Cracking the Nut on LCME Standard 8.7: Innovations to Ensure Comparability Across Geographically Distributed Campuses.

Problem: A large state university in the southeastern United States and state Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) collaborated to establish branch campuses to increase clinical capacity for medical student education. Prior to formally becoming branch campuses, two AHEC sites had established innovative curricular structures different than the central campus. These sites worked with the central campus as clinical training sites. Upon becoming formal campuses, their unique clinical experiences were maintained. A third campus established a curricular structure identical to the central campus. Little exists in the literature regarding strategies that ensure comparability yet allow campuses to remain unique and innovative. Intervention: We implemented a balanced matrix organizational structure, well-defined communication plan, and newly developed tool to track comparability. A balanced matrix organization model framed the campus relationships. Adopting this model led to identifying reporting structures, developing multidirectional communication strategies, and the Campus Comparability Tool. Context: The UNC School of Medicine central campus is in Chapel Hill. All 192 students complete basic science course work on central campus. For required clinical rotations, approximately 140 students are assigned to the central campus, which includes rotations in Raleigh or Greensboro. The remaining students are assigned to Asheville (25-30), Charlotte (25-30), or Wilmington (5-7). Chapel Hill and Wilmington follow identical rotation structures, 16 weeks each of (a) combined surgery and adult inpatient experiences; (b) combined obstetrics/gynecology, psychiatry, and inpatient pediatrics; and (c) longitudinal clinical experiences in adult and pediatric medicine. Asheville offers an 8-month longitudinal integrated outpatient experience with discreet inpatient experiences in surgery and adult care. Charlotte offers a 6-month longitudinal integrated experiences and 6 months of block inpatient experiences. Aside from Charlotte and Raleigh, the other sites are urban but surrounded by rural counties. Chapel Hill is 221 miles from Asheville, 141 from Charlotte, and 156 from Wilmington. Outcome: Using the balanced matrix organization, various reporting structures and lines of communication ensured the educational objectives for students were clear on all campuses. The communication strategies facilitated developing consistent evaluation metrics across sites to compare educational experiences. Lessons Learned: The complexities of different healthcare systems becoming regional campuses require deliberate planning and understanding the culture of those sites. Recognizing how size and location of the organization affects communication, the central campus took the lead centralizing functions when appropriate. Adopting uniform educational technology has played an essential role in evaluating the comparability of core educational content on campuses delivering content in very distinct ways.

Comparing types of local public health agencies in North Carolina.

CONTEXT: Some states are considering restructuring local public health agencies (LPHAs) in hopes of achieving long-term efficiencies. North Carolina's experience operating different types of LPHAs, such as county health departments, district health departments, public health authorities, and consolidated human services agencies, can provide valuable information to policy makers in other states who are examining how best to organize their local public health system. OBJECTIVE: To identify stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits and challenges associated with different types of LPHAs in North Carolina and to compare LPHA types on selected financial, workforce, and service delivery measures. DESIGN: Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted to identify stakeholders' perceptions of different LPHA types. To compare LPHA types on finance, workforce, and service delivery measures, descriptive statistical analyses were performed on publicly available quantitative data. SETTING: North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: Current and former state and local public health practitioners, county commissioners, county managers, assistant managers, state legislators, and others. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In addition to identifying stakeholders' perceptions of LPHA types, proportion of total expenditures by funding source, expenditures per capita by funding source, full-time equivalents per 1000 population, and percentage of 127 tracked services offered were calculated. RESULTS: Stakeholders reported benefits and challenges of all LPHA types. LPHA types differ with regard to source of funding, with county health departments and consolidated human services agencies receiving a greater percentage of their funding from county appropriations than districts and authorities, which receive a comparatively larger percentage from other revenues. CONCLUSION: Types of LPHAs are not entirely distinct from one another, and LPHAs of the same type can vary greatly from one another. However, stakeholders noted differences between LPHA types-particularly with regard to district health departments-that were corroborated by an examination of expenditures per capita and full-time equivalents per 1000 population.

Establishing Regional Medical Campuses to Ensure Comparable Experiences: Recommendations From a Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Given increasing class sizes and desires to keep costs down, many medical schools are developing regional clinical campuses. We found our regional campus system to be very successful in allowing class size expansion, inspiring a workforce for the state, and concurrently allowing our students to individualize their experience. We desire to articulate our experience, with a review of the relevant evidence, with the goal of assisting other medical schools in their efforts to develop regional medical campuses. METHODS: We conducted a narrative literature review to identify considerations for developing regional campuses, taking into consideration our experiences in the process. A medical librarian undertook a literature search for the purposes of this narrative review. RESULTS: Of the 61 articles identified, 14 were included for full-text review. Five facets on branch campus development were identified: relationships, infrastructure, curriculum, recruitment, and accreditation. Within each of these facets we provide further details based on findings from the literature complemented by our experience. CONCLUSIONS: Launching a regional campus requires building relationships with clinical partners, ensuring an infrastructure that supports student need and accreditation, comparable curriculum with the same objectives and assessment measures, and aspects of the experience that inspire a student desire to learn in that setting. We share our experience in building successful branch campuses, which have added significantly to our large public school of medicine and its service to our state.