University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Med Teach. 2013 May;35(5):381-7. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.769674. Epub 2013 Feb 27.
Medical education has traditionally been compartmentalized into basic and clinical sciences, with the latter being viewed as the skillful application of the former. Over time, the relevance of basic sciences has become defined by their role in supporting clinical problem solving rather than being, of themselves, a defining knowledge base of physicians.
As part of the national Future of Medical Education in Canada (FMEC MD) project, a comprehensive empirical environmental scan identified the timing and integration of basic sciences as a key pressing issue for medical education. Using the literature review, key informant interviews, stakeholder meetings, and subsequent consultation forums from the FMEC project, this paper details the empirical basis for focusing on the role of basic science, the evidentiary foundations for current practices, and the implications for medical education.
Despite a dearth of definitive relevant studies, opinions about how best to integrate the sciences remain strong. Resource allocation, political power, educational philosophy, and the shift from a knowledge-based to a problem-solving profession all influence the debate. There was little disagreement that both sciences are important, that many traditional models emphasized deep understanding of limited basic science disciplines at the expense of other relevant content such as social sciences, or that teaching the sciences contemporaneously rather than sequentially has theoretical and practical merit. Innovations in integrated curriculum design have occurred internationally. Less clear are the appropriate balance of the sciences, the best integration model, and solutions to the political and practical challenges of integrated curricula.
New curricula tend to emphasize integration, development of more diverse physician competencies, and preparation of physicians to adapt to evolving technology and patients' expectations. Refocusing the basic/clinical dichotomy to a foundational/applied model may yield benefits in training widely competent future physicians.
医学教育传统上分为基础科学和临床科学,后者被视为前者的熟练应用。随着时间的推移,基础科学的相关性已经由其在支持临床问题解决方面的作用来定义,而不是作为医生的基础知识库本身。
作为加拿大医学教育未来(FMEC MD)国家项目的一部分,一项全面的实证环境扫描确定了基础科学的时间安排和整合是医学教育的一个关键紧迫问题。本文利用 FMEC 项目的文献综述、关键知情人访谈、利益相关者会议以及随后的磋商论坛,详细介绍了关注基础科学作用的实证依据、当前实践的证据基础,以及对医学教育的影响。
尽管缺乏明确的相关研究,但关于如何最好地整合科学的观点仍然强烈。资源分配、政治权力、教育理念以及从知识型向解决问题型专业的转变都影响着这场争论。人们几乎一致认为,基础科学和临床科学都很重要,许多传统模式强调深入理解有限的基础科学学科,而牺牲了其他相关内容,如社会科学,或者同时而不是顺序地教授科学具有理论和实践意义。国际上已经出现了综合课程设计的创新。不太明确的是科学的适当平衡、最佳整合模式,以及综合课程的政治和实际挑战的解决方案。
新的课程往往强调整合、发展更广泛的医生能力,并为医生准备适应不断发展的技术和患者的期望。将基础/临床二分法重新聚焦到基础/应用模式可能会为培养具有广泛能力的未来医生带来益处。