What is it about?
The 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
Featured Image
Photo by Martin Brosy on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Medical 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.
Perspectives
Unless 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.
Dr. Louis Maximilian Buja
McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Medical education today: all that glitters is not gold, BMC Medical Education, April 2019, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-019-1535-9.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
