Barbara Barzansky

A consensus-based educational framework and competency set for the discipline of disaster medicine and public health preparedness.

BACKGROUNDnVarious organizations and universities have developed competencies for health professionals and other emergency responders. Little effort has been devoted to the integration of these competencies across health specialties and professions. The American Medical Association Center for Public Health Preparedness and Disaster Response convened an expert working group (EWG) to review extant competencies and achieve consensus on an educational framework and competency set from which educators could devise learning objectives and curricula tailored to fit the needs of all health professionals in a disaster.nnnMETHODSnThe EWG conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed published literature. In addition, after-action reports from Hurricane Katrina and relevant publications recommended by EWG members and other subject matter experts were reviewed for congruencies and gaps. Consensus was ensured through a 3-stage Delphi process.nnnRESULTSnThe EWG process developed a new educational framework for disaster medicine and public health preparedness based on consensus identification of 7 core learning domains, 19 core competencies, and 73 specific competencies targeted at 3 broad health personnel categories.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe competencies can be applied to a wide range of health professionals who are expected to perform at different levels (informed worker/student, practitioner, leader) according to experience, professional role, level of education, or job function. Although these competencies strongly reflect lessons learned following the health system response to Hurricane Katrina, it must be understood that preparedness is a process, and that these competencies must be reviewed continually and refined over time.

Medical Schools in the United States, 2007-2008

THE DATA USED IN THE FOLLOWing tables were derived mainly from the 2007-2008 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) Annual Medical School Questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to the deans of all 126 LCMEaccreditedmedicalschoolswithenrolled studentsandhada100%response.Each questionnairewasreviewedandattempts weremade toverify informationandobtain missing data. Data for years other than2007-2008wereobtainedfromprevious administrations of the LCME Annual Medical School Questionnaire.

Medical Schools in the United States, 2010-2011

THE FOLLOWING TABLES CONtain data derived mainly from the 2010-2011 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) Annual Medical School Questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent in February 2011 to t h e d e a n s o f t h e 1 3 1 L C M E accredited medical schools with enrolled students. There was a 100% response rate. Each questionnaire was reviewed and attempts were made to verify information and obtain missing data. Data for years other than 2010-2011 were obtained from previous LCME Annual Medical School Questionnaires.

Transforming educational accountability in medical ethics and humanities education toward professionalism.

Effectively developing professionalism requires a programmatic view on how medical ethics and humanities should be incorporated into an educational continuum that begins in premedical studies, stretches across medical school and residency, and is sustained throughout ones practice. The Project to Rebalance and Integrate Medical Education National Conference on Medical Ethics and Humanities in Medical Education (May 2012) invited representatives from the three major medical education and accreditation organizations to engage with an expert panel of nationally known medical educators in ethics, history, literature, and the visual arts. This article, based on the views of these representatives and their respondents, offers a future-tense account of how professionalism can be incorporated into medical education.The themes that are emphasized herein include the need to respond to four issues. The first theme highlights how ethics and humanities can provide a response to the dissonance that occurs in current health care delivery. The second theme focuses on how to facilitate preprofessional readiness for applicants through reform of the medical school admission process. The third theme emphasizes the importance of integrating ethics and humanities into the medical school administrative structure. The fourth theme underscores how outcomes-based assessment should reflect developmental milestones for professional attributes and conduct. The participants emphasized that ethics and humanities-based knowledge, skills, and conduct that promote professionalism should be taught with accountability, flexibility, and the premise that all these traits are essential to the formation of a modern professional physician.

Guiding principles for physician reentry programs.

&NA; Physician reentry is defined by the American Medical Association (AMA) as: “A return to clinical practice in the discipline in which one has been trained or certified following an extended period of clinical inactivity not resulting from discipline or impairment.” Physician reentry programs are creating an avenue for physicians who have left medicine in good standing to return to clinical practice. To date, however, programs have developed independently, with little coordination among them. If, as predicted, more physicians seek to reenter practice and more programs are developed in response, the need for information on program outcomes will grow. Valid assessment tools should be developed and shared across reentry programs to assess individual learner outcomes. This discussion paper sets forth Guiding Principles for Physician Reentry Programs as a step toward a more coordinated approach to physician reentry education and training. They serve as a reference for setting priorities and standards for action and, more specifically, offer a foundation from which programs can be planned, evaluated, and monitored. In addition to the guiding principles, an overview of physician reentry is provided including information on reentry physicians and physician reentry programs as well as a definition of physician reentry, reasons for taking leave and returning to clinical practice, and barriers physicians face as they seek to reenter clinical care.

Continuous quality improvement in an accreditation system for undergraduate medical education: Benefits and challenges*

Abstract Background: Accreditation reviews of medical schools typically occur at fixed intervals and result in a summative judgment about compliance with predefined process and outcome standards. However, reviews that only occur periodically may not be optimal for ensuring prompt identification of and remediation of problem areas. Aims: To identify the factors that affect the ability to implement a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process for the interval review of accreditation standards. Methods: Case examples from the United States, Canada, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, were collected and analyzed to determine the strengths and challenges of the CQI processes implemented by a national association of medical schools and several medical school accrediting bodies. The CQI process at a single medical school also was reviewed. Results: A functional CQI process should be focused directly on accreditation standards so as to result in the improvement of educational quality and outcomes, be feasible to implement, avoid duplication of effort and have both commitment and resource support from the sponsoring entity and the individual medical schools. Conclusions: CQI can enhance educational program quality and outcomes, if the process is designed to collect relevant information and the results are used for program improvement.

Medical Schools in the United States, 2011-2012

THE FOLLOWING TABLES CONtain data derived mainly from the 2011-2012 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) Annual Medical School Questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent in February 2012 to the deans of the 134 LCME-accredited medical schools with enrolled students. There was a 100% response rate. Each questionnaire was reviewed and attempts were made to verify information and obtain missing data. Data for years other than 2011-2012 were obtained from previous LCME Annual Medical School Questionnaires.

Medical Schools in the United States, 2014-2015

Thefollowing tables contain data derivedmainly from the 2014-2015 Liaison Committee onMedical Education (LCME)AnnualMedical SchoolQuestionnairePart II. The questionnaire was sent in February 2015 to the deans of the 141LCME-accreditedmedical schoolswithenrolled students.Therewasa100%responserate.Eachquestionnairewas reviewed and attempts were made to verify information and obtainmissingdata. Data for years other than2014-2015were obtained from previous LCME Annual Medical School Questionnaires or from the source, as cited. Author Affiliations:Medical Education Group, AmericanMedical Association, Chicago, Illinois. Corresponding Author: Barbara Barzansky, PhD, Division of Undergraduate Medical Education, AmericanMedical Association, 330 NWabash Ave, Chicago, IL 60611 (barbara.barzansky@ama-assn.org). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. Funding/Support: This research was funded solely by the AmericanMedical Association, which employs Dr Barzansky andMs Etzel.

Medical Education in Prepaid Settings Synthesis of the Literature Using the Case Survey Method

Reports in the literature that describe the use of prepaid settings for medical education are typically anecdotal. Synthesis of this information was accomplished using the case survey method, an approach that uses a common conceptual framework to combine case studies. A total of 18 references published between 1973 and 1986, describing the educational activities in 12 HIMOs, were identified. Each reference was analyzed using a checklist composed offorced-choice items grouped into five categories: classification of HMO, type and extent of teaching program, organizational relatioinship between HMO and medical school, scholarly focus of HMO, and involvement of trainees in monitoring resource utilization. Many gaps were identified in the literature, especially those related to the mechanisms of financing the educational program and the types of organizational linkages between the medical school and the HMO. These gaps indicate the need for more systematic research to aid planners offuture educational programs.

Medical schools in the United States, 2013-2014.

Thefollowingtablescontaindata thatarederivedmainly from the 2013-2014 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) Annual Medical School Questionnaire Part II. The questionnaire was sent in February 2014 to the deans of the 140 LCME-accredited medical schools with enrolled students.Therewasa 100%response rate.Eachquestionnaire was reviewed and attempts weremade to verify information and obtain missing data. Data for years other than 2013-2014 were obtained from previous LCME Annual Medical School Questionnaires. Author Affiliations:Division of UndergraduateMedical Education, American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois. Corresponding Author: Barbara Barzansky, PhD, Division of Undergraduate Medical Education, AmericanMedical Association, 330 NWabash Ave, Ste 39300, Chicago, IL 60611 (barbara.barzansky@ama-assn.org). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. Funding/Support: This research was funded solely by the AmericanMedical Association, which employs Dr Barzansky andMs Etzel.