Gonzalo, Jed D.

Purpose Health systems science (HSS) curricula equip future physicians to improve patient, population, and health systems outcomes (i.e., to become “systems citizens”), but the degree to which medical students internalize this conception of the physician role remains unclear. This study aimed to explore how students envision their future professional identity in relation to the system and identify experiences relevant to this aspect of identity formation. Method Between December 2018 and September 2019, authors interviewed 48 students at 4 U.S. medical schools with HSS curricula. Semistructured interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analyzed iteratively using inductive thematic analysis. Interview questions explored how students understood the health system, systems-related activities they envisioned as future physicians, and experiences and considerations shaping their perspectives. Results Most students anticipated enacting one or more systems-related roles as a future physician, categorized as “bottom-up” efforts enacted at a patient or community level (humanist, connector, steward) or “top-down” efforts enacted at a system or policy level (system improver, system scholar, policy advocate). Corresponding activities included attending to social determinants of health or serving medically underserved populations, connecting patients with team members to address systems-related barriers, stewarding health care resources, conducting quality improvement projects, researching/teaching systems topics, and advocating for policy change. Students attributed systems-related aspirations to experiences beyond HSS curricula (e.g., low-income background; work or volunteer experience; undergraduate studies; exposure to systems challenges affecting patients; supportive classmates, faculty, and institutional culture). Students also described future-oriented considerations promoting or undermining identification with systems-related roles (responsibility, affinity, ability, efficacy, priority, reality, consequences). Conclusions This study illuminates systems-related roles medical students at 4 schools with HSS curricula envisioned as part of their future physician identity and highlights past/present experiences and future-oriented considerations shaping identification with such roles. These findings inform practical strategies to support professional identity formation inclusive of systems engagement.

Medical education exists in the service of patients and communities and must continually calibrate its focus to ensure the achievement of these goals. To close gaps in U.S. health outcomes, medical education is steadily evolving to better prepare providers with the knowledge and skills to lead patient- and systems-level improvements. Systems-related competencies, including high-value care, quality improvement, population health, informatics, and systems thinking, are needed to achieve this but are often curricular islands in medical education, dependent on local context, and have lacked a unifying framework. The third pillar of medical education—health systems science (HSS)—complements the basic and clinical sciences and integrates the full range of systems-related competencies. Despite the movement toward HSS, there remains uncertainty and significant inconsistency in the application of HSS concepts and nomenclature within health care and medical education. In this Article, the authors (1) explore the historical context of several key systems-related competency areas; (2) describe HSS and highlight a schema crosswalk between HSS and systems-related national competency recommendations, accreditation standards, national and local curricula, educator recommendations, and textbooks; and (3) articulate 6 rationales for the use and integration of a broad HSS framework within medical education. These rationales include: (1) ensuring core competencies are not marginalized, (2) accounting for related and integrated competencies in curricular design, (3) providing the foundation for comprehensive assessments and evaluations, (4) providing a clear learning pathway for the undergraduate–graduate–workforce continuum, (5) facilitating a shift toward a national standard, and (6) catalyzing a new professional identity as systems citizens. Continued movement toward a cohesive framework will better align the clinical and educational missions by cultivating the next generation of systems-minded health care professionals.

Background Bedside rounds (BR) have been proposed as an ideal method to promote patient-centred hospital care, but there is substantial variation in their implementation and effects. Our objectives were to describe the implementation of BR in hospital settings and determine their effect on patient-centred outcomes. Methods Data sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Ovid Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception through 28 July 2017. We included experimental studies comparing BR to another form of rounds in a hospital-based setting (ie, medical/surgical unit, intensive care unit (ICU)) and reporting a quantitative patient-reported or objectively measured clinical outcome. We used random effects models to calculate pooled Cohen's d effect size estimates for the patient knowledge and patient experience outcome domains. Results Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, including 20 from adult care (17 non-ICU, 3 ICU), and nine from paediatrics (5 non-ICU, 4 ICU), the majority of which (n=23) were conducted in the USA. Thirteen studies implemented BR with cointerventions as part of a ‘bundle’. Studies most commonly reported outcomes in the domains of patient experience (n=24) and patient knowledge (n=10). We found a small, statistically significant improvement in patient experience with BR (summary Cohen’s d=0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14, p<0.001, I2=56%), but no significant association between BR and patient knowledge (Cohen’s d=0.21, 95% CI −0.004 to –0.43, p=0.054, I2=92%). Risk of bias was moderate to high, with methodological limitations most often relating to selective reporting, low adherence rates and missing data. Conclusions BR have been implemented in a variety of hospital settings, often ‘bundled’ with cointerventions. However, BR have demonstrated limited effect on patient-centred outcomes.

Purpose To describe attitudes of first- and second-year U.S. medical students toward value-added medical education, assess their self-reported desire to participate in value-added activities, and identify potentially modifiable factors influencing their engagement. Method The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of first- and second-year students at nine U.S. medical schools in 2017. Survey items measured students’ attitudes toward value-added medical education (n = 7), desire to participate in value-added activities (n = 20), and factors influencing potential engagement (n = 18). Results Of 2,670 students invited to participate, 1,372 (51%) responded. Seventy-six percent (1,043/1,368) moderately or strongly agreed they should make meaningful contributions to patient care. Students’ desire to participate was highest for patient care activities approximating those traditionally performed by physicians, followed by systems improvement activities and lowest for activities not typically performed by physicians. Factors increasing desire to participate included opportunities to interact with practicing physicians (1,182/1,244; 95%), patients (1,177/1,246; 95%), and residents or fellows (1,166/1,246; 94%). Factors decreasing desire to participate included making changes to the health care system (365/1,227; 30%), interacting with patients via phone or electronic communication (410/1,243; 33%), and lack of curricular time (634/1,233; 51%). Conclusions First- and second-year medical students agree they should add value to patient care, but their desire to participate in value-added activities varies depending on the nature of the tasks. Medical schools may be able to increase students’ desire to participate by enabling face-to-face interactions with patients, embedding students in health care teams, and providing dedicated curricular time.

Educators, policy makers, and health systems leaders are calling for significant reform of undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) programs to meet the evolving needs of the health care system. Nationally, several schools have initiated innovative curricula in both classroom and workplace learning experiences to promote education in health systems science (HSS), which includes topics such as value-based care, health system improvement, and population and public health. However, the successful implementation of HSS curricula across schools is challenged by issues of curriculum design, assessment, culture, and accreditation, among others. In this report of a working conference using thematic analysis of workshop recommendations and experiences from 11 U.S. medical schools, the authors describe seven priority areas for the successful integration and sustainment of HSS in educational programs, and associated challenges and potential solutions. In 2015, following regular HSS workgroup phone calls and an Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium-wide meeting, the authors identified the priority areas: partner with licensing, certifying, and accrediting bodies; develop comprehensive, standardized, and integrated curricula; develop, standardize, and align assessments; improve the UME to GME transition; enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills, and incentives for teachers; demonstrate value added to the health system; and address the hidden curriculum. These priority areas and their potential solutions can be used by individual schools and HSS education collaboratives to further outline and delineate the steps needed to create, deliver, study, and sustain effective HSS curricula with an eye toward integration with the basic and clinical sciences curricula.

Purpose To examine medical student attitudes toward cost-conscious care and whether regional health care intensity is associated with reported exposure to physician role-modeling behaviors related to cost-conscious care. Method Students at 10 U.S. medical schools were surveyed in 2015. Thirty-five items assessed attitudes toward, perceived barriers to and consequences of, and observed physician role-modeling behaviors related to cost-conscious care (using scales for cost-conscious and potentially wasteful behaviors; Cronbach alphas of 0.82 and 0.81, respectively). Regional health care intensity was measured using Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Chronic Illness Care data: ratio of physician visits per decedent compared with the U.S. average, ratio of specialty to primary care physician visits per decedent, and hospital care intensity index. Results Of 5,992 students invited, 3,395 (57%) responded. Ninety percent (2,640/2,932) agreed physicians have a responsibility to contain costs. However, 48% (1,1416/2,960) thought ordering a test is easier than explaining why it is unnecessary, and 58% (1,685/2,928) agreed ordering fewer tests will increase the risk of malpractice litigation. In adjusted linear regression analyses, students in higher-health-care-intensity regions reported observing significantly fewer cost-conscious role-modeling behaviors: For each one-unit increase in the three health care intensity measures, scores on the 21-point cost-conscious role-modeling scale decreased by 4.4 (SE 0.7), 3.2 (0.6), and 3.9 (0.6) points, respectively (all P < .001). Conclusions Medical students endorse barriers to cost-conscious care and encounter conflicting role-modeling behaviors, which are related to regional health care intensity. Enhancing role modeling in the learning environment may help prepare future physicians to address health care costs.

Purpose The authors performed a review of 30 Accelerating Change in Medical Education full grant submissions and an analysis of the health systems science (HSS)-related curricula at the 11 grant recipient schools to develop a potential comprehensive HSS curricular framework with domains and subcategories. Method In phase 1, to identify domains, grant submissions were analyzed and coded using constant comparative analysis. In phase 2, a detailed review of all existing and planned syllabi and curriculum documents at the grantee schools was performed, and content in the core curricular domains was coded into subcategories. The lead investigators reviewed and discussed drafts of the categorization scheme, collapsed and combined domains and subcategories, and resolved disagreements via group discussion. Results Analysis yielded three types of domains: core, cross-cutting, and linking. Core domains included health care structures and processes; health care policy, economics, and management; clinical informatics and health information technology; population and public health; value-based care; and health system improvement. Cross-cutting domains included leadership and change agency; teamwork and interprofessional education; evidence-based medicine and practice; professionalism and ethics; and scholarship. One linking domain was identified: systems thinking. Conclusions This broad framework aims to build on the traditional definition of systems-based practice and highlight the need for medical and other health professions schools to better align education programs with the anticipated needs of the systems in which students will practice. HSS will require a critical investigation into existing curricula to determine the most efficient methods for integration with the basic and clinical sciences.