"Finding My Piece in That Puzzle": A Qualitative Study Exploring How Medical Students at Four U.S. Schools Envision Their Future Professional Identity in Relation to Health Systems.

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.

The Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium: Key Drivers of Transformative Change.

The American Medical Association's (AMA's) Accelerating Change in Medical Education (ACE) initiative, launched in 2013 to foster advancements in undergraduate medical education, has led to the development and scaling of innovations influencing the full continuum of medical training. Initial grants of $1 million were awarded to 11 U.S. medical schools, with 21 schools joining the consortium in 2016 at a lower funding level. Almost one-fifth of all U.S. MD- and DO-granting medical schools are represented in the 32-member consortium. In the first 5 years, the consortium medical schools have delivered innovative educational experiences to approximately 19,000 medical students, who will provide a potential 33 million patient care visits annually. The core initiative objectives focus on competency-based approaches to medical education and individualized pathways for students, training in health systems science, and enhancing the learning environment. At the close of the initial 5-year grant period, AMA leadership sought to catalogue outputs and understand how the structure of the consortium may have influenced its outcomes. Themes from qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews as well as other sources of evidence aligned with the 4 elements of the transformational leadership model (inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized influence) and can be used to inform future innovation interventions. For example, the ACE initiative has been successful in stimulating change at the consortium schools and propagating those innovations broadly, with outputs involving medical students, faculty, medical schools, affiliated health systems, and the broader educational landscape. In summary, the ACE initiative has fostered a far-reaching community of innovation that will continue to drive change across the continuum of medical education.

Addressing the Social Determinants of Health in Undergraduate Medical Education Curricula: A Survey Report.

PURPOSE: Social determinants of health (SDH) are recognized as important factors that affect health and well-being. Medical schools are encouraged to incorporate the teaching of SDH. This study investigated the level of commitment to teaching SDH; learning objectives/goals regarding student knowledge, skills, and attitudes; location in the curriculum and teaching strategies; and perceived barriers to teaching SDH. METHODS: A team from the American Medical Association's Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium developed a 23-item inventory survey to document consortium school SDH curricula. The 32 consortium schools were invited to participate. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (94%) schools responded. Most respondents indicated the teaching of SDH was low priority (10, 34%) or high priority (12, 41%). Identified learning objectives/goals for student knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding SDH were related to the importance of students developing the ability to identify and address SDH and recognizing SDH as being within the scope of physician practice. Curricular timing and teaching strategies suggested more SDH education opportunities were offered in the first and second undergraduate medical education years. Barriers to integrating SDH in curricula were identified: addressing SDH is outside the realm of physician responsibility, space in curriculum is limited, faculty lack knowledge and skills to teach material, and concepts are not adequately represented on certifying examinations. CONCLUSION: Despite the influence of SDH on individual and population health, programs do not routinely prioritize SDH education on par with basic or clinical sciences. The multitude of learning objectives and goals related to SDH can be achieved by increasing the priority level of SDH and employing better teaching strategies in all years. The discordance between stated objectives/goals and perceived barriers, as well as identification of the variety of strategies utilized to teach SDH during traditional "preclinical" years, indicates curricular areas in need of attention.

Health Systems Science in Medical Education: Unifying the Components to Catalyze Transformation.

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.

Development of Learning Objectives to Guide Enhancement of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Curricula in Undergraduate Medical Education.

Phenomenon: Chronic disease is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. With an increase in the demand for healthcare and rising costs related to chronic care, physicians need to be better trained to address chronic disease at various stages of illness in a collaborative and cost-effective manner. Specific and measurable learning objectives are key to the design and evaluation of effective training, but there has been no consensus on chronic disease learning objectives appropriate to medical student education. Approach: Wagner's Chronic Care Model (CCM) was selected as a theoretical framework to guide development of an enhanced chronic disease prevention and management (CDPM) curriculum. Findings of a literature review of CDPM competencies, objectives, and topical statements were mapped to each of the six domains of the CCM to understand the breadth of existing learning topics within each domain. At an in-person meeting, medical educators prepared a survey for the modified Delphi approach. Attendees identified 51 possible learning objectives from the literature review mapping, rephrased the CCM domains as competencies, constructed possible CDPM learning objectives for each competency with the goal of reaching multi-institutional consensus on a limited number of CDPM learning objectives that would be feasible for institutions to use to guide enhancement of medical student curricula related to CDPM. After the meeting, the group developed a survey which included 39 learning objectives. In the study phase of the modified Delphi approach, 32 physician CDPM experts and educators completed an online survey to prioritize the top 20 objectives. The next step occurred at a CDPM interest group in-person meeting with the goal of identifying the top 10 objectives. Findings: The CCM domains were reframed as the following competencies for medical student education: patient self-care management, decision support, clinical information systems, community resources, delivery systems and teams, and health system practice and improvement. Eleven CDPM learning objectives were identified within the six competencies that were most important in developing curriculum for medical students. Insights: These learning objectives cut across education on the prevention and management of individual chronic diseases and frame chronic disease care as requiring the health system science competencies identified in the CCM. They are intended to be used in combination with traditional disease-specific pathophysiology and treatment objectives. Additional efforts are needed to identify specific curricular strategies and assessment tools for each learning objective.

The American Medical Association Medical Education Innovation Challenge: Incorporating the Student Voice Into Medical Education Transformation.

PROBLEM: Medical education needs to evolve to continue producing physicians who are able to meet the needs of diverse patient populations. Students can be a unique source of ideas about medical education transformation. APPROACH: In the fall of 2015, the authors created the American Medical Association Medical Education Innovation Challenge, an incentive-based competition for teams of two to four students. The challenge called for teams to "turn medical education on its head" by proposing a change to some aspect of medical education that would better prepare students to meet the health care needs of the future. OUTCOMES: Teams submitted 154 proposals. Themes from the winning teams and those that received an honorable mention included innovative uses of technology, creating physical spaces to pursue solutions to health care problems, wellness education, and longitudinal learning experiences around health equity and advocacy. The authors invited all teams to submit an abstract of their proposal to be published in an abstract book. The four winning teams and the 24 teams that received an honorable mention and submitted an abstract were surveyed to assess the impact of the challenge. Fifteen teams (54%) responded. Ten of those teams (67%) were implementing their idea or a related innovation to some degree. NEXT STEPS: The American Medical Association continues to run a wide variety of innovation challenges (e.g., Healthier Nation Innovation Challenge, Health Care Interoperability & Innovation Challenge) that draw in diverse stakeholders to solve problems in medical education and the health care system more broadly.

Medical School Strategies to Address Student Well-Being: A National Survey.

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.

How Can Medical Students Add Value? Identifying Roles, Barriers, and Strategies to Advance the Value of Undergraduate Medical Education to Patient Care and the Health System.

PURPOSE: As health systems evolve, the education community is seeking to reimagine student roles that combine learning with meaningful contributions to patient care. The authors sought to identify potential stakeholders regarding the value of student work, and roles and tasks students could perform to add value to the health system, including key barriers and associated strategies to promote value-added roles in undergraduate medical education. METHOD: In 2016, 32 U.S. medical schools in the American Medical Association's (AMA's) Accelerating Change in Education Consortium met for a two-day national meeting to explore value-added medical education; 121 educators, systems leaders, clinical mentors, AMA staff leadership and advisory board members, and medical students were included. A thematic qualitative analysis of workshop discussions and written responses was performed, which extracted key themes. RESULTS: In current clinical roles, students can enhance value by performing detailed patient histories to identify social determinants of health and care barriers, providing evidence-based medicine contributions at the point-of-care, and undertaking health system research projects. Novel value-added roles include students serving as patient navigators/health coaches, care transition facilitators, population health managers, and quality improvement team extenders. Six priority areas for advancing value-added roles are student engagement, skills, and assessments; balance of service versus learning; resources, logistics, and supervision; productivity/billing pressures; current health systems design and culture; and faculty factors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a starting point for collaborative work to positively impact clinical care and medical education through the enhanced integration of value-added medical student roles into care delivery systems.

Medical Student Perceptions of the Learning Environment: Learning Communities Are Associated With a More Positive Learning Environment in a Multi-Institutional Medical School Study.

PURPOSE: Many medical schools have implemented learning communities (LCs) to improve the learning environment (LE) for students. The authors conducted this study to determine whether a relationship exists between medical student perceptions of the LE and presence of LCs during the preclerkship years. METHOD: Students from 24 schools participating in the American Medical Association Learning Environment Study completed the 17-item Medical Student Learning Environment Survey (MSLES) at the end of their first and second years of medical school between 2011 and 2013. Mean total MSLES scores and individual item scores at the end of the first and second years in schools with and without LCs were compared with t tests, and effect sizes were calculated. Mixed-effects longitudinal models were used to control for student demographics and random school and student effects on the relationship between LC status and MSLES score. RESULTS: A total of 4,980 students (81% of 6,148 matriculants) from 18 schools with LCs and 6 without LCs participated. Mean [SD] MSLES scores were significantly higher in LC schools compared with non-LC schools at the end of year one (3.72 [0.44] versus 3.57 [0.43], P < .001) and year two (3.69 [0.49] versus 3.42 [0.54], P < .001). The effect size increased from 0.35 (small) at the end of year one to 0.53 (medium) at the end of year two. CONCLUSIONS: This large multi-institutional cohort study found that LCs at medical schools were associated with more positive perceptions of the LE by preclerkship students.

Medical Student Perceptions of the Learning Environment at the End of the First Year: A 28-Medical School Collaborative.

PURPOSE: Accreditation and professional organizations have recognized the importance of measuring medical students' perceptions of the learning environment, which influences well-being and professional competency development, to optimize professional development. This study was conducted to explore interactions between students' perceptions of the medical school learning environment, student demographic variables, and students' professional attributes of empathy, coping, tolerance of ambiguity, and patient-centeredness to provide ideas for improving the learning environment. METHOD: Twenty-eight medical schools at 38 campuses recruited 4,664 entering medical students to participate in the two-cohort longitudinal study (2010-2014 or 2011-2015). The authors employed chi-square tests and analysis of variance to examine the relationship between Medical School Learning Environment Survey (MSLES) scores and student characteristics. The authors used mixed-effects models with random school and campus effects to test the overall variances accounted for in MSLES scores at the end of the first year of medical school. RESULTS: Student attributes and demographic characteristics differed significantly across schools but accounted for only 2.2% of the total variance in MSLES scores. Medical school campus explained 15.6% of the variance in MSLES scores. CONCLUSIONS: At year's end, students' perceptions toward the learning environment, as reported on the MSLES, differed significantly according to the medical school campus where they trained. Further studies are needed to identify specific factors, such as grading policies, administrative support, and existence of learning communities, which may influence perceptions of the learning environment at various schools. Identifying such variables would assist schools in developing a positive learning environment.