Premium
Observations on the Correlation of Basic Science Content in Year 1 With the Clinical Science Content in Year 2 Within a Modified System Based Integrated Spiraled Medical Curriculum
Author(s) -
Osborne David L.,
Funk Cindy K.,
Ketchum Robert J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.06962
Subject(s) - curriculum , class (philosophy) , presentation (obstetrics) , medical education , curriculum mapping , osteopathic medicine in the united states , medicine , mathematics education , curriculum development , psychology , computer science , alternative medicine , pedagogy , pathology , surgery , artificial intelligence
In August 2016, Instruction began at the Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine. Curriculum planning commenced in 2015 and has been constant in preparation of teach subsequent year. The class that began as the inaugural class (class of 2020) will graduate in May of 2020. Now, the first year curriculum is being presented in its fourth iteration and the second year curriculum is presented in its third iteration. Input from students, faculty and administration has been incorporated as the curriculum has evolved into its present form. This presentation will highlight the observations and inputs that have contributed to the growth of the curriculum from planning to present form. The original iteration of the curriculum was modeled after the two pass integrated curriculum that was developed at Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine and employed at Rocky Vista College of Osteopathic Medicine. Faculty designed the basic order of systems for presentation and the weekly design of the sessions in each system over the fall and spring of 2015–2016. The number of faculty involved continually grew as the faculty were hired during this period. The basic science faculty designed the systems courses in the Year 1 curriculum. Clinical faculty designed the Clinical Skills and Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine components of both years 1 and 2. The clinical faculty also designed the systems courses of Year 2 of the curriculum. As a result, the first year of the curriculum is based in the general science that serves as a basis for understanding medicine while the second year of the curriculum has a distinctly clinical focus related to diagnosis and basic treatment of diseases. Connection of the content between year 1 and year 2 is the area of biggest concern related to the curriculum. Planning and execution do not always align and leads to many gaps that are seen in the knowledge base of the students. Communication between the faculties teaching each year is vital but is often less than optimal. Bloating in each year of the curriculum is the result, but often exacerbates problems as opposed to resolving issues. Administration and faculty opinions often differ as to the cause of the problem, as well as, how to correct the situation. Administrative organization, curriculum order, length of semester, and faculty turnover have all be looked at to address various issues. We will address what has been done to facilitate improvements in the program as the first four years have progressed.