Baxley, Elizabeth G.

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.