First Meeting of the Advisory Committee
June 22-23, 2000
New York City
The first meeting of the IIME Advisory Committee was convened on June 22-23, 2000 at the offices of the China Medical Board in New York City, and was chaired by Dr. M. Roy Schwarz. He welcomed the members, outlined the agenda for the meeting and gave a brief history of the China Medical Board and the background behind the establishment of the Institute for International Medical Education. Dr. Andrzej Wojtczak, Director of the Institute, gave an overview of the organization, project, and tasks. He presented the composition and various tasks of different IIME Committees. Following these presentations, each member of the Advisory Committee presented an overview of his or her represented organization, its activities and future plans in view of the IIME mission and tasks. These presentations were extremely informative to all in attendance. The highlights of the most important issues related to the work of the IIME that surfaced during discussion are summarized below.
 |
The Advisory Committee at the offices of the China Medical Board |
The Advisory Committee voiced the opinion that the time is right for the effort of developing the essential (core) requirements of medical education as well as for an initiation of effort for the global accreditation of medical schools. In an increasing number of countries, governments are starting to explore what are considered "global core requirements" in medical education. However, steps toward global accreditation must be internationally agreed upon and coordinated to send unified and consistent messages to the academic world. The most significant value of accreditation is to motivate and empower the leaders of medical schools to improve and change education and training and to ensure that changes are in compliance with global educational requirements and standards. As they are notions of quality and not quantity, there is no danger to the diversity of various medical programs. This is vital, as local needs and requirements must be stressed as well as qualities of universal importance.
As curriculum informs teachers what to teach, evaluation informs students what they should learn. Therefore, in order to change medical education, one must change also the evaluation system. When developing requirements or standards there is a need for the balance between what must be achieved and what should be improved. Requirements must focus on health care outcomes and not just on learning outcomes. It is more important to test what physicians know and do in practice than what is taught is medical school.
Regarding the outline of the minimum essentials and seven envisaged domains it was suggested that an attempt should be made to organize them into a matrix, which will specify what the doctors need to know and be able to do. It was also stressed that students come into medical school as beginners and leave as advanced beginners. Therefore the document reflecting the education of "embryonic" physicians and not experienced physicians has to stress the importance of the life-long process of learning the profession. It must be made very explicit that students must learn how to learn during their entire professional life. The document should express the universality of essential requirements and also the context in which a physician practices. The greater emphasis must be put on the professionalism to be acquired by graduates. The "minimum essential requirements" must go hand-in-hand with "optimum requirements". It must be also clearly stated to whom is the core minimum essentials directed: to faculty, students, the public, the consumer or the government?
Reviewing the barriers to implementation of "essential requirements", the Advisory Committee indicated that medical school faculties (stakeholders) want to own their own content rather than accept outside input. It is vitally important that universal global requirements are enriched by locally specific requirements. Another constraining factor is a lack of financial support for implementation and lack of perceived recognition or rewards for implementation. It is necessary to state clearly what the advantages are for medical schools to implement these essentials. The faculty may also not want to learn that they are not educating quality physicians. Therefore the pilot (experimental) implementation of essential requirements in several places throughout the world is of utmost importance to overcome the above-mentioned barriers. The IIME must work with governments to get money to support innovations related to medical programs. Another important factor to successful implementation of the essentials is continuing professional development. Since poor nations tend to remain poor due in part to poor health, this program may be an opportunity to help in combating poverty.
Both Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Wojtczak expressed their deep appreciation for the active involvement of the members in this two day meeting.
As curriculum informs teachers what to teach, evaluation informs students what they should learn. Therefore, in order to change medical education, one must change also the evaluation system. When developing requirements or standards there is a need for the balance between what must be achieved and what should be improved. Requirements must focus on health care outcomes and not just on learning outcomes. It is more important to test what physicians know and do in practice than what is taught is medical school.
Regarding the outline of the minimum essentials and seven envisaged domains it was suggested that an attempt should be made to organize them into a matrix, which will specify what the doctors need to know and be able to do. It was also stressed that students come into medical school as beginners and leave as advanced beginners. Therefore the document reflecting the education of "embryonic" physicians and not experienced physicians has to stress the importance of the life-long process of learning the profession. It must be made very explicit that students must learn how to learn during their entire professional life. The document should express the universality of essential requirements and also the context in which a physician practices. The greater emphasis must be put on the professionalism to be acquired by graduates. The "minimum essential requirements" must go hand-in-hand with "optimum requirements". It must be also clearly stated to whom is the core minimum essentials directed: to faculty, students, the public, the consumer or the government?
Reviewing the barriers to implementation of "essential requirements", the Advisory Committee indicated that medical school faculties (stakeholders) want to own their own content rather than accept outside input. It is vitally important that universal global requirements are enriched by locally specific requirements. Another constraining factor is a lack of financial support for implementation and lack of perceived recognition or rewards for implementation. It is necessary to state clearly what the advantages are for medical schools to implement these essentials. The faculty may also not want to learn that they are not educating quality physicians. Therefore the pilot (experimental) implementation of essential requirements in several places throughout the world is of utmost importance to overcome the above-mentioned barriers. The IIME must work with governments to get money to support innovations related to medical programs. Another important factor to successful implementation of the essentials is continuing professional development. Since poor nations tend to remain poor due in part to poor health, this program may be an opportunity to help in combating poverty.
Both Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Wojtczak expressed their deep appreciation for the active involvement of the members in this two day meeting.
Institute for International Medical Education.
Unauthorized reproduction strictly prohibited.