Graduate medical education (GME) is critical to the career development of individual physicians, to the functioning of many teaching institutions, and to the production of our physician workforce. However, recent reports have called for substantial reform of GME. The current lack of established GME outcome measures limits our ability to assess the impact of individual graduates, the performance of residency programs and teaching institutions, and the collective contribution of GME graduates to the physician workforce. To examine the opportunities and challenges in measuring and assessing GME outcomes, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop on October 10â€"11, 2017, in Washington, DC. Workshop participants discussed: meaningful and measurable outcomes of GME; possible metrics that could be used to track these GME outcomes; possible mechanisms for collecting, collating, analyzing, and reporting these data; and further work to accomplish this ambitious goal. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Intro -- FrontMatter -- Reviewers -- Foreword -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Boxes, Figures, and Tables -- Summary -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Background on the Pipeline to the Physician Workforce -- 3 GME Financing -- 4 Governance -- 5 Recommendations for the Reform of GME Financing and Governance -- Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms -- Appendix B: U.S. Senate Letters -- Appendix C: Public Workshop Agendas -- Appendix D: Committee Member Biographies -- Appendix E: Data and Methods to Analyze Medicare GME Payments -- Appendix F: Illustrations of the Phase-In of the Committee's Recommendations.

In the United States, broad study in an array of different disciplines â€"arts, humanities, science, mathematics, engineeringâ€" as well as an in-depth study within a special area of interest, have been defining characteristics of a higher education. But over time, in-depth study in a major discipline has come to dominate the curricula at many institutions. This evolution of the curriculum has been driven, in part, by increasing specialization in the academic disciplines. There is little doubt that disciplinary specialization has helped produce many of the achievement of the past century. Researchers in all academic disciplines have been able to delve more deeply into their areas of expertise, grappling with ever more specialized and fundamental problems. Yet today, many leaders, scholars, parents, and students are asking whether higher education has moved too far from its integrative tradition towards an approach heavily rooted in disciplinary "silos". These "silos" represent what many see as an artificial separation of academic disciplines. This study reflects a growing concern that the approach to higher education that favors disciplinary specialization is poorly calibrated to the challenges and opportunities of our time. The Integration of the Humanities and Arts with Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Higher Education examines the evidence behind the assertion that educational programs that mutually integrate learning experiences in the humanities and arts with science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) lead to improved educational and career outcomes for undergraduate and graduate students. It explores evidence regarding the value of integrating more STEMM curricula and labs into the academic programs of students majoring in the humanities and arts and evidence regarding the value of integrating curricula and experiences in the arts and humanities into college and university STEMM education programs.

The content of medical education knowledge transfer is compounded as medical breakthroughs constantly impact treatment, and new diseases are discovered at an increasingly rapid pace. While much of the knowledge transfer remains unchanged throughout the generations, there are unique hallmarks to this generation’s education, ranging from the impact of technology on learning formats to the use of standardized patients and virtual reality in the classroom. The Handbook of Research on the Efficacy of Training Programs and Systems in Medical Education is an essential reference source that focuses on key considerations in medical curriculum and content delivery and features new methods of knowledge and skill transfer. Featuring research on topics such as the generational workforce, medical accreditation, and professional development, this book is ideally designed for teachers, physicians, learning practitioners, IT consultants, higher education faculty, instructional designers, school administrators, researchers, academicians, and medical students seeking coverage on major and high-profile issues in medical education.

Tomorrow's best physicians will be those who continually learn, adjust, and innovate as new information and best practices evolve, reflecting adaptive expertise in response to practice challenges. As the first volume in the American Medical Association's MedEd Innovation Series, The Master Adaptive Learner is an instructor-focused guide covering models for how to train and teach future clinicians who need to develop these adaptive skills and utilize them throughout their careers. - Explains and clarifies the concept of a Master Adaptive Learner: a metacognitive approach to learning based on self-regulation that fosters the success and use of adaptive expertise in practice. - Contains both theoretical and practical material for instructors and administrators, including guidance on how to implement a Master Adaptive Learner approach in today's institutions. - Gives instructors the tools needed to empower students to become efficient and successful adaptive learners. - Helps medical faculty and instructors address gaps in physician training and prepare new doctors to practice effectively in 21st century healthcare systems. - One of the American Medical Association Change MedEd initiatives and innovations, written and edited by members of the ACE (Accelerating Change in Medical Education) Consortium – a unique, innovative collaborative that allows for the sharing and dissemination of groundbreaking ideas and projects.

Each year, Advances in Surgery reviews the most current practices in general surgery. A distinguished editorial board, headed by Dr. John Cameron, identifies key areas of major progress and controversy and invites preeminent specialists to contribute original articles devoted to these topics. These insightful overviews in general surgery bring concepts to a clinical level and explore their everyday impact on patient care.

Drs. Robert Wachter and Lee Goldman coined the term hospitalist in their New England Journal of Medicine article in 1996. Hospital Medicine is now the fastest growing medical specialty in the United States, due in part to the evolution of inpatient care. In this issue, the Guest Editor, Dr. Nancy Spector, and Consulting Editor Dr. Bonita Stanton, have assembled expert authors to examine the changing nature of inpatient care, including the major movements and trends that have influenced hospital-based practice, patient centered care, and education in this clinical learning environment. Articles are focused on the following: Quality of Care and Quality Improvement; Evidence-based Medicine; Patient Outcomes and Metrics; Inter-professional Teams; Handoffs; Patient Centeredness; Communication with Patients; Health Literacy; Bedside Rounds; Education in the Inpatient; Clinical Learning Environment and Workplace-based Assessment; Simulation in Medical Education; Feedback; Bedside Teaching and Learning; and Hospital Medicine: State of the Specialty, Looking Forward. The intended audience for this issue are frontline providers that provide care in community hospitals and faculty in academic medical centers. Pediatricians will come away with the information they need to improve patient outcomes with evidentiary support.