ATTRIBUTES OF A GOOD MEDICAL SCHOOL: FACULTY PERSPECTIVE IN LOCAL CONTEXT
Keywords:
Attributes, medical school, faculty, perspectiveAbstract
Background: Medical schools and institutions are required to meet the standards of national and international accreditation bodies. These standards guide the attributes of a good medical school. The current study was designed to identify the attributes of a good medical school from a local perspective. Methods: For this qualitative study based upon grounded theory, 25 participants were recruited through purposive sampling who underwent a workshop to get an insight about the attributes of a good medical school. They were asked to provide the faculty perspectives of a good medical school. The participant responses were put in online software ‘Worditout’ to look for the repetitions of words, followed by open coding technique. Initial coding was followed by a second phase of axial coding of the data in order to identify themes and thematic analyses of all the data were performed. Results: The teaching experience of the participants in medical schools varied from 2 to 20 years. In total, 198 responses/comments from all the participants were recorded. After doing the open and axial coding all the responses were summarized into four themes. The themes highlighted in order of the response frequency were: 1) improved learning strategies and opportunities; 2) modification and improvements in teaching methodologies; 3) standardised and programmatic assessment methods and 4) parameters of quality assurance and management. Conclusion: The attributes of a good medical school are guided by the national and international standards. However, some of the standards are contextual and our study showed these standards as attributes of a good medical school. It includes provision of better learning opportunities, teaching methodologies, standardised assessment and quality assurance.
Pak J Physiol 2017;13(4):48–51
Downloads
References
2. Goldstein MJ, Lunn MR, Peng L. What makes a top research medical school? A call for a new model to evaluate academic physicians and medical school performance. Acad Med 2015;90(5):603–8.
3. Nungester RJ, Dawson-Saunders B, Kelley PR, Volle RL. Score reporting on NBME examinations. Acad Med 1990;65(12):723–9.
4. Mullan F, Chen C, Petterson S, Kolsky G, Spagnola M. The social mission of medical education: ranking the schools. Ann Intern Med 2010;152(12):804–11.
5. Cole J, Lipton J. The Reputations of American Medical Schools. Social Forces 1977;55(3):662–84.
6. Karle H. Global standards and accreditation in medical education: a view from the WFME. Acad Med 2006;81(12 Suppl):S43–8.
7. McGaghie WC, Thompson JA. America's best medical schools: a critique of the U.S. News & World Report rankings. Acad Med 2001;76(10):985–92.
8. Gruppen LD, Stansfield RB. Individual and Institutional Components of the Medical School Educational Environment. Acad Med 2016;91(11 Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions):S53-s7.
9. Devoe P. Learning Strategies for Success in Medical School. Maxico: Hispanic and Native American Center of Excellence; 2004.
10. Onyon C. Problem-based learning: a review of the educational and psychological theory. Clin Teach 2012;9(1):22–6.
11. Harden RM, Crosby JR, Davis MH, Friedman M. AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 5-From competency to meta-competency: a model for the specification of learning outcomes. Med Teach 1999;21(6):546–52.
12. Ali A, Evans P. Multi-resource peer assisted learning in postgraduate setting: a pilot study. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2013;23(4):251–6.
13. Rehman R, Khan AN, Kamran A. Role of small group interactive sessions in two different curriculums based medical colleges. J Pak Med Assoc 2012;62(9):920–3.
14. Dent JA. Using the SPICES model to develop innovative teaching opportunities in ambulatory care venues. Korean J Med Educ 2014;26(1):3–7.
15. Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Educ 2000;34(7):551–7.
16. Peck C, McCall M, McLaren B, Rotem T. Continuing medical education and continuing professional development: international comparisons. BMJ 2000;320(7232):432–5.
17. Heeneman S, Oudkerk Pool A, Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM, Driessen EW. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice. Med Educ 2015;49(5):487–98.
18. Miller C. Literature Review. Improving and enhancing performance in the affective domain of nursing students: Insights from the literature for clinical educators. Contemp Nurse 2010;35(1):2–17.
19. Joshi MA. Quality assurance in medical education. Indian J Pharmacol 2012;44(3):285–7.
20. Cottrell RR, Lysoby L, King LR, Airhihenbuwa CO, Roe KM, Allegrante JP. Current developments in accreditation and certification for health promotion and health education: a perspective on systems of quality assurance in the United States. Health Educ Behav 2009;36(3):451–63.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Pakistan Journal of Physiology, Pak J Physiol, PJP is FREE for research and academic purposes. It can be freely downloaded and stored, printed, presented, cited and quoted with full reference of, and acknowledgement to the PJP.
