Supporting Patient Involvement in U.S. Medical Education Through Changes in Accreditation.

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Sean Tackett, Yvonne Steinert, Jeffrey L Jackson, Gayle Johnson Adams, Darcy A Reed, Cynthia R Whitehead, Scott M Wright
{"title":"Supporting Patient Involvement in U.S. Medical Education Through Changes in Accreditation.","authors":"Sean Tackett, Yvonne Steinert, Jeffrey L Jackson, Gayle Johnson Adams, Darcy A Reed, Cynthia R Whitehead, Scott M Wright","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2024.2439850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For over half of a century, there have been calls for greater patient and community involvement in U.S. medical education. Accrediting agencies, as the regulatory authorities for medical education, develop policies that impact every program in the U.S.; they have the ability to support patient involvement across the medical education system. In this article, we first review the requirements of U.S. accrediting agencies for undergraduate and graduate medical education to involve patients in educational programs. While agencies have patient members on their committees, they do little to encourage patient involvement through their standards or procedures. We then describe opportunities for accreditation to support patient involvement across teaching and learning activities, curriculum design and evaluation, policymaking and governance, and scholarly endeavors. We link these opportunities to specific standards that could be revised or have their data reporting requirements adjusted. U.S. agencies could also follow the examples of their counterparts outside the U.S., which have created new standards to encourage patient involvement. Ensuring patient representation on educational programs' governing and policymaking bodies is one among many immediate actions that could be taken by accrediting authorities to encourage system-level reforms. As medical school and residency training represent the beginnings of decades of practice for physicians, properly involving patients would maximize benefits for learners, educators, and society.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2024.2439850","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For over half of a century, there have been calls for greater patient and community involvement in U.S. medical education. Accrediting agencies, as the regulatory authorities for medical education, develop policies that impact every program in the U.S.; they have the ability to support patient involvement across the medical education system. In this article, we first review the requirements of U.S. accrediting agencies for undergraduate and graduate medical education to involve patients in educational programs. While agencies have patient members on their committees, they do little to encourage patient involvement through their standards or procedures. We then describe opportunities for accreditation to support patient involvement across teaching and learning activities, curriculum design and evaluation, policymaking and governance, and scholarly endeavors. We link these opportunities to specific standards that could be revised or have their data reporting requirements adjusted. U.S. agencies could also follow the examples of their counterparts outside the U.S., which have created new standards to encourage patient involvement. Ensuring patient representation on educational programs' governing and policymaking bodies is one among many immediate actions that could be taken by accrediting authorities to encourage system-level reforms. As medical school and residency training represent the beginnings of decades of practice for physicians, properly involving patients would maximize benefits for learners, educators, and society.

半个多世纪以来,人们一直在呼吁让患者和社区更多地参与到美国医学教育中来。作为医学教育的监管机构,评审机构制定的政策影响着美国的每一个项目;它们有能力支持整个医学教育体系中的患者参与。在本文中,我们将首先回顾美国本科和研究生医学教育评审机构对患者参与教育项目的要求。虽然这些机构的委员会中有患者成员,但他们在通过标准或程序鼓励患者参与方面做得很少。随后,我们介绍了评审机构支持患者参与教学活动、课程设计和评估、决策和管理以及学术活动的机会。我们将这些机会与可以修订或调整数据报告要求的具体标准联系起来。美国机构也可效仿美国以外的同行,制定新标准以鼓励患者参与。确保患者在教育项目管理和决策机构中的代表性,是评审机构为鼓励系统层面改革而可以立即采取的众多行动之一。医学院和住院医师培训代表着医生数十年执业生涯的开端,让患者适当参与其中将为学习者、教育者和社会带来最大益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信