What Is the Role of Accreditation in Achieving Medical School Diversity?

Diversity standards in medical education accreditation do not guarantee diversity but do stimulate schools' activities to recruit and retain diverse students and faculty. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education's (LCME's) accreditation standard addressing medical school diversity neither mandates which categories of diversity medical schools must use nor defines quantitative outcomes they should achieve. Rather, each medical school is required to (1) identify diversity categories that motivate its mission and reflect its environment and (2) use those categories to implement programs to promote diverse representation of students and faculty. When the LCME assesses each medical school's compliance with these requirements, it considers single point-in-time diversity numbers, trends in student and faculty diversity, and outcomes of programs implemented by the school to promote diversity in the categories it identifies as key to its mission.

Creating a new structure for research on health care effectiveness.

Effectiveness research (a term we use in preference to the more confining and difficult health services or outcomes research) evaluates the clinical setting and the health care system on which it depends. It uses a variety of health care assessment techniques and the practical clinical trial to inform clinical practice, quality interventions, and health policy decisions. Effectiveness research had not had sufficient public or private funding to produce the information needed to facilitate evidence-based health care improvement. However, recent trends, such as the likelihood for continued substantial increases in health care costs and concern regarding the quality and safety of the US health care system, are among the important arguments for increasing its funding and capacity. We propose a new entity, a public-private consortium to expand and offer new capability and resources in this area. The consortium would consist of all relevant public and private entities. It would be organized into an executive committee, which would identify research priorities and panels to design requests for proposals. Competitive peer-reviewed proposals, transparency and balance of forces in choice of topics, conduct of research, and interpretation of results would be important features. Metrics for success would be use of the data derived from consortium projects in medical decision making and benefit design. The consortium would provide balance and potential mediation of conflicting or competing interests in which all stakeholders will be present to establish the rules. Broad representation of all interests would serve to avoid the economic, policy, and political issues that have bedeviled past efforts. Models for the consortium include the Health Effectiveness Institute, the Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics, and the Transportation Research Board.

Clinical research in the United States at a crossroads: proposal for a novel public-private partnership to establish a national clinical research enterprise.

The clinical research infrastructure of the United States is currently at a critical crossroads. To leverage the enormous biomedical research gains made in the past century efficiently, a drastic need exists to reengineer this system into a coordinated, safe, and more efficient and effective enterprise. To accomplish this task, clinical research must be transformed from its current state as a cottage industry to an enterprise-wide health care pipeline whose function is to bring the novel research from both government and private entities to the US public. We propose the establishment of a unique public-private partnership termed the National Clinical Research Enterprise (NCRE). Its agenda should consist of informed public participation, supportive information technologies, a skilled workforce, and adequate funding in clinical research. Devoting only 0.25% of the budgets from all health care stakeholders to support the NCRE would permit adequate funding to build the infrastructure required to address these problems in an enterprise fashion. All participants in the US health care delivery system must come together to focus on system-wide improvements that will benefit the public.

Medical humanities at New York University School of Medicine: an array of rich programs in diverse settings.

The New York University School of Medicine has a rich tradition of cultivating programs in medical humanities and professionalism. They are drawn from the departments, centers, students, and faculty in the School of Medicine, have linkages throughout the university, and are interwoven into the fabric and culture of the institution. Some are centrally based in the School of Medicine's deans' office, and others are located in individual departments and receive support from the dean's office. This article describes representative programs for medical students and faculty. Curricular initiatives, the fundamental components of medical students' learning, include a course entitled "The Physician, Patient, and Society," a clerkship essay in the Medicine Clerkship, an opportunity for reflection during the medicine clerkship, and a medical humanities elective. In 2002, the Professionalism Initiative was launched to enhance and reflect the values of the medical profession. Its curriculum consists of a series of events that coordinate, particularly, with existing elements of the first-year curriculum (e.g., orientation week, a session during anatomy, a self-assessment workshop, and a peer-assessment workshop). The Master Scholars Program is a group of five, theme-based master societies consisting of faculty and students who share common interests around the society's themes. Programs developed for the societies include colloquia, faculty-led seminars, a mandatory student-mentoring program, and visiting scholars. Finally, the authors describe three high-quality literary publications created at New York University School of Medicine. Each of the initiatives undergoes regular critical examination and reflection that drive future planning.

Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise.

Medical scientists and public health policy makers are increasingly concerned that the scientific discoveries of the past generation are failing to be translated efficiently into tangible human benefit. This concern has generated several initiatives, including the Clinical Research Roundtable at the Institute of Medicine, which first convened in June 2000. Representatives from a diverse group of stakeholders in the nation's clinical research enterprise have collaborated to address the issues it faces. The context of clinical research is increasingly encumbered by high costs, slow results, lack of funding, regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of qualified investigators and willing participants. These factors have contributed to 2 major obstacles, or translational blocks: impeding the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical studies and of clinical studies into medical practice and health decision making in systems of care. Considering data from across the entire health care system, it has become clear that these 2 translational blocks can be removed only by the collaborative efforts of multiple system stakeholders. The goal of this article is to articulate the 4 central challenges facing clinical research at present--public participation, information systems, workforce training, and funding; to make recommendations about how they might be addressed by particular stakeholders; and to invite a broader, participatory dialogue with a view to improving the overall performance of the US clinical research enterprise.