Dekhtyar, Michael

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.

Purpose To examine validity evidence for a standardized patient scenario assessing medical students’ ability to promote value using patient-centered communication (in response to a patient requesting an unnecessary test) and to explore the potential effect of various implementation and curricular factors on student scores. Method Third-year medical students (N = 516) from 5 U.S. MD-granting medical schools completed the communication scenario between 2014 and 2017 as part of a larger objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Centralized raters assessed performance using an 11-item checklist. The authors collected multiple sources of validity evidence. Results The mean checklist score was 0.85 (standard deviation 0.09). Interrater reliability for checklist scores was excellent (0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.78–0.93). Generalizability and Phi-coefficients were, respectively, 0.65 and 0.57. Scores decreased as the number of OSCE stations increased ( r = −0.15, P = .001) and increased when they were used for summative purposes ( r = 0.26, P < .001). Scores were not associated with curricular time devoted to high-value care ( r = 0.02, P = .67) and decreased when more clerkships were completed before the assessment ( r = −0.12, P = .006). Conclusions This multisite study provides validity evidence supporting the use of scenario scores to assess the ability of medical students to promote value in clinical encounters using patient-centered communication. Findings illuminate the potential effect of OSCE structure and purpose on student performance and suggest clerkship learning experiences may not reinforce what students are taught in the formal curriculum regarding high-value care. Devoting more time to the topic appears insufficient to counteract this erosion.

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.

Purpose To describe the breadth of strategies U.S. medical schools use to promote medical student well-being. Method In October 2016, 32 U.S. medical schools were surveyed about their student well-being initiatives, resources, and infrastructure; grading in preclinical courses; and learning communities. Results Twenty-seven schools (84%) responded. Sixteen (59%) had a student well-being curriculum, with content scheduled during regular curricular hours at most (13/16; 81%). These sessions were held at least monthly (12/16; 75%), and there was a combination of optional and mandatory attendance (9/16; 56%). Most responding schools offered a variety of emotional/spiritual, physical, financial, and social well-being activities. Nearly one-quarter had a specific well-being competency (6/27; 22%). Most schools relied on participation rates (26/27; 96%) and student satisfaction (22/27; 81%) to evaluate effectiveness. Sixteen (59%) assessed student well-being from survey data, and 7 (26%) offered students access to self-assessment tools. Other common elements included an individual dedicated to overseeing student well-being (22/27; 82%), a student well-being committee (22/27; 82%), pass/fail grading in preclinical courses (20/27; 74%), and the presence of learning communities (22/27; 81%). Conclusions Schools have implemented a broad range of well-being curricula and activities intended to promote self-care, reduce stress, and build social support for medical students, with variable resources, infrastructure, and evaluation. Implementing dedicated well-being competencies and rigorously evaluating their impact would help ensure appropriate allocation of time and resources and determine if well-being strategies are making a difference. Strengthening evaluation is an important next step in alleviating learner distress and ultimately improving student well-being.

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 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.