Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Preclinical High-Fidelity Medical Simulations to Integrate Pharmacology and Physiology with Clinical Sciences

  • Monograph
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The medical educational literature is replete with proposed curricular models designed to integrate critical foundational sciences like physiology and pharmacology with clinical sciences vertically and horizontally. Yet gaps exist on the best pedagogy and procedures to maximize conceptual integration and learner encapsulation at the instructor and sessional level. We now present a model for how to implement and effectively integrate pharmacology and physiology with other essential foundational and clinical sciences using preclinical high-fidelity medical simulations carefully scaffolded using a modified Bloom’s taxonomy framework to keep cognitive domain levels appropriate to the novice medical student’s abilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flexner A. The Flexner report on medical education in the United States and Canada. New York: New York: Carnegie Foundation 58; 1910.

  2. Cooke M, Irby DM, Sullivan W, Ludmerer KM. American medical education 100 years after the Flexner report. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(13):1339–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Norman G Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):807–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Faingold CL, Dunaway GA. Teaching pharmacology within a multidisciplinary organ system-based medical curriculum. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology. 2002;366(1):18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Farah Z, Nassim P. A new spin on vertical integration. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brauer DG, Kristi JF. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach. 2014:1–11.

  7. Wilkerson L, Stevens CM, Krasne S. No content without context: integrating basic, clinical, and social sciences in a pre-clerkship curriculum. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):812–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Finnerty E, Chauvin S, Bonamino G, Andrews M, Caroll R, Pangaro L. Flexner revisited: the role and value of the basic sciences in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):349–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Functions and structure of a medical school: standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the M.D. Degree. Washington, DC: LCME; 2013.

  10. Majumda S, Anderson J, Wai-Kong N, Barnhart S, Majundar S, Koszalka T. Regional guidelines on teacher development for pedagogy-technology integration. UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education: Bangkok, Thailand; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linköping, Sweden. Med Teach. 2002;24:280–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bandiera G, Boucher A, Neville A, Kuper A, Hodges B Integration and timing of basic and clinical sciences education. Med Teach. 2013;35(5):381–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis MH, Harden RM. Planning and implementing an undergraduate medical curriculum: the lessons learned. Med Teach. 2003;25(6):596–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Spencer AL, Brosenitsch T, Levine AS, Kanter SL. Back to the basic sciences: an innovative approach to teaching senior medical students how best to integrate basic science and clinical medicine. Acad Med. 2008;83(7):662–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Malik AS, Malik RH. Twelve tips for developing an integrated curriculum. Med Teach. 2011;33(2):99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hopkins R, Pratt D, Bowen JL, Regehr G. Integrating basic science without integrating basic scientists: reconsidering the place of individual teachers in curriculum reform. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):149–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pawlina W Basic sciences in medical education: why? How? When? Where? Med Teach. 2009;31(9):787–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmidt H Integrating the teaching of basic sciences, clinical sciences, and biopsychosocial issues. Acad Med. 1998;73:S24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Education-Oxford. 2000;34(7):551–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Boudreau JD, Cassell EJ. Abraham Flexner’s “mooted question” and the story of integration. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):378–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Woodman OL, Dodds AE, Frauman AG, Mosepele M. Teaching pharmacology to medical students in an integrated problem-based learning curriculum: an Australian perspective. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2004;25(9):1195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kwan C-Y Learning of medical pharmacology via innovation: a personal experience at McMaster and in Asia. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2004;25(9):1186–94.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Karpa KD, Vrana KE. Creating a virtual pharmacology curriculum in a problem-based learning environment: one medical school’s experience. Acad Med. 2013;88(2):198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ling Y, Swanson DB, Holtzman K, Bucak SD. Retention of basic science information by senior medical students. Acad Med. 2008;83(10):S82–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jefferies WB, McMahon KK, Rosenfeld GC, Strandhoy JW, Szarek J, Wilson-Delfosse A. Pharmacology–in the face of revisiting Flexner’s view of medical education. JIAMSE. 2010;20(3):288–92.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gwee M Teaching of medical pharmacology: the need to nurture the early development of desired attitudes for safe and rational drug prescribing. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):847–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Urrutia-Aguilar ME, Martinez-Gonzalez A, Rodriguez R. Measuring the effectiveness of pharmacology teaching in undergraduate medical students. J of Patient Saf. 2012;8(1):26–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Muller JH, Jain S, Loeser H, Irby DM. Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. Med Educ. 2008;42:778–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kulasegaram KM, Martimianakis MA, Mylopoulos M, Whitehead CR, Woods NN. Cognition before curriculum: rethinking the integration of basic science and clinical learning. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1578–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Issenberg B, Mcgaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rosen KR, McBride JM, Drake RL. The use of simulation in medical education to enhance students’ understanding of basic sciences. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):842–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Weller JM. Simulation in undergraduate medical education: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Med Educ. 2004;38:32–8.

  33. Gordon JA, Shaffer DW, Raemer DB, Pawlowski J, Hurford WE, Cooper JB. A randomized controlled trial of simulation-based teaching versus traditional instruction in medicine: a pilot study among clinical medical students. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2006;11(1):33–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Harris DM, Ryan K, Rabuck C. Using a high-fidelity patient simulator with first-year medical students to facilitate learning of cardiovascular function curves. Adv Physiol Educ. 2012;36(3):213–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cendan JC, Johnson TR. Enhancing learning through optimal sequencing of web-based and manikin simulators to teach shock physiology in the medical curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35(4):402–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gordon JA, Brown DF, Armstrong EG. Can a simulated critical care encounter accelerate basic science learning among preclinical medical students? A pilot study. Simul Healthc. 2006;1:13–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Via DK, Kyle RR, Trask JD, Shields CH, Mongan PD. Using high-fidelity patient simulation and an advanced distance education network to teach pharmacology to second-year medical students. J Clin Anesth. 2004;16(2):144–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Seybert AL, Kobulinsky LR, McKaveney TP. Human patient simulation in a pharmacotherapy Course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(2):37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee CK, Ling YY, Leng LW, Chang SY. Comparing effectiveness of high-fidelity human patient simulation vs case-based learning in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78(8):153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Littlewood KE, Shilling AM, Stemland CJ, Wright EB, Kirk MA. High-fidelity simulation is superior to case-based discussion in teaching the management of shock. Med Teach.

  41. Bingham AL, Sen S, Finn LA, Cawley MJ. Retention of advanced cardiac life support knowledge and skills following high-fidelity mannequin simulation training. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015;79(1):12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Anderson LW. Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2005;31(2):102–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kerfoot BP, Fu Y, Baker H, Connelly D, Ritchey ML, Genega EM. Online spaced education generates transfer and improves long-term retention of diagnostic skills: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(3):331–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taylor DC, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE guide no. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Harden RM, Crosby J, Davis MH, Howie PW, Struthers AD. Task-based learning: the answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years. Medical Education—Oxford. 2004;34(5):391–7.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Winston I, Szarek JL. Problem-based learning using a human patient simulator. Med Educ. 2005;39(5):526–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S, Jacobson L, Quinones J, Shen B, Levine AI. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine. 2009;76(4):330–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Praslova L Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educ Asse Eval Acc. 2010;22(3):215–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank all the clinical faculty and staff who facilitated the simulations as well as the organ system module core faculty and directors who helped us implement a coordinated schedule. We are especially grateful to Dr. Bernard Gros, a cardiologist who co-directs the Cardiovascular Pulmonary Module and teaches in the cardiovascular M2 HFMS, and Dr. Christine Bellew, a pediatric nephrologist who co-directs the Practice of Medicine 1 Module and co-teaches physiology with Dr. Harris in the M1 HFMS and Structure-Function Module. Lastly, we thank Dr. Jon Kibble, our Assistant Dean of Medical Education, for his expert advice on integration within our curriculum.

Ethical Approval

As part of a larger study on educational outcomes related to learning pharmacology in HFMS, the UCF Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Studies granted approval to electronically distribute anonymous voluntary surveys to second-year students assessing learner perceptions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Education, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 6850 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32827, USA

    Laurel Gorman, Abdo Asmar, Juan Cendan & David Harris

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA

    Analia Castiglioni, Caridad Hernandez & Abdo Asmar

Authors
  1. Laurel Gorman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Analia Castiglioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caridad Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdo Asmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Juan Cendan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurel Gorman.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Representative examples of HFMS goals related to differing levels of Bloom’s cognitive domain
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gorman, L., Castiglioni, A., Hernandez, C. et al. Using Preclinical High-Fidelity Medical Simulations to Integrate Pharmacology and Physiology with Clinical Sciences. Med.Sci.Educ. 25, 521–532 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0173-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0173-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation