Medical Science Educator

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 521–532 | Cite as

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

  • Laurel GormanEmail author
  • Analia Castiglioni
  • Caridad Hernandez
  • Abdo Asmar
  • Juan Cendan
  • David Harris


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.


Simulation Pharmacology Physiology Clinical skills Medical education Basic sciences Integration Pedagogy 



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.


  1. 1.
    Flexner A. The Flexner report on medical education in the United States and Canada. New York: New York: Carnegie Foundation 58; 1910.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norman G Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):807–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farah Z, Nassim P. A new spin on vertical integration. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brauer DG, Kristi JF. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach. 2014:1–11.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis MH, Harden RM. Planning and implementing an undergraduate medical curriculum: the lessons learned. Med Teach. 2003;25(6):596–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malik AS, Malik RH. Twelve tips for developing an integrated curriculum. Med Teach. 2011;33(2):99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pawlina W Basic sciences in medical education: why? How? When? Where? Med Teach. 2009;31(9):787–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmidt H Integrating the teaching of basic sciences, clinical sciences, and biopsychosocial issues. Acad Med. 1998;73:S24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Education-Oxford. 2000;34(7):551–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boudreau JD, Cassell EJ. Abraham Flexner’s “mooted question” and the story of integration. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):378–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weller JM. Simulation in undergraduate medical education: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Med Educ. 2004;38:32–8.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seybert AL, Kobulinsky LR, McKaveney TP. Human patient simulation in a pharmacotherapy Course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(2):37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Anderson LW. Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2005;31(2):102–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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. 46.
    Winston I, Szarek JL. Problem-based learning using a human patient simulator. Med Educ. 2005;39(5):526–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurel Gorman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Analia Castiglioni
    • 2
  • Caridad Hernandez
    • 2
  • Abdo Asmar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Juan Cendan
    • 1
  • David Harris
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical EducationUniversity of Central Florida College of MedicineOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineUniversity of Central Florida College of MedicineOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations