Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Teaching of medical informatics in UME-21 medical schools: best practices and useful resources.
Fam Med. 2004 Jan; 36 Suppl:S68-73.FM

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Information-based decision making is important to modern medical practice. This report identifies learning objectives, teaching innovations, and student outcomes for teaching medical informatics (MI) in medical schools that participated in the Undergraduate Medical Education for the 21st Century (UME-21) curriculum project.

METHODS

Project reports by the UME-21 schools were analyzed, and curricular content was classified in terms of the five categories for MI literacy adapted from the Medical School Objectives Project. Student self-assessments of adequacy of exposure to MI were reviewed.

RESULTS

Teaching methods included demonstrations, lectures, small-group tutorials, hands-on labs, and task-based assignments. The curriculum was taught during the first 3 years of medical school with medical librarians participating. Content examples in the five categories of medical literacy were: "Role of the Lifelong Learner" (accessing, evaluating, and using information and databases), "Role of Clinician" (obtaining patient information, using decision support), "Role of Educator/Learner/Communicator" (accessing information for patient education, student-teacher communication, studying Web-based cases, making presentations, accessing on-line course information), "Role of Researcher/Evaluator" (documenting patient encounters), and "Role of Manager" (using drug formularies and clinical guidelines). Seniors exposed to the UME-21 curriculum reported higher levels of exposure to MI than did untrained seniors 2 years earlier; however, seniors at non-UME-21 schools reported equally high levels.

CONCLUSIONS

UME-21 schools developed creative materials for teaching students to use computers for learning, communication, and searching for information. Outcome measures suggest that MI has become an important curriculum topic in most medical schools.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin 53706, USA. Clgjerde@facstaff.wisc.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

14961406

Citation

Gjerde, Craig L., et al. "Teaching of Medical Informatics in UME-21 Medical Schools: Best Practices and Useful Resources." Family Medicine, vol. 36 Suppl, 2004, pp. S68-73.
Gjerde CL, Pipas CF, Russell M. Teaching of medical informatics in UME-21 medical schools: best practices and useful resources. Fam Med. 2004;36 Suppl:S68-73.
Gjerde, C. L., Pipas, C. F., & Russell, M. (2004). Teaching of medical informatics in UME-21 medical schools: best practices and useful resources. Family Medicine, 36 Suppl, S68-73.
Gjerde CL, Pipas CF, Russell M. Teaching of Medical Informatics in UME-21 Medical Schools: Best Practices and Useful Resources. Fam Med. 2004;36 Suppl:S68-73. PubMed PMID: 14961406.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Teaching of medical informatics in UME-21 medical schools: best practices and useful resources. AU - Gjerde,Craig L, AU - Pipas,Catherine F, AU - Russell,Margaret, PY - 2004/2/13/pubmed PY - 2004/8/13/medline PY - 2004/2/13/entrez SP - S68 EP - 73 JF - Family medicine JO - Fam Med VL - 36 Suppl N2 - OBJECTIVES: Information-based decision making is important to modern medical practice. This report identifies learning objectives, teaching innovations, and student outcomes for teaching medical informatics (MI) in medical schools that participated in the Undergraduate Medical Education for the 21st Century (UME-21) curriculum project. METHODS: Project reports by the UME-21 schools were analyzed, and curricular content was classified in terms of the five categories for MI literacy adapted from the Medical School Objectives Project. Student self-assessments of adequacy of exposure to MI were reviewed. RESULTS: Teaching methods included demonstrations, lectures, small-group tutorials, hands-on labs, and task-based assignments. The curriculum was taught during the first 3 years of medical school with medical librarians participating. Content examples in the five categories of medical literacy were: "Role of the Lifelong Learner" (accessing, evaluating, and using information and databases), "Role of Clinician" (obtaining patient information, using decision support), "Role of Educator/Learner/Communicator" (accessing information for patient education, student-teacher communication, studying Web-based cases, making presentations, accessing on-line course information), "Role of Researcher/Evaluator" (documenting patient encounters), and "Role of Manager" (using drug formularies and clinical guidelines). Seniors exposed to the UME-21 curriculum reported higher levels of exposure to MI than did untrained seniors 2 years earlier; however, seniors at non-UME-21 schools reported equally high levels. CONCLUSIONS: UME-21 schools developed creative materials for teaching students to use computers for learning, communication, and searching for information. Outcome measures suggest that MI has become an important curriculum topic in most medical schools. SN - 0742-3225 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/14961406/Teaching_of_medical_informatics_in_UME_21_medical_schools:_best_practices_and_useful_resources_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -