First, do no harm: impact of the transition to an integrated curriculum on medical knowledge acquisition of the transitional cohort.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kirstin Nackers, Raquel Tatar, Eileen Cowan, Laura Zakowski, Katharina Stewart, Sarah Ahrens, Laura Jacques, Shobhina Chheda
{"title":"First, do no harm: impact of the transition to an integrated curriculum on medical knowledge acquisition of the transitional cohort.","authors":"Kirstin Nackers,&nbsp;Raquel Tatar,&nbsp;Eileen Cowan,&nbsp;Laura Zakowski,&nbsp;Katharina Stewart,&nbsp;Sarah Ahrens,&nbsp;Laura Jacques,&nbsp;Shobhina Chheda","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2021.2007561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Many medical schools are moving toward integrated curricula in response to the 2010 Carnegie report. However, there is often apprehension that student performance on standard assessment metrics of medical knowledge acquisition could suffer during the transition period. Therefore, we sought to analyze the impact of curriculum redesign on the medical knowledge acquisition of the transitional cohort, as measured by NBME subject exam scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Legacy curriculum followed a standard 2 + 2 medical school educational model, including traditional, department-based, third-year clinical clerkships. In the new ForWard curriculum, students enter clinical rotations one semester earlier, and those core clinical experiences are organized within four integrated blocks combining traditional clerkship specialties. This retrospective program evaluation compares NBME subject exam scores between the final cohort of Legacy third-year students (2016-17) and first cohort of ForWard students (2018) for the Adult Ambulatory Medicine, Medicine, Neurology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, and Surgery exams.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NBME subject exam mean scores ranged from 75.5-79.4 for the Legacy cohort and 74.9-78.7 for the ForWard cohort, with no statistically significant differences in scores identified for each individual exam analyzed. Results remained constant when controlled for student demographic variables.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Faculty and students may worry about impacts to the transitional cohort during curriculum redesign, however our results suggest no substantive negative effects to acquisition of medical knowledge during transition to an integrated curriculum. Further monitoring is necessary to examine whether medical knowledge acquisition remains stable or changes after the integrated curriculum is established.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8635576/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education Online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.2007561","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: Many medical schools are moving toward integrated curricula in response to the 2010 Carnegie report. However, there is often apprehension that student performance on standard assessment metrics of medical knowledge acquisition could suffer during the transition period. Therefore, we sought to analyze the impact of curriculum redesign on the medical knowledge acquisition of the transitional cohort, as measured by NBME subject exam scores.

Methods: The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Legacy curriculum followed a standard 2 + 2 medical school educational model, including traditional, department-based, third-year clinical clerkships. In the new ForWard curriculum, students enter clinical rotations one semester earlier, and those core clinical experiences are organized within four integrated blocks combining traditional clerkship specialties. This retrospective program evaluation compares NBME subject exam scores between the final cohort of Legacy third-year students (2016-17) and first cohort of ForWard students (2018) for the Adult Ambulatory Medicine, Medicine, Neurology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, and Surgery exams.

Results: NBME subject exam mean scores ranged from 75.5-79.4 for the Legacy cohort and 74.9-78.7 for the ForWard cohort, with no statistically significant differences in scores identified for each individual exam analyzed. Results remained constant when controlled for student demographic variables.

Discussion: Faculty and students may worry about impacts to the transitional cohort during curriculum redesign, however our results suggest no substantive negative effects to acquisition of medical knowledge during transition to an integrated curriculum. Further monitoring is necessary to examine whether medical knowledge acquisition remains stable or changes after the integrated curriculum is established.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

第一,不伤害:过渡到综合课程对过渡队列医学知识获取的影响。
导言:为响应2010年卡内基报告,许多医学院正朝着整合课程的方向发展。然而,人们常常担心学生在医学知识获取的标准评估指标上的表现在过渡时期可能会受到影响。因此,我们试图通过NBME学科考试成绩来分析课程重新设计对过渡队列医学知识获取的影响。方法:威斯康星大学医学与公共卫生学院的课程采用标准的2 + 2医学院教育模式,包括传统的、以院系为基础的三年级临床见习。在新的ForWard课程中,学生提前一个学期进入临床轮转,这些核心临床经验被组织在四个整合的模块中,结合了传统的见习专业。本回顾性项目评估比较了2016- 2017年最后一组Legacy三年级学生和2018年第一组ForWard学生在成人门诊医学、内科、神经病学、妇产科、儿科学、精神病学和外科考试中的NBME科目考试成绩。结果:遗留队列的NBME学科考试平均得分为75.5-79.4分,前沿队列为74.9-78.7分,各单项考试的得分分析无统计学显著差异。在控制了学生人口统计变量后,结果保持不变。讨论:教师和学生可能会担心课程重新设计对过渡群体的影响,然而我们的研究结果表明,在向综合课程过渡的过程中,对医学知识的获取没有实质性的负面影响。有必要进一步监测,以检查在建立综合课程后,医学知识获取是否保持稳定或发生变化。
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
Medical Education Online
Medical Education Online EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education Online is an open access journal of health care education, publishing peer-reviewed research, perspectives, reviews, and early documentation of new ideas and trends. Medical Education Online aims to disseminate information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals. Manuscripts may address any aspect of health care education and training, including, but not limited to: -Basic science education -Clinical science education -Residency education -Learning theory -Problem-based learning (PBL) -Curriculum development -Research design and statistics -Measurement and evaluation -Faculty development -Informatics/web
×
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