Revolution In Medical Education Research Articles

AI frontiers in oncology: Bridging the gap between humanity and machine.

e13657 Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming medical education and how healthcare services are delivered. Oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) can significantly benefit from the advances of AI including optimized diagnostic capabilities, treatment plans, resource allocation, patient outcomes and much more. The synergy between technology and healthcare is strengthening, heralding opportunities for a revolution in medical education and the broader healthcare industry. We developed an introductory AI workshop and conducted pre- and post-surveys, aiming to inform the design of successive workshops and an AI curriculum, to access knowledge, attitudes and perceived challenges for AI integration into Medical Oncology. Methods: An interactive one-hour workshop was conducted for physicians and faculty of the Hematology and Oncology department. 18 participants, encompassing 6 physicians and 12 other HCPs completed a pre- and post-workshop survey. We evaluated participants' knowledge, opinions, and perceived limitations regarding AI in oncology research, practitioner education, and clinical applications using both open and closed-ended questions, such as multiple-choice and 1-5 Likert scale formats. Results: Survey results included 18 pre-workshop and 17 post-workshop participants, 83% had no formal computer science training: AI knowledge in medicine and awareness of clinical AI applications increased by 100%. Interestingly 24% felt the workshop influenced their view on AI's role in their medical career and better prepared for AI-related challenges. 58% believed AI would assist clinicians within 5 years. However, the belief that AI will play a significant role in their own career did not change after the intervention. Data privacy concerns increased by 25%, while concerns about physician over-reliance on AI decreased by 15%. Notably, 76% were motivated to engage with AI during their future practice after the workshop. Conclusions: The AI initiative significantly enhanced oncology healthcare professionals' understanding and readiness for AI integration, despite most lacking prior formal AI education. A marked increase in AI knowledge and motivation to use AI in practice was noted, although perceptions of AI's impact in their day-to-day work remained unchanged with one workshop, contrasting expert views and predictions. Data privacy concerns rose, but decreased fears of over-reliance on AI indicate a more balanced perspective. These findings stress the need for ongoing AI education in healthcare and underscore the importance of baseline evaluations and feedback for shaping future workshops. Since, AI's integration into society is poised to transform healthcare, an AI curriculum is essential.

A Revolution in Medical Education: Are we ready to apply Artificial Intelligence?

A Revolution in Medical Education: Are we ready to apply Artificial Intelligence?

Early clinical exposure- Why and how?

A revolution in medical education arose in the 20th century and soon led to the establishment of what we may call a “Hopkins Circle.” The result was the release of the famous “Flexner Report” also called as “the Carnegie Foundation Bulletin Number Four” in 1910. Aside from other guidelines, the report laid down the foundation of what we are still implementing today (a century later) ‑ “the pedagogic pattern of training in medical schools.” The distinctive feature of this report is the two years exclusive training on basic sciences (preclinical) followed by 2 years of clinical (patient) exposure. Clearly, the preclinical or the basic training has been siloed from the clinical training in this traditional format. This pattern was needed at that time, and much good came by implementing the same.

Evolution and Revolution in Medical Education: Health System Sciences (HSS)

Evolution and Revolution in Medical Education: Health System Sciences (HSS)

How COVID-19 has pushed us into a medical education revolution.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has had a profound effect on society and higher education in Australia. In just a few weeks, entire courses have been re‐structured and are now delivered online. The need to adapt rapidly has prompted many innovative changes that will ultimately have long‐term benefits for medical education in Australia and New Zealand.

Medical education today: all that glitters is not gold

BackgroundThe medical education system based on principles advocated by Flexner and Osler has produced generations of scientifically grounded and clinically skilled physicians whose collective experiences and contributions have served medicine and patients well. Yet sweeping changes launched around the turn of the millennium have constituted a revolution in medical education. In this article, a critique is presented of the new undergraduate medical education (UME) curricula in relationship to graduate medical education (GME) and clinical practice.DiscussionMedical education has changed and will continue to change in response to scientific advances and societal needs. However, enthusiasm for reform needs to be tempered by a more measured approach to avoid unintended consequences. Movement from novice to master in medicine cannot be rushed. An argument is made for a shoring up of biomedical science in revised curricula with the beneficiaries being nascent practitioners, developing physician-scientists --and the public.ConclusionUnless there is further modification, the new integrated curricula are at risk of produce graduates deficient in the characteristics that have set physicians apart from other healthcare professionals, namely high-level clinical expertise based on a deep grounding in biomedical science and understanding of the pathologic basis of disease. The challenges for education of the best possible physicians are great but the benefits to medicine and society are enormous.

Evolution and Revolution in Medical Education: Technology in the Twenty-First Century, an IAMSE Webcast Audio Seminar Series, Fall 2018.

Evolution and Revolution in Medical Education: Technology in the Twenty-First Century, an IAMSE Webcast Audio Seminar Series, Fall 2018.

Barefoot Doctors and the “Health Care Revolution” in Rural China: A Study Centered on Shandong Province

Barefoot doctors were rural medical personnel trained en masse, whose emergence and development had a particular political, economic, social, and cultural background. Like the rural cooperative medical care system, the barefoot doctor was a well-known phenomenon in the Cultural Revolution. Complicated regional differences and a lack of reliable sources create much difficulty for the study of barefoot doctors and result in differing opinions of their status and importance. Some scholars greatly admire barefoot doctors, whereas others harshly criticize them. This paper explores the rise and development of barefoot doctors based on a case study of Shandong province. I argue that the promotion of barefoot doctors was a consequence of the medical education revolution and an implementation of the Cultural Revolution in rural public health care, which significantly influenced medical services and development in rural areas. First, barefoot doctors played a significant role in accomplishing the first rural health care revolution by providing primary health care to peasants and eliminating endemic and infectious illnesses. Second, barefoot doctors were the agents who integrated Western and Chinese medicines under the direction of the state. As an essential part of the rural cooperative medical system, barefoot doctor personnel grew in number with the system's implementation. After the Cultural Revolution ended, the cooperative medical system began to disintegrate-a process that accelerated in the 1980s until the system's collapse in the wake of the de-collectivization. As a result, the number of barefoot doctors also ran down steadily. In 1985, "barefoot doctor" as a job title was officially removed from Chinese medical profession, demonstrating that its practice was non-universal and unsustainable.

Robots, Augmented Intelligence, and Things Only Humans Can Do

Healthcare TransformationVol. 1, No. 4 Open AccessRobots, Augmented Intelligence, and Things Only Humans Can DoStephen K. Klasko and Editor-in-ChiefStephen K. KlaskoSearch for more papers by this author and Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Dec 2016https://doi.org/10.1089/heat.2016.29028.skkAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail It's been a year of Healthcare Transformation—this is our fourth issue. We wanted to be bold and provocative, and each issue has carried ideas that could save the planet … or at least set healthcare delivery on an optimistic path. We've talked to legends, such as Andrew Young. We've talked to pioneers, such as Bernie Marcus. We've talked to leaders, such as Aneesh Chopra.In this issue, we are honored to have a rare interview with Judy Faulkner, the founder of Epic, the nation's leading (and dominant) provider of electronic health records (EHRs). Whatever you think of EHRs, there is little question that the opportunity is clear: to create the digital concierge, as she calls it, that can flag “rising risk” for thousands of patients at a time. Judy Faulkner's story is pure—the computer science student who found a problem and sought to solve it. She is the only computer scientist and woman running a major health tech company. We are delighted she agreed to imagine the future with us.In addition to Faulkner's story, this issue tackles the intersection of digital technology and human health: EHRs, wearables, high speed genetic analysis. Could your doctor be a robot?I'm going to make a prediction:The future of healthcare will not be found in artificial intelligence (AI), although AI will contribute more than we imagine. The future of healthcare will not be found in augmented reality (AR), although AR will transform our experiences.My prediction is that healthcare will be driven by augmented intelligence that places the locus of meaning back at home—back with the patient—and allows the physician to get back to the role of guide.The one thing human beings can do that no robot can do is be human. We can help patients, families, and communities make sense of what's happening. We can help build meaning, and we can build motivation, even at the end of life.To find the physician of the future requires a revolution in medical education, not incremental reform. For a century, we've selected and trained doctors to be memorization machines. If an applicant to medical school can remember 19 causes of jaundice, that applicant beat the one who could only remember 17. But we don't need that level of memorization. There will be a robot who can remember all signs of an illness, and correlate those signs with personalized genetic markers, with risk profiles, and with evidence-based protocols for treating that patient.If a robot can do that, what we need are doctors who can do what robots cannot do. We need doctors who can answer your question when you ask, “What does this mean?”I often use the case of an obstetrician delivering a baby who unexpectedly has Down syndrome. What the parents need at that moment is not someone who can define Trisomy 21 and run through a list of potential health and developmental challenges for babies with this diagnosis.What the parents need is a doctor who can say, “What this means is that you've delivered a beautiful baby. It means your baby will grow, and love, and be loved. It means we'll find parents with other beautiful babies like yours so that you can talk with them and learn from them what's unique about your child.”Each of the patient advocates profiled in this issue has faced the need to create meaning. Emily Kramer-Golinkoff, Nicole Johnson, and Mark Laabs each face rare, life-threatening, soul-destroying illnesses. None caved in. Each has found meaning disrupting traditional organizational practices and accelerating science.I'm especially struck with Emily's observation: that science is a network of communities. When we engage with patients, we reconfigure those networks. We speed and focus our work.And we find meaning.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byAnalysis of Nurse’s Reflection on Success or Failure of Blood Withdrawal by Vein TypesAugmented Intelligence and NursingNursing Education Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 2 Volume 1Issue 4Dec 2016 Information© Stephen K. Klasko 2016; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Stephen K. Klasko and Editor-in-Chief.Robots, Augmented Intelligence, and Things Only Humans Can Do.Healthcare Transformation.Dec 2016.209-211.http://doi.org/10.1089/heat.2016.29028.skkcreative commons licensePublished in Volume: 1 Issue 4: December 1, 2016Open accessThis Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.PDF download

Do we really want a revolution in medical education?

There has been much recent commentary about a revolution in medical education or indeed the need for such a revolution. The calls for revolution come in different forms and sometimes in different w...

Patient- and family-centered medical education: the next revolution in medical education?

Ideas and Opinions1 July 2014Patient- and Family-Centered Medical Education: The Next Revolution in Medical Education?Steven E. Weinberger, MD, Beverley H. Johnson, BSN, and Debra L. Ness, MSSteven E. Weinberger, MDFrom the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, Maryland; and National Partnership for Women & Families, Washington, DC.Search for more papers by this author, Beverley H. Johnson, BSNFrom the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, Maryland; and National Partnership for Women & Families, Washington, DC.Search for more papers by this author, and Debra L. Ness, MSFrom the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, Bethesda, Maryland; and National Partnership for Women & Families, Washington, DC.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2993 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The concept of health care professionals partnering with patients and families has been increasingly recognized as an essential component of a high-quality, cost-efficient health care system (1, 2). Similarly, there is growing consensus that medical education must change to better support the next generation of clinicians in partnering effectively with patients and families and in collaborating with other health care disciplines (3).Yet, our system of medical education has been slow to embrace the philosophy of patient- and family-centered care and related partnerships with patients and families and to develop a culture in the training environment that stresses their importance. ...

Authentic clinical experiences and depth in systems: toward a 21st century curriculum

In 1952, a midwestern US medical school launched a revolution in medical education, introducing increased learner responsibility, an organ systems-based curriculum, and early student engagement in patient care through a ‘Family Clinic’ programme. This programme, which linked medical students with pregnant women, created a meaningful mini-immersion for these pre-clerkship students as they followed women through pregnancy, delivery and postnatal care, and infants into early childhood. Students attended all appointments, made home visits, and often developed important longitudinal relationships with mother, child and family, actively contributing to these patients’ health care.

Times are Changing: Evolution and Revolution in Medical Education: “Developing Teaching Tools and Measuring Learning Progress in New Ways” An IAMSE Webcast Audio Seminar Series

Times are Changing: Evolution and Revolution in Medical Education: “Developing Teaching Tools and Measuring Learning Progress in New Ways” An IAMSE Webcast Audio Seminar Series

Technology-Assisted Education: Virtual Microscopy-A Step towards Revolution in Medical Education

In developed countries, education of medical students in histology and pathology using microscopes and glass slides are fast becoming obsolete. Virtual microscopy (VM) is a digital procedure which is adopted globally. It provides a realistic alternative to the examination of glass slides using light microscope. This article discusses the merits and demerits of implementation of VM in medical education and updates its upcoming role in various other fields. It is high time that health professionals and medical teachers in India should adopt these technologies to make the learning both meaningful and interesting.

Competency-based training - revolution in medical education in Neurosurgery

In the medical field, the innovation education is to cultivate residents in China, which is an important way to senior medical elite. By analyzing competency-based neurosurgery residency training mode, the training methods for innovative ability of competency-based neurosurgeon are further discussed, for the purpose of reforming the training mode of neurosurgeon, improving creative ability and scientific clinical thinking ability. Key words: Neurosurgery; Talents training; Medical education

The AMA in Health Care Reform: A “Flexner Report” to Improve Pain Medicine Training and Practice

In 1910, Abraham Flexner published his famous “Flexner Report” which in painstaking detail highlighted the deficiencies and variability in medical student education in the United States [1]. The Report began the revolution in medical education mandating standardized, science-based medical student education across the United States. Marking the 100 Anniversary of Flexner, Whitcomb and others call for similar reform in graduate medical education [2]. Consistent with this theme and health care reform, in this issue of Pain Medicine , the Report on the AMA Pain Medicine Summit held in May 2010, virtually 100 years after Flexner, specifically outlines the problems in pain medicine education and training and the negative effects of this on pain care and the public health. Similar to Flexner, the Report advocates sweeping changes in undergraduate and graduate medical education [3]. This call for reform is sorely needed. It is trite to say that medical practice is changing rapidly. Doctors no longer stand far above their patients, superheroes separated in their powers of decision-making and skill by a vast differential in education, training and medical experience. “Doctor knows best” no longer seems true. Today the web and media provide patients and families with immediate access to literature, blogs, illness information, marketing of treatments and physicians, advocacy groups for illnesses, and doctor ratings. However, the medical marketplace is also changing rapidly. The smorgasbord menu of treatments based on consumers' preferences and doctors' decisions is no longer fully available to those who depend on insurance to pay for treatment, moving us towards a two-tiered system of care. The decisions of patients without an inexhaustible health care budget, and their providers, will be increasingly shaped by a menu-driven, tiered approach to treatment based on costs analysis and evidence of effectiveness as well as patients' willingness …

The Revolution in Medical Education—The Role of Simulation

The last major change in medical education was the Flexner Report, over a century ago. Since that time, iterative improvements have occurred to the question-and-answer and "see one, do one, teach one" educational environment. However, multiple external forces-from the 80-hour work week to the emphasis on patient safety to competing demands on student and faculty time-have raised calls for a fundamental revamping of the entire medical educational process. Fortunately, new methods, curricula, and processes, such as Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies or Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills, as well as innovative technologies such as web-based learning and simulation, have provided opportunities to support the revolution in medical education that will be responsive to national priorities, the public concern, and, most of all, to patient safety.

A Cuban revolution in medical education: A commentary on Huish

A Cuban revolution in medical education: A commentary on Huish

Medical Education past, present and future

Medical Education past, present and future

George Engel, M.D. (1913–1999)

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Images in PsychiatryFull AccessGeorge Engel, M.D. (1913–1999)A. Scott Dowling, M.D.A. Scott DowlingSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:1 Nov 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.11.2039AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail George Engel’s basic convictions are best known from his “biopsychosocial model,” a general theory of illness and healing (1–3). When these ideas were forming in the early 1950s, he had already made a name for himself in neurology and medicine through his studies of fainting, delirium, and ulcerative colitis and was beginning the studies that would document the correlation of loss with the onset of a variety of diseases.George Engel’s own story, his biopsychosocial profile, highlights the influence of his family—especially his uncle and distinguished biomedical stalwart, Emanuel Libman, and his identical twin, Frank, also a physician, whose death in 1963 imposed a deeply personal sense of loss and self-awareness (4). Dr. Engel’s profile would reflect the physiological orientation of his basic training and early research with Soma Weiss, Ralph Gerard, and, in Leningrad, Alexander Gurwitsch.Dr. Weiss was his postgraduate mentor at Peter Bent Brigham in 1941. He introduced him to John Romano, M.D., a young psychiatrist; they worked jointly on studies of delirium. He joined with Romano, first tentatively and then wholeheartedly, at Harvard, then in Cincinnati, and finally in Rochester.An early effect of the Romano-Engel combination was a revolution in medical education at Rochester, bringing together the usual medical-psychiatric distinctions, to the mutual advantage of all (5).Psychoanalysis and Dr. Engel’s studies with Theresa Benedek played a part in his broadened syncretic view, providing a concept of symbolic use of the body for the expression of fantasy, conflict, or affect. Unlike Franz Alexander, he appreciated that autonomic functioning could serve as an avenue of symbolic expression, an awareness that led to his own and his colleagues’ studies of disease onset and exacerbation.The Monica case study is probably best remembered by the generations of physicians influenced by George Engel (6, 7). Who can forget the movies of Monica, an infant with esophageal atresia who was fed by gastrostomy, Franz Reichsman (the “friendly doctor”), and George Engel (the “somber stranger”)? We recall her wriggling excitement, beaming smile, and the gastric juice gushing from her gastrostomy tube when Franz approached and her sudden, dramatic quietude, bodily withdrawal, and dry gastric mucosa when George appeared. It was and is a classic case study, followed from 1953 when Monica was 1 year old until Dr. Engel’s death 46 years later. By then Monica was a grandmother, and the family epic—or portions of it—was forever captured on film. From this study came the familiar phrases “conservation-withdrawal,” “giving up–given up,” and “helplessness/hopelessness affect” (8).In the 1980s and early 1990s, biopsychosocial medicine became the watchword of progressive unification of the medical and behavioral sciences, including psychiatry, in a search for etiological and preventive factors in human health and disease (9). Today that goal has been replaced by neuroscience and a return to descriptive psychiatry.In his later years, George Engel never lost his good humor, his bite, or his generosity (10). He loved and was deeply loved by the students and physicians who worked and learned with him. He would appreciate the fact that some of us have taken on a bit of his flintiness, attempt his wry humor, and retain his determination to see our patients as “united, biopsychosocial persons” rather than as “biomedical persons” divorced from their psychological and social dimensions.Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Dowling, 22300 S. Woodland Rd., Beachwood, OH 44122-3067; [email protected] (e-mail). The photograph was provided courtesy of the University of Rochester. George Engel