Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project Research Articles

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) project: an overview of its experience and outcomes.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project was a competitive, seven-year demonstration project funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). It was established to determine whether specific interdisciplinary innovations in preclinical medical school curricula could affect students' selection of careers in family medicine, general internal medicine, or general pediatrics. Through collaboration among the three generalist disciplines, the IGC innovation exposed all preclinical students in ten demonstration schools to a new or significantly enhanced preclinical curriculum that included a direct supervised clinical experience with a generalist physician preceptor. The project was managed by an interdisciplinary executive committee that was codirected by one representative each from family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. A national advisory committee with representation from the academic and professional organizations of family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and osteopathy provided input to the executive committee in guiding the project. The project was externally evaluated. Major outcomes of the IGC Project include sustained curricular changes in ten institutions, prompted by relatively few dollars and demonstration of models for collaboration at institutional and national levels. This supplement describes the IGC Project's experience and outcomes so that others may draw pertinent information to apply to their own efforts in medical education.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at the University of Vermont College of Medicine: The Vermont Generalist Curriculum (VGC) Experience.

The University of Vermont College of Medicine received its Vermont Generalist Curriculum (VGC) subcontract as one of the second-cycle Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project schools from 1995 to 1998. The Vermont program was jointly codirected by the chairs of family practice and pediatrics and the program director for internal medicine on a rotating basis and was overseen by a multidisciplinary steering committee that included generalists, basic scientists, specialists, and students. This committee provided guidance and support in recruitment of preceptors, continuous assessment and improvement of the courses, development of a clinical correlation manual for students in clinical offices, and cooperation around a jointly sponsored annual primary care meeting that included a joint scientific program, a research forum, and a faculty development workshop. The VGC has provided a pilot for many innovative curricular changes that have served as models for the school-wide curriculum redesign process currently under way at VERMONT: While the funding for this project ended in 1998, the changes, innovations, and collaboration born out of the project are valuable enough for the dean's office to maintain the VGC's funding and its steering committee for the future.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at the University of California, San Francisco.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project came at a pivotal time in curriculum development at the University of California, San Francisco, School of MEDICINE: In the three years prior to the project, the curriculum committee had considered implementation of early longitudinal clinical experiences. This had not been proposed as a primary care experience. Introduction of generalist skills, with the goal of increasing numbers of students choosing generalist residencies, presented significant challenges at this tertiary care and research-oriented medical school. The new IGC course, Foundations of Patient Care, consists of on-campus lectures, small-group sessions, physical examination skills instruction, and a six-quarter preceptorship. As proposed, the school increased teaching of generalist skills and competencies and developed a large pool of primary care preceptors. There was no change in the number of graduates choosing primary care. The strong collaboration that resulted from the development of this new course served as a catalyst for major curricular reform now under way at this medical school.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project was initiated at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UI-Chicago) College of Medicine to link an ongoing longitudinal primary care experience with a didactic curriculum emphasizing generalism. The result of this educational initiative was a more extensive reform of the preclinical curriculum than originally had been planned. The IGC Project catalyzed a critical analysis of the first- and second-year curriculum that continues and that has resulted in the integration of all of the early clinical course work under a single longitudinal curriculum. The IGC Project also established a model for interdisciplinary collaboration in course and curriculum design and expanded the walls of the university to include greater numbers of community-based generalist preceptors. This modestly funded and focused educational initiative had unanticipated and far-reaching implications for educational activities throughout the College of Medicine at UI-Chicago.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at the Medical College of Ohio.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project at the Medical College of Ohio sought to develop and introduce a new required preclinical community-based ambulatory experience and to incorporate existing clinically oriented courses in the first two years into one specific curriculum. The major portion of the IGC was the Introduction to Primary Care (IPC), which consisted of 180 hours of new and restructured curriculum time in the first and second years. It included a community-based ambulatory care experience involving students spending time with community-based preceptors, problem-based group discussions with two generalists of different backgrounds, patient-centered workshops in primary care during both first and second years, an in-depth experience in the first year for students who worked with preceptors for two full days, and the development of a two-day clinical assessment and feedback session just prior to entry into the third clinical year. The IGC Project progressed as planned with two major exceptions. The problem-based group discussions were difficult to coordinate with schedules of two physicians as well as the busy schedules of four students, and were adapted after the initial experience so that at least one preceptor attended each meeting. The second difficulty involved coordinating with other clinical departments to effect a true change in the culture of the institution. Nonetheless, as a result of having the IGC Project at the Medical College of Ohio, the curriculum has been revised to incorporate all of the basic IGC concepts and principles. Other results are the development of objective structured clinical examinations that are held at the end of the first and second years and institution of the primary care block in the third year, which have provided the impetus for the establishment of a clinical skills assessment center.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The proposed Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project at Eastern Virginia Medical School (hereafter Eastern Virginia) intended to encourage students to select generalist disciplines by featuring generalist role models, focusing on patients' perspectives, teaching generalist skills early, providing care to indigent and other populations, and emphasizing students' personal and professional development. To do so, Eastern Virginia proposed that collaborative interdisciplinary groups of faculty plan and oversee the implementation of first- and second-year students' early clinical experiences in generalists' offices as integrated with new and revised first- and second-year courses, the coordination of generalist curricula longitudinally from year one through year four, and the provision of appropriate faculty development. With minor exceptions described, the project was implemented as proposed. The project did have desirable effects, both intended and unexpected. The curricular changes made in the project will remain.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at Marshall University.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project was designed to enhance interest in and support of generalism during the first two years of medical education. The original goals at Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at Marshall University included the design and implementation of a core curriculum, Introduction to Patient Care (IPC), and enhancement of teaching excellence through faculty development. The core curriculum facilitated integration with the basic sciences and early introduction of physical examination skills, which were further developed in longitudinal clinical experiences with mentors. Although it was not originally intended to include basic scientists in the preceptor groups, they became important additions and created additional opportunities for interdisciplinary teaching and reciprocal learning. The mentor program, another well-received and intended curriculum change, evolved from a structured experience to a more flexible component of the curriculum. The program met the requirements of the IGC Project but 53% of the originally intended mentor time was achievable, due to curriculum constraints. Faculty development, another success, was originally intended to target IPC faculty but ultimately became a university-wide effort. The changes implemented as a result of the IGC Project continue to flourish beyond the funding period and have become integral aspects of the curriculum and the medical school.

What did we learn about leadership in medical education? Effecting institutional change through the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project required significant collaboration and cooperation at many levels of leadership to accommodate early clinical experiences in the curriculum. Three elements of institutional change are discussed: the context for desired early clinical experiences in medical education, structural elements required of the IGC Project schools, and leadership within the demonstration schools. Lessons learned from these interdisciplinary projects include the importance of supportive leadership from the top levels, establishing broad buy-in across sectors of the school, creating a team administrative structure that fosters participation by all groups, and central (rather than departmental) administration. The processes needed to establish collaborative leadership and full participation by the generalist departments and cooperation of diverse constituencies, such as basic science faculty, were labor-intensive and required more time to ensure successful program implementation. Uniformly, strong support at the highest levels of the organization, especially the medical schools' deans, was cited as a key element in the success of the IGC Project. An interesting unanticipated outcome of the project was the movement of the interdisciplinary course administration into a central location (dean's office) by the end of the project for all schools. This change may reflect a practical advantage for administration of interdisciplinary programs located at the level of the school or college, rather than housed within departments.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at the University of Colorado School of Medicine

The University of Colorado School of Medicine first considered a longitudinal primary care preceptorship in 1992, when the dean formed the dean's Ad Hoc Committee to launch the "generalist initiative," to include a three-year required longitudinal generalist preceptorship. Being awarded an Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project contract provided the dean's Ad Hoc Committee with the momentum it needed to enact the curriculum. This article describes the IGC Project at the University of Colorado as it was originally proposed and the intended and unintended outcomes over time. Intended outcomes included establishing early continuous clinical experiences as a vital part of the curriculum and increased exposure to primary care, while examples of unintended outcomes were the development of a longitudinal skill and behavior evaluation process and the integration of problem-based learning in the curriculum. The article concludes with a description of what is ahead for the curriculum.

What Did We Learn about the Impact on Studentsʼ Clinical Education?

Analysis of the impact of the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project would be incomplete without discussion of how it affected students' clinical education. This article explores the impact of the IGC Project on medical students' clinical education at the ten IGC schools. The schools typically lacked pre-IGC Project baseline data for comparison, although they all collected data on the impact of the new curriculum on the clinical education of students. Measures included some objective indicators and various subjective measures of the perceptions of the students, faculty, and community preceptors. The impact of curricular innovations at the IGC Project schools on students was immediate as they began to see patients early and continuously as part of their medical education. Students, faculty, and community preceptors who interacted with these students during their third year believed they were "different" because of their participation in the IGC. Not only did the IGC students approach patients with better integrated basic science knowledge, but also a different kind of student arrived at the third year, the traditional beginning of clinical experiences in medical education.

What did we learn about national organizational collaboration at the advisory committee level?

This article provides an overview of the typical roles and tasks of advisory groups in general, followed by a discussion of the roles and tasks the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project Advisory Committee was asked to assume and how these were fulfilled. It analyzes the lessons learned about advisory committees as a result of the IGC Project experience. Key elements of success in fulfilling advisory committee obligations include well-defined expectations, periodic evaluations, and clear communication between project leadership and the members of the advisory committee. In the spirit of lessons learned from the IGC Project, this critique identifies several philosophical and logistic issues that might be considered in the design and implementation of future projects, such as the need to choose committed, high-energy advisory committee members who are willing to perform many complex, time-consuming tasks.

From the primary care organizations consortium's proposal to the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project was one element of an overall federal government strategy designed to promote primary care education. This project, undertaken by the Division of Medicine and Dentistry (DMD), Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was the first large-scale medical education contract initiated by DMD. The IGC Project was based on a model proposed by the Primary Care Organizations Consortium (PCOC). The PCOC thesis was that "if students are to decide to pursue a generalist career they must have the opportunity to be taught by generalists." The PCOC Program required an explicit curriculum focusing on generalist knowledge and skills with an emphasis on technology, in the context of education that required training in ambulatory office-based settings. The PCOC Program specified that responsibility for the program's planning, implementation, and evaluation be shared by the three generalist physician faculties of family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. In implementation of this demonstration project in ten medical schools across the nation, several lessons have been learned relative to enhancement of generalist education. Among these lessons is that seed money targeted to initiate modest change can act as a catalyst and improve the knowledge and skills afforded medical students concerning generalist practice. Limited funds provided over a sufficient period of time can induce schools to undertake significant curricular change.

Implementation of the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project: considerations of structure, funding, and design.

Implementation of the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project involved complex processes that reflect structural, funding, and intervention design considerations. Among structural considerations, the IGC Project benefited from a national structure above the level of the demonstration schools. Governance by committee was highly effective because it harnessed and balanced power. At the national level, governance by committee was enhanced by strong central coordination, and it had a role-modeling effect for governance at the school level. The IGC experience over the seven-year course of the project suggests that it is important to revisit the role of a national advisory committee over time and to revise that role as warranted. Funding considerations, including the importance of funding evaluation for a period of time long enough to measure intended impacts and the length and amount of funding to demonstration schools, are discussed. Prescription of the IGC intervention and the focus on years one and two of medical education are critical design considerations. The authors conclude that the IGC Project used relatively few federal dollars to demonstrate a highly prescribed intervention in a limited number of medical schools toward a clear and limited goal. IGC lessons apply to programs specifically targeting primary care education, but also to other medical school curricular innovations, and perhaps, to a larger framework of multi-site educational interventions.

What did we learn about student and faculty "backlash" to the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project?

There was student and faculty backlash against the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project innovations at all ten schools involved. Students may react strongly to requirements and experiences they find onerous, and often reacted to being "preached at" and being told what they should value and believe. Backlash was not limited to students. A complaint heard in virtually all schools was that the basic science faculty barely had enough time to adequately cover their topics as it was, and now they were being asked to give up time for clinical experiences and topics. Despite the backlash, the authors point out that the vast majority of students endorsed the value of the preceptorship experience and that reaction to the IGC Project did not necessarily translate into negative perceptions of primary care medicine. Each IGC Project school made strategic decisions in response to backlash. Among the various efforts undertaken were enhanced communication and clarification, persistence and "watchful waiting," programmatic changes, and elimination of program components that were not working. These various efforts appear to have paid off, as most schools reported that backlash diminished over time. Lessons learned about backlash against new curricular innovations were that (1) backlash, however defined, is inevitable; (2) communication, coordination, and cooperation are essential; (3) flexibility, compromise, and willingness to change are essential; and (4) "watchful waiting" can be an effective response to some forms of backlash.

What did we learn about the impact on university-based faculty?

Meeting the objectives and requirements of the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project had positive and negative effects on the university-based basic science and clinical faculty, which have been divided into four categories: boundary issues, collaboration, teaching, and development. The specific experiences of two schools, the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine and the Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at Marshall University, are compared against the experiences of the ten schools as documented in the IGC Project external evaluation team's final report. Boundary issues regarded as negative effects of the IGC Project included perceived encroachment on the time devoted to basic science education, loss of the unique identity of the university-based faculty as academicians, and reduced prominence of subspecialist clinical faculty. Effects of the IGC Project in the other areas were, for the most part, positive. The increased collaboration yielded a net benefit to the university-based faculty at large. The clinical faculty experienced more opportunities to teach. Introduction of teacher development programs were of benefit to both clinical and basic science faculty. The other arm of development, professional development, was evidenced by increased stature and promotions of IGC faculty directors. In conclusion, changes within the university-based faculty occurred in stages as faculty realized that the design of the IGC Project enhanced the educational experience of the students.

What did we learn about interdisciplinary collaboration in institutions?

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project significantly advanced collaboration in the development of medical school curricula. As primary care faculty began to work together they encountered and overcame many challenges inherent in this new process. Inclusion of other faculty and departments, as well as dedicated support from the deans' offices, became necessary to the success of the projects. The continuation of successful collaborative projects in the medical school environment requires a common commitment of faculty, students, department chairs, and the dean's office; protected time; and involvement of faculty from other disciplines. This article outlines initial models of collaboration implemented in the IGC Project, followed by a description of the expected and unexpected outcomes of these collaborative efforts, and a discussion of the emergence of new ways of collaborating, with recommendations for successful collaborative efforts.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine (Nova Southeastern) proposed for its IGC Project to match students with community-based generalist physician role models through partnership with a managed care organization (MCO). An unanticipated corporate merger between the initial managed care partner and another health plan resulted in Nova Southeastern's negotiating training partnerships with multiple MCOS: Other program elements that differed from what was originally proposed include provision of an interactive utilization management session at a hospital or skilled nursing facility, rather than a headquarters-based utilization management rotation; combining multiple learning experiences for students within a single MCO session; having a portion of the training take place at field-based sites outside MCO headquarters or after normal business hours (i.e., MCO physician committee meetings); and recruitment of physician mentors through a variety of means and not just through MCOS: The current goals emphasize preparing students to have a working knowledge of managed care principles and practice that can be applied in any medical field and setting. This goal contrasts with the original goal of preparing students for jobs "within" managed care. The IGC Project is viewed at Nova Southeastern as the flagship of interdisciplinary curricular changes in the training of tomorrow's physicians.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project at the University of Wisconsin Medical School: the Generalist Partners Program.

The Generalist Partners Program (GPP) provides all University of Wisconsin Medical School students with a comprehensive generalist core curriculum through early clinical experiences, interactive faculty presentations, and small-group discussions during the first two years of medical school. The GPP is the first component of a comprehensive, longitudinal generalist curriculum offered during all four years of medical education. Faculty members from family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics work together to develop the learning goals and provide the curriculum for the GPP courses. Each of the 145 entering first-year medical students is matched with a community-based physician, the generalist practice partner, and the students participate in early clinical experiences at this site throughout their first two years of medical education. Students' clinical experiences are presented and discussed in case-based small-group sessions led by the school's generalist faculty. A core lecture series on professionalism, communication skills, evidence-based medicine, and the organization of the health care system supplements the early clinical experiences.

How did we make the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project work? National efforts to facilitate success.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project created curricular changes at the participating schools with very little direct financial support. A reconsideration of the process of this national effort reveals many intangible elements that were as critical to the project's successes as were the direct dollars. Those factors included careful attention to the criteria for school selection, specific project requirements that allowed institutional flexibility in project evolution, national assistance in program implementation, early and ongoing national recognition for project schools, and a highly organized, involved, and goal-oriented national organization. This national initiative provides a successful model for future funding of projects in this era of dwindling financial support for medical education innovation.

How did we make the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project work? School-level efforts to facilitate success.

This article examines how the schools funded by the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project handled the process of planning and implementing their proposals; incorporated the IGC requirements as templates for changes in educational programs and organizational infrastructures; and identified key educational and management issues that emerged over time. How collaboration flourished at each IGC school was the central functional ingredient for successful implementation. Shared power and support from the dean were essential for success. The need for excellent channels of communication among all constituencies in the process of curricular change cannot be overemphasized. The most common approach was the addition of the new interdisciplinary clinical curriculum to the existing, usually discipline-based, curriculum, with attempts to establish integrative horizontal connections among concurrent courses in years one and two. The integration, sequencing, and correlating of basic science and clinical material occupied much of the IGC course directors' time in the early stages. Several approaches were used to help ensure a beneficial initial clinical experience for medical students, while accepting that a uniform experience for all students was not attainable or necessary. Encouraging active learning on the part of students was a goal of IGC schools' planning in and of itself. The splash of establishing interdisciplinary communication structures and greater melding of disciplinary cultures that occurred at and among the IGC schools appeared to lead to ripple effects that were recognized within the first year of planning and early implementation.