Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 81–85 | Cite as

The Use of a Small Private Online Course to Allow Educators to Share Teaching Resources Across Diverse Sites: The Future of Psychiatric Case Conferences?

  • Billy J. Lockhart
  • Noah A. Capurso
  • Isaiah Chase
  • Melissa R. Arbuckle
  • Michael J. Travis
  • Jane Eisen
  • David A. Ross
In Brief Report



The authors sought to demonstrate the feasibility of integrating small private online course (SPOC) technology with flipped classroom techniques in order to improve neuroscience education across diverse training sites.


Post-graduate medical educators used SPOC web conferencing software and video technology to implement an integrated case conference and in-depth neuroscience discussion.


Ten psychiatry training programs from across the USA and from two international sites took part in the conference. Feedback from participants was largely positive.


This pilot demonstrated the feasibility of such a program and provided a diverse audience with the opportunity to engage in an interactive learning experience with expert faculty discussants. This may be a useful model for programs with limited local expertise to expand their teaching efforts in a wide range of topics.


Neuroscience Curriculum Online learning 



The authors would like to thank Drs. Deborah Fried, John Krystal, and Michael Sernyak for serving as the expert discussants for this case.

Compliance with ethical standards


Drs. Arbuckle, Eisen, Ross, and Travis have received NIMH funding to develop the National Neuroscience Curriculum Initiative (3R25MH101076-02S1). The authors have no other conflicts of interest to report.


  1. 1.
    Fung LK, Akil M, Widge A, Roberts LW, Etkin A. Attitudes toward neuroscience education among psychiatry residents and fellows. Acad Psychiatry. 2014;38:127–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ross DA, Travis MJ, Arbuckle MR. The future of psychiatry as clinical neuroscience: why not now? JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72:413–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Insel TR, Wang PS. Rethinking mental illness. JAMA. 2010;303:1970–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benjamin S, Travis MJ, Cooper JJ, Dickey CC, Reardon CL. Neuropsychiatry and neuroscience education of psychiatry trainees: attitudes and barriers. Acad Psychiatry. 2014;38:135–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross DA, Arbuckle M, Travis M: National Neuroscience Curriculum Initiative. Accessed 15 Oct 2014.
  6. 6.
    Pappano L: The Year of the MOOC. The New York Times, November, 2, 2012. Accessed August 6th, 2015.
  7. 7.
    Paton C. Massive open online course for health informatics education. Health Care Inf Res. 2014;20:81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harder B. Are MOOCs the future of medical education? BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2013;346:f2666.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures—a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1657–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ross DA, Rohrbaugh R. Integrating neuroscience in the training of psychiatrists: a patient-centered didactic curriculum based on adult learning principles. Acad Psychiatry. 2014;38:154–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Yale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Columbia and the NY State Psychiatric InstituteNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at the University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  5. 5.Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations