Mapping the Landscape of Technical Standards: A Nationwide Review of Medical Schools.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Tracey Singer, Lance Madanguit, King T Fok, Catherine E Stauffer, Lisa M Meeks, Christopher J Moreland, Lynn Huang, Benjamin Case, Tara Lagu, Allison Kannam, Carol Haywood
{"title":"Mapping the Landscape of Technical Standards: A Nationwide Review of Medical Schools.","authors":"Tracey Singer, Lance Madanguit, King T Fok, Catherine E Stauffer, Lisa M Meeks, Christopher J Moreland, Lynn Huang, Benjamin Case, Tara Lagu, Allison Kannam, Carol Haywood","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>As a requirement for accreditation, medical schools must have technical standards to outline essential abilities for admission, progression, and graduation. In the absence of national guidance, the AMA published recommendations in 2021 for schools to use \"functional\" technical standards language (focused on achieving outcomes), as opposed to \"organic\" (focused on body functions). This study benchmarks the extent to which U.S. MD- and DO-granting programs have adopted functional language and assesses public availability of technical standards.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In 2023, the authors conducted a national cross-sectional content analysis of technical standards from all fully accredited U.S. MD- and DO-granting medical schools (N = 192) using AMA-endorsed criteria. Three technical standard domains-observation, communication, and motor-were coded as \"functional,\" \"organic,\" or \"mixed,\" generating a composite score for each school. Descriptive analysis was used to identify patterns and associations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 192 eligible schools, 99.4% of MD and 100.0% of DO programs provided their technical standards online; one school did not have technical standards. The mean composite score was 1.24 (95%, CI: [1.02, 1.46], SD = 1.55) out of a possible 6 for fully functional standards. MD programs were more likely to use functional language than DO programs, reflected in the higher overall mean score of 1.43 (SD = 1.59) for MD programs compared to 0.37 (SD = 1.00, P < .001) for DO programs. Schools established in 2010 or after were less likely to have functional technical standards than older schools (P = .01), and schools reporting updates to their technical standards in 2022 or later had slightly higher functional scores than schools with less recent updates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Adoption of functional technical standards is varied. Most medical schools maintain restrictive organic language despite AMA recommendations. Greater alignment with functional standards could enhance inclusion of people with disabilities in medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006135","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: As a requirement for accreditation, medical schools must have technical standards to outline essential abilities for admission, progression, and graduation. In the absence of national guidance, the AMA published recommendations in 2021 for schools to use "functional" technical standards language (focused on achieving outcomes), as opposed to "organic" (focused on body functions). This study benchmarks the extent to which U.S. MD- and DO-granting programs have adopted functional language and assesses public availability of technical standards.

Method: In 2023, the authors conducted a national cross-sectional content analysis of technical standards from all fully accredited U.S. MD- and DO-granting medical schools (N = 192) using AMA-endorsed criteria. Three technical standard domains-observation, communication, and motor-were coded as "functional," "organic," or "mixed," generating a composite score for each school. Descriptive analysis was used to identify patterns and associations.

Results: Of 192 eligible schools, 99.4% of MD and 100.0% of DO programs provided their technical standards online; one school did not have technical standards. The mean composite score was 1.24 (95%, CI: [1.02, 1.46], SD = 1.55) out of a possible 6 for fully functional standards. MD programs were more likely to use functional language than DO programs, reflected in the higher overall mean score of 1.43 (SD = 1.59) for MD programs compared to 0.37 (SD = 1.00, P < .001) for DO programs. Schools established in 2010 or after were less likely to have functional technical standards than older schools (P = .01), and schools reporting updates to their technical standards in 2022 or later had slightly higher functional scores than schools with less recent updates.

Conclusions: Adoption of functional technical standards is varied. Most medical schools maintain restrictive organic language despite AMA recommendations. Greater alignment with functional standards could enhance inclusion of people with disabilities in medicine.

绘制技术标准的景观:对医学院的全国审查。
目的:作为认证的要求,医学院必须有技术标准来概述入学、升学和毕业的基本能力。在缺乏国家指导的情况下,美国医学协会于2021年发布了建议,要求学校使用“功能性”技术标准语言(专注于取得成果),而不是“有机”语言(专注于身体功能)。本研究对美国MD和do授予项目采用功能语言的程度进行了基准测试,并评估了技术标准的公共可用性。方法:在2023年,作者使用ama认可的标准对所有完全认可的美国MD和do授予医学院(N = 192)的技术标准进行了全国性的横断面内容分析。三个技术标准领域——观察、通信和动力——被编码为“功能性”、“有机”或“混合性”,为每个学校生成一个综合分数。描述性分析用于识别模式和关联。结果:在192所符合条件的学校中,99.4%的MD和100.0%的DO项目提供了在线技术标准;一所学校没有技术标准。平均综合评分为1.24 (95%,CI: [1.02, 1.46], SD = 1.55),满分为6分。MD项目比DO项目更倾向于使用函数式语言,MD项目的总体平均得分为1.43 (SD = 1.59),而DO项目的总体平均得分为0.37 (SD = 1.00, P < .001)。2010年或之后建立的学校比老学校更不可能拥有功能技术标准(P = 0.01),而在2022年或之后报告更新技术标准的学校比更新时间较短的学校的功能得分略高。结论:功能性技术标准的采用是多种多样的。尽管美国医学会提出了建议,但大多数医学院仍然保留限制性的有机语言。与功能标准的更大一致性可以加强将残疾人纳入医学。
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
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信