Informatics in Undergraduate Medical Education: Analysis of Competency Frameworks and Practices Across North America.

Canada North America US United States clinical cognitive curriculum education framework informatics management medical education medical informatics teaching undergraduate medical education

Journal

JMIR medical education
ISSN: 2369-3762
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Educ
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101684518

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Sep 2022
Historique:
received: 23 05 2022
accepted: 06 08 2022
revised: 02 08 2022
entrez: 13 9 2022
pubmed: 14 9 2022
medline: 14 9 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

With the advent of competency-based medical education, as well as Canadian efforts to include clinical informatics within undergraduate medical education, competency frameworks in the United States have not emphasized the skills associated with clinical informatics pertinent to the broader practice of medicine. By examining the competency frameworks with which undergraduate medical education in clinical informatics has been developed in Canada and the United States, we hypothesized that there is a gap: the lack of a unified competency set and frame for clinical informatics education across North America. We performed directional competency mapping between Canadian and American graduate clinical informatics competencies and general graduate medical education competencies. Directional competency mapping was performed between Canadian roles and American common program requirements using keyword matching at the subcompetency and enabling competency levels. In addition, for general graduate medical education competencies, the Physician Competency Reference Set developed for the Liaison Committee on Medical Education was used as a direct means of computing the ontological overlap between competency frameworks. Upon mapping Canadian roles to American competencies via both undergraduate and graduate medical education competency frameworks, the difference in focus between the 2 countries can be thematically described as a difference between the concepts of clinical and management reasoning. We suggest that the development or deployment of informatics competencies in undergraduate medical education should focus on 3 items: the teaching of diagnostic reasoning, such that the information tasks that comprise both clinical and management reasoning can be discussed; precision medical education, where informatics can provide for more fine-grained evaluation; and assessment methods to support traditional pedagogical efforts (both at the bedside and beyond). Assessment using cases or structured assessments (eg, Objective Structured Clinical Examinations) would help students draw parallels between clinical informatics and fundamental clinical subjects and would better emphasize the cognitive techniques taught through informatics.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
With the advent of competency-based medical education, as well as Canadian efforts to include clinical informatics within undergraduate medical education, competency frameworks in the United States have not emphasized the skills associated with clinical informatics pertinent to the broader practice of medicine.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
By examining the competency frameworks with which undergraduate medical education in clinical informatics has been developed in Canada and the United States, we hypothesized that there is a gap: the lack of a unified competency set and frame for clinical informatics education across North America.
METHODS METHODS
We performed directional competency mapping between Canadian and American graduate clinical informatics competencies and general graduate medical education competencies. Directional competency mapping was performed between Canadian roles and American common program requirements using keyword matching at the subcompetency and enabling competency levels. In addition, for general graduate medical education competencies, the Physician Competency Reference Set developed for the Liaison Committee on Medical Education was used as a direct means of computing the ontological overlap between competency frameworks.
RESULTS RESULTS
Upon mapping Canadian roles to American competencies via both undergraduate and graduate medical education competency frameworks, the difference in focus between the 2 countries can be thematically described as a difference between the concepts of clinical and management reasoning.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We suggest that the development or deployment of informatics competencies in undergraduate medical education should focus on 3 items: the teaching of diagnostic reasoning, such that the information tasks that comprise both clinical and management reasoning can be discussed; precision medical education, where informatics can provide for more fine-grained evaluation; and assessment methods to support traditional pedagogical efforts (both at the bedside and beyond). Assessment using cases or structured assessments (eg, Objective Structured Clinical Examinations) would help students draw parallels between clinical informatics and fundamental clinical subjects and would better emphasize the cognitive techniques taught through informatics.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36099007
pii: v8i3e39794
doi: 10.2196/39794
pmc: PMC9516378
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e39794

Subventions

Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

©David Chartash, Marc Rosenman, Karen Wang, Elizabeth Chen. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 13.09.2022.

Références

Acad Med. 2017 Jan;92(1):63-69
pubmed: 27254015
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Mar-Apr;16(2):153-7
pubmed: 19074296
Acad Med. 2016 Oct;91(10):1352-1358
pubmed: 27097053
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010;38(2):158-62
pubmed: 20542934
JAMA. 2018 Jun 12;319(22):2267-2268
pubmed: 29800012
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014 Jul 01;5:205-12
pubmed: 25057246
Acad Med. 2017 Jan;92(1):123-131
pubmed: 27049541
Acad Med. 2013 Aug;88(8):1088-94
pubmed: 23807109
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jul 3;169(1):50-51
pubmed: 29801050
Acad Med. 2017 Jan;92(1):35-39
pubmed: 26488568
JAMA. 2018 Nov 6;320(17):1818
pubmed: 30398597
Med Teach. 2005 Dec;27(8):699-703
pubmed: 16451890
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1836-1842
pubmed: 29846502
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Jul;27(7):576-582
pubmed: 29555723
Med Teach. 2014 Jan;36(1):68-72
pubmed: 24195470
Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7
pubmed: 2400509
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jan 1;27(1):175-180
pubmed: 31592531
Med Teach. 2013 Apr;35(4):282-6
pubmed: 23464893
Acad Med. 1999 Nov;74(11):1203-7
pubmed: 10587681
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
MDM Policy Pract. 2019 Aug 17;4(2):2381468319868968
pubmed: 31453366
Acad Med. 2011 Jan;86(1):11-4
pubmed: 21191202
IRE Trans Med Electron. 1960 Oct;ME-7:243-6
pubmed: 13762551
Theor Med Bioeth. 2018 Apr;39(2):91-110
pubmed: 29992371
Acad Med. 2012 Jan;87(1):84-90
pubmed: 22104049
Acad Med. 2016 May;91(5):628-32
pubmed: 26703416
Acad Med. 1999 Feb;74(2):130-41
pubmed: 10065054
IRE Trans Med Electron. 1960 Oct;ME-7:240-3
pubmed: 13727826
Acad Med. 2019 Jan;94(1):31-36
pubmed: 30256249
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Jul 1;26(7):586-593
pubmed: 31037303

Auteurs

David Chartash (D)

School of Medicine, University College Dublin - National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.

Marc Rosenman (M)

Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.

Karen Wang (K)

Center for Medical Informatics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.

Elizabeth Chen (E)

Center for Biomedical Informatics, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.

Classifications MeSH