exist at medical schools, though results indicate low faculty use of the policies, suggesting a disconnect between policy and practice.     

Cross-cultural education in U.S. medical schools: development of an assessment tool.

PURPOSE: Medical education is responding to an increasingly diverse population and to regulatory and quality-of-care requirements by developing cross-cultural curricula in health care. This undertaking has proved problematic because there is no consensus on what elements of cross-cultural medicine should be taught. Further, less is known about what is being taught. This study hypothesized that a tool could be developed to assess common themes, concepts, learning objectives, and methods in cross-cultural education. METHOD: In 2001, 31 U.S. medical schools were invited to provide the researchers all written and/or Web-based materials related to implementing cross-cultural competency in their curricula. A tool was developed to measure teaching methods, skill sets, and eight content areas in cross-cultural education. RESULTS: A total of 19 medical schools supplied their curricular materials. There was considerable variation in approaches to teaching and in the content of cross-cultural education across the schools. Most emphasized teaching general themes, such as the doctor-patient relationship, socioeconomic status, and racism. Most also focused on specific cultural information about the ethnic communities they served. Few schools extensively addressed health care access and language issues. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment tool is an important step toward developing a standard nomenclature for measuring the success of cross-cultural education curricula. On the national level, the tool can be used to compare program components and encourage the exchange of effective teaching tools by promoting a common language, which will be essential for developing and implementing curricula, for comparing programs, and evaluating their effects on quality of care.     

Health education programs in U.S. medical schools.

To examine the status of teaching programs on health education in undergraduate medical education, the author in 1990-91 surveyed representatives of all 126 U.S. medical schools. Of the 97 institutions that responded, 63 (65%) offered instruction in patient education and 72 (74%) offered instruction in community health promotion. The responses indicated that a number of departments participated in instruction and that diverse methods of instruction and evaluation were used. Opinions of the representatives regarding the importance and adequacy of instruction in health education were quite favorable. The author concludes that more information is needed to determine the effectiveness of the instructional programs and their impact on the quality of medical care.     

A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial of adjuvant Web-based teaching to medical students.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of an adjuvant Web-based teaching program on medical students' learning during clinical rotations. METHOD: From April 2003 to May 2004, 351 students completing clinical rotations in surgery-urology at four U.S. medical schools were invited to volunteer for the study. Web-based teaching cases were developed covering four core urologic topics. Students were block randomized to receive Web-based teaching on two of the four topics. Before and after a designated duration at each institution (ranging one to three weeks), students completed a validated 28-item Web-based test (Cronbach's alpha = .76) covering all four topics. The test was also administered to a subset of students at one school at the conclusion of their third-year to measure long-term learning. RESULTS: Eighty-one percent of all eligible students (286/351) volunteered to participate in the study, 73% of whom (210/286) completed the Web-based program. Compared to controls, Web-based teaching significantly increased test scores in the four topics at each medical school (p < .001, mixed analysis of variance), corresponding to a Cohen's d effect size of 1.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.80). Learning efficiency was increased three-fold by Web-based teaching (Cohen's d effect size 1.16; 95% CI 1.13-1.19). Students who were tested a median of 4.8 months later demonstrated significantly higher scores for Web-based teaching compared to non-Web-based teaching (p = .007, paired t-test). Limited learning was noted in the absence of Web-based teaching. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial provides Class I evidence that Web-based teaching as an adjunct to clinical experiences can significantly and durably improve medical students' learning.     

PhD faculty in clinical departments of U.S. medical schools, 1981-1999: their widening presence and roles in research.

PURPOSE: To analyze the growth, research activities, and academic status of PhD faculty in U. S. medical school clinical departments between 1981 and 1999. METHOD: Full-time U.S. medical school faculty who had PhDs and appointments in clinical departments in 1981 and 1999 and junior PhD faculty who became assistant professors between 1981 and 1990 were selected from the Faculty Roster System of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Their research activities and academic statuses were compared with those of MD or MD/PhD faculty in clinical departments or PhD faculty in basic science departments in the same years. RESULTS: The number of PhD faculty in clinical departments now exceeds the number of PhD faculty in basic science departments. PhD faculty in clinical departments come from diverse research backgrounds, contribute substantially to the research intensity of their institutions, and are more likely than their counterparts in basic science departments to become involved in research involving human participants or human tissues. PhD faculty in clinical departments are less likely than their counterparts in basic science departments, but are as likely as physicians in clinical departments, to be rewarded with academic promotion. They are less likely than their physician colleagues to be promoted in research-intensive departments such as departments of medicine and at top 20 research-intensive schools. CONCLUSIONS: The burgeoning career opportunities for PhD faculty in clinical departments should be reflected in the course work, mentorship, and potential thesis topics of PhD training programs. In lieu of tenure, research-intensive medical schools should develop alternative career tracks providing somewhat greater job stability for these faculty.     

Criteria of the "educators' pyramid" fulfilled by medical school faculty promoted on a teaching pathway.

PURPOSE: To compare the results of academic promotion to associate professor and professor via the teaching pathway at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (WFUSM) with the criteria of the "educators' pyramid" of Sachdeva et al. METHOD: Data on all candidates promoted to associate professor and professor in the academic years 1995-2000 at WFUSM were collected from candidates' portfolios and compared with the criteria for educator (level three) and master educator (level four) from a modified version of the educators' pyramid. RESULTS: Of 186 faculty promoted, 38 were on the teaching pathway. Everyone promoted on the pathway fulfilled all teacher and master teacher criteria. All educator criteria were found among the associate professors, and all but one of the master educator criteria were found among professors. More than 75% of associate professors demonstrated "sustained participation in significant amounts of effective teaching in more than one modality" and "service as a medical student clerkship, course, or residency director." Less than 30% demonstrated "service as assistant dean of education or student affairs" or "service as the chair of departmental education committees." Most associate professors had not regularly participated in national education meetings. For professors, more than 50% demonstrated "achievement of leadership positions in national organizations, committees, and medical school education"; "recognition as a national leader in specialty education"; and "mentorship of other faculty members locally and nationally." Less than 30% demonstrated "pursuit of further training in education through workshops, faculty development programs, or educational fellowship programs" or "development and implementation of nationally-recognized (in education) innovative curricula or teaching programs." No one promoted to professor on the teaching pathway had made what was considered to be a landmark contribution to educational research and development. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the educators' pyramid is generalizable to medical faculty being promoted on a teaching pathway at WFUSM. Documentation of achievement in teaching criteria is essential and faculty should be encouraged to maintain records of accomplishment before becoming candidates for promotion.     

Sixteen years' experience with a required third-year family medicine clerkship at Jefferson Medical College.

Jefferson Medical College has developed a program to successfully meet the goal of teaching ambulatory care to all medical students, by providing each of its 223 third-year students with a required six-week clerkship in family medicine. The structured clerkship takes place at one of seven residency-based family practice centers, is supplemented by a formal curriculum, and is based on the active clinical involvement of caring for patients under full-time family medicine faculty supervision. This clerkship has been in existence for 16 years, and has added over 400,000 student-patient encounters to the clinical education of over 3,500 students. Student evaluations of the clerkship have rated it the highest of the six required core clerkships at Jefferson. In addition, over 16% of Jefferson graduates have entered family medicine residency training programs, a rate higher than that of any other school in the northeastern United States, and significantly higher than the average for all U.S. medical schools (12%). Jefferson's experience suggests that ambulatory care can be taught as a core component of the clinical education of all medical students. To be successful, however, strong institutional support, a structured curriculum, an adequate number of patients, a dedicated faculty, a sufficient number of training sites, an appropriate evaluation process, and significant financial support are all necessary.     

The importance of anatomy in health professions education and the shortage of qualified educators.

The current shortage of faculty qualified to teach anatomy in U.S. medical schools is reversible. Sufficient numbers of individuals are in the pipeline to provide a future cadre of well-trained faculty members educating students in gross anatomy. The challenge is to realign departmental, institutional, and federal training grant priorities and resources, creating incentives for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty members to stay the course and become the teachers needed to educate the next generation of health professionals. These strategies include (but are not limited to) team-teaching gross anatomy, thereby distributing the time commitments of a laboratory-based course more widely within a department; funds made available from the administration of medical schools to allow postdoctoral fellows to participate in teaching and providing compensation for the research activities; using "mission-based budgeting" to specifically compensate for faculty teaching time; and, finally, re-instituting federally funded training grants that solved this same teaching crisis in the not-too-distant past.