Curriculum Changes and Trends 2010-2020: A Focused National Review Using the AAMC Curriculum Inventory and the LCME Annual Medical School Questionnaire Part II.

Medical school curricula have evolved from 2010 to 2020. Numerous pressures and influences affect medical school curricula, including those from external sources, academic medical institutions, clinical teaching faculty, and undergraduate medical students. Using data from the AAMC Curriculum Inventory and the LCME Annual Medical School Questionnaire Part II, the nature of curriculum change is illuminated. Most medical schools are undertaking curriculum change, both in small cycles of continuous quality improvement and through significant change to curricular structure and content. Four topic areas are explored: cost consciousness, guns and firearms, nutrition, and opioids and addiction medicine. The authors examine how these topic areas are taught and assessed, where in the curriculum they are located, and how much time is dedicated to them in relation to the curriculum as a whole. When examining instructional methods overall, notable findings include (1) the decrease of lecture, although lecture remains the most used instructional method, (2) the increase of collaborative instructional methods, (3) the decrease of laboratory, and (4) the prevalence of clinical instructional methods in academic levels 3 and 4. Regarding assessment methods overall, notable findings include (1) the recent change of the USMLE Step 1 examination to a pass/fail reporting system, (2) a modest increase in narrative assessment, (3) the decline of practical labs, and (4) the predominance of institutionally developed written/computer-based examinations and participation. Among instructional and assessment methods, the most used methods tend to cluster by academic level. It is critical that faculty development evolves alongside curricula. Continued diversity in the use of instructional and assessment methods is necessary to adequately prepare tomorrow's physicians. Future research into the life cycle of a curriculum, as well optional curriculum content, is warranted.

Assessment of Addiction Medicine Training in Family Medicine Residency Programs: A CERA Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Substance use disorder (SUD) is a widespread problem but physicians may feel inadequately prepared to provide addiction care. We sought to assess current addiction medicine curricula in US family medicine residencies (FMRs) and evaluate barriers to improving or implementing addiction medicine curricula. METHODS: Questions regarding addiction medicine training were added to the December 2015 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) survey to US FMR program directors to evaluate each FMR's curriculum, potential workforce production, perceived barriers to improving or implementing curricula and faculty training in addiction medicine. RESULTS: Of 461 FMR directors, 227 (49.2%) responded; 28.6% reported a required addiction medicine curricula. Regional variations of having a required curriculum ranged from 41.3% in the Northeast to 20.0% in the South (P=0.07). Of residencies, 31.2% had at least one graduate obtain a buprenorphine prescription waiver in the past year and 8.6% had at least one graduate pursue an addiction medicine fellowship in the past 5 years. Lack of faculty expertise was the most commonly cited barrier to having a curriculum, with only 36.2% of programs having at least one buprenorphine waivered faculty member, 9.4% an addiction medicine board certified faculty, and 5.5% a fellowship trained faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Few FMRs have addiction medicine curricula and most graduates do not seek additional training. Multifaceted efforts, including developing model national curricula, training existing faculty, and recruiting addiction trained faculty, may improve addiction medicine training in family medicine residencies to better address the growing SUD epidemic.

Assessing Differences in the Availability of Opioid Addiction Therapy Options: Rural Versus Urban and American Indian Reservation Versus Nonreservation.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a large public health problem in the United States. Residents of rural areas and American Indian (AI) reservation/trust lands represent traditionally underserved populations with regard to substance-use disorder therapy. PURPOSE: Assess differences in the number of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) facilities and physicians with Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) waivers for rural versus urban, and AI reservation/trust land versus non-AI reservation/trust land areas in Washington State. METHODS: The unit of analysis was the ZIP code. The dependent variables were the number of OAT facilities and DATA-waivered physicians in a region per 10,000 residents aged 18-64 in a ZIP code. A region was defined as a ZIP code and its contiguous ZIP codes. The independent variables were binary measures of whether a ZIP code was classified as rural versus urban, or AI reservation/trust land versus non-AI reservation/trust land. Zero-inflated negative binomial regressions with robust standard errors were estimated. RESULTS: The number of OAT clinics in a region per 10,000 ZIP-code residents was significantly lower in rural versus urban areas (P = .002). This did not differ significantly between AI reservation/trust land and non-AI reservation/trust land areas (P = .79). DATA-waivered physicians in a region per 10,000 ZIP-code residents was not significantly different between rural and urban (P = .08), or AI reservation/trust land versus non-AI reservation/trust land areas (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the potential for Washington State residents of rural and AI reservation areas to receive OAT is similar to that of residents outside of those areas; however, difficulties in accessing therapy may remain, highlighting the importance of expanding health care insurance and providing support for DATA-waivered physicians.