Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Challenges of Integration in an Innovative Modern Medical Curriculum

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

Abstract

Integration is natural to the art and science of medicine and has historically underpinned ancient (TCM and Ayurveda) and modern (allopathic) medical philosophies. The modern history of medicine is traceable to the Flexner intervention of 1908 which not only reaffirmed integration but also produced the dichotomous (preclinical/clinical) traditional medical curriculum which by the middle of the twentieth century became disfavored for its inconsistency with integration. This gave birth to the innovative integrated curriculum with attendant challenges, including defining integration. The challenges posed to and by integration at the levels of curriculum strategic planning, delivery, assessment, and evaluation are discussed with suggested solutions.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flexner A Medical education in the United States and Canada: a report to the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching. Bulletin no. 4. Updyke: Boston, Mass; 1910.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Irby DM, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):220–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooke M, Irby DM, O’Brien BC. Educating physicians: a call for reform of medical school and residency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2010.

  4. Wang JH. Traditional Chinese medicine and the positive correlation with homeostatic evolution of human being: based on medical perspective. Chin J of Integr Med. 2012;18(8):629–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Physicians for the twenty-first century: the GPEP report. Report of the Panel on the General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  6. General Medical Council (GMC). Tomorrow’s doctors: recommendation on undergraduate medical education. London: GMC; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Godden DR, Baddeley AD. Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. Br J Psychol. 1975;66(3):325–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harden RM, Sowden S, Dunn WR. Some education strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model. ASME medical education booklet 18. Med Educ. 1984;18:284–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Neville AJ, Norman GR. PBL in the undergraduate MD program at McMaster University: three iterations in three decades. Acad Med. 2007;82:370–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harden RM. AMEE guide no. 21: curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Med Teacher. 2001;23(2):123–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Educ. 2000;34:551–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Achike FI. Teaching pharmacology in an innovative medical curriculum: challenges of integration, technology and future training. J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50:6–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Achike FI. The temporal and challenging faces of integration in medical education: the fate of pharmacology. Ind J Pharmacol. 2011;43(3):227–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psych. 2000;85:273–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khalil MK, Kibble JD. Faculty reflections on the process of building an integrated preclerkship curriculum: a new school perspective. Advan in Physiol Educ. 2014;38:199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Harden RM, Stamper N. What is a spiral curriculum? Med Teacher. 1999;21(2):141–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Skochelak SE. A decade of reports calling for change in medical education: what do they say? Acad Med. 2010;85:S26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aleer M. Choosing assessment instruments. In: Dent JA, Harden RM, editors. A practical guide for medical teachers. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2001. p. 303–13.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Malik AS, Malik RH. Twelve tips for developing an integrated curriculum. Med Teacher. 2011;33:99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein RM (Cox M, Irby DM, Editors). Assessment in medical education. N. Engl J Med. 356;4: 387–396.

  21. Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses? Med Educ. 2004;38:974–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Norcini JJ, Lipner RS, Grosso LJ. Assessment in the context of licensure and certification. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25:S62–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harden RM. Approaches to curriculum planning. Med Educ. 1986;20:458–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Heddle W, Roberton G, Mahoney S, Walters L, Strasser S, Worley P. Challenges in transformation of the “traditional block rotation” medical student clinical education into a longitudinal integrated clerkship model. Educ for Health. 2014;27(2):138–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Maggio LA, Ten Cate O, Chen HC, Irby DM, O’Brien BC. Challenges to learning evidence-based medicine and educational Approaches to meet these challenges: a qualitative study of selected EBM curricula in U.S. and Canadian Medical Schools. Acad Med 2015; Jul 21 [Epub ahead of print].

  26. Young T, Rohwer A, van Schalkwyk S, Volmink J, Clarke M. Patience, persistence and pragmatism: experiences and lessons learnt from the implementation of clinically integrated teaching and learning of evidence-based health care—a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0131121. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131121 eCollection 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE). Defining IPE. 2002. http://www.caipe.org.uk/resources/defining-ipe/. Accessed October 9, 2015.

  28. Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions (ASAHP). ASAHP position statement on interprofessional education, 2015. Available at http://www.asahp.org/interprofessional-education/. Accessed October 9, 2015.

  29. Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). Proposed new accreditation standard ED-19-A. Available at http://www.lcme.org/new_standard_ed-19-a.htm. Accessed October 9, 2015.

  30. Pulman A, Scammell J, Martin M. Enabling interprofessional education: the role of technology to enhance learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2009;29:232–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Curran V, Reid A, Reis P, Doucet S, Price S, Alcock L, Fitzgerald S. The use of information and communications technologies in the delivery of interprofessional education: a review of evaluation outcome levels. J Interprof Care. 2015;19:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bush T. Theories of educational leadership and management. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  33. The URL: https://youtu.be/NGSV5bVry40?t=266

  34. Todnem BR Organisational change management: a critical review. J Chang Manag. 2005;5(4):369–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, Central Michigan University, 1280 S. East Campus Drive, Mount Pleasant, MI, 48859, USA

    Francis I. Achike

Authors
  1. Francis I. Achike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis I. Achike.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Achike, F.I. The Challenges of Integration in an Innovative Modern Medical Curriculum. Med.Sci.Educ. 26, 153–158 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0206-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0206-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation