Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 29–35 | Cite as

APA Summit on Medical Student Education Task Force on Informatics and Technology: Learning About Computers and Applying Computer Technology to Education and Practice

  • Donald M. Hilty
  • Deborah J. Hales
  • Greg Briscoe
  • Sheldon Benjamin
  • Robert J. Boland
  • John S. Luo
  • Carlyle H. Chan
  • Robert S. Kennedy
  • Harry Karlinsky
  • Daniel B. Gordon
  • Joel Yager
  • Peter M. Yellowlees
Special Feature



This article provides a brief overview of important issues for educators regarding medical education and technology.


The literature describes key concepts, prototypical technology tools, and model programs. A work group of psychiatric educators was convened three times by phone conference to discuss the literature. Findings were presented to and input was received from the 2005 Summit on Medical Student Education by APA and the American Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry.


Knowledge of, skills in, and attitudes toward medical informatics are important to life-long learning and modern medical practice. A needs assessment is a starting place, since student, faculty, institution, and societal factors bear consideration. Technology needs to “fit” into a curriculum in order to facilitate learning and teaching.


Learning about computers and applying computer technology to education and clinical care are key steps in computer literacy for physicians.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Council on Graduate Medical Education Resource Paper: Preparing learners for practice in a managed care environment. Washington, DC, HRSA, Sept, 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedman CF: “Medical Informatics: Challenges and Opportunities” Center for Biomedical Informatics: Introductory Lecture Series, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martich GD, Waldmann CS, Imhoff M: Clinical informatics in critical care. J Intensive Care Med 2004; 19(3): 154–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jerant AF, Lloyd AJ: Applied medical informatics and computing skills of students, residents, and faculty. Fam Med 2000; 32(4): 267–272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banks J, Ericksson G, Burrage K, et al: Constructing the hallucinations of psychosis in virtual reality. J Network Comp Applic 2003; 27: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo JS: Portable computing in psychiatry. Can J Psychiatry 2004; 49: 24–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hilty DM, Marks SL, Urness D, et al: Clinical and educational applications of telepsychiatry: a review. Can J Psychiatry 2004; 49(1): 12–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirby RL: The GPEP report on undergraduate medical education: implications for rehabilitation medicine. Association of American Medical Colleges Panel on the General Professional Education of the Physician. Am J Phys Med 1987; 66(4): 184–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koschman T: Medical education and computer literacy: learning about, through, and with computers. Acad Med 1995; 70(9): 818–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gjerde CL, Pipas CF, Russell M: Teaching of medical informatics in UME-21 medical schools: best practices and useful resources. Fam Med 2004; 36(Jan suppl): S68–S73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gouveia-Oliveira A, Rodrigues T, Galvao de Melo F: Computer education: attitudes and opinions of first-year medical students. Med Educ 1994; 28: 501–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seago BL, Schlesinger JB, Hampton CL: Using a decade of data on medical student computer literacy for strategic planning. J Med Libr Assoc 2002; 90(2): 202–209PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linton AM, Wilson PH, Gomes A, et al: Evaluation of evidence-based medicine search skills in the clinical years. Med Ref Serv Q 2004; 23(2): 21–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lau F, Bates J: A review of e-learning practices for undergraduate medical education. J Med Syst 2004; 28(1): 71–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uribe JI, Ralph WM Jr, Glaser AY, et al: Learning curves, acquisition, and retention of skills trained with the endoscopic sinus surgery simulator. Am J Rhinol 2004; 18(2): 87–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hulsman RL, Mollema ED, Hoos AM, et al: Assessment of medical communication. Med Educ 2004; 38(8): 813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McLean M, Murrell K: WebCT: integrating computer-mediated communication and resource delivery into a new problem-based curriculum. J Audiov Media Med 2002; 25(1): 8–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pluye P, Grad RM: How information retrieval technology may impact on physician practice: An organizational case study in family medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 2004; 10(3): 413–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Groote SL, Doranski M: The use of personal digital assistants in the health sciences: results of a survey. J Med Libr Assoc 2004; 92(3): 341–349PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carroll AE, Tarczy-Hornoch P, O’Reilly E, et al: The effect of point-of-care personal digital assistant use on resident documentation discrepancies. Pediatrics 2004; 113(3): 450–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilderman I, Dobrousin A, Cameron S: Which hand-held computer is better for doctors? Part 1: Comparing models with Palm operating systems. Can Fam Phys 2003; 49: 1507–1511Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dobrousin A, Wilderman I: Which hand-held computer is better for doctors? Part 2: Comparing models with Microsoft operating systems. Can Fam Phys 2004; 50: 595–598Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barron R: An evaluation of personal digital assistant software for drug interactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61: 380–385Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tseng HM, Tiplady B, Macleod HA, et al: Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. Br J Psychol 1998; 89: 599–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bergman LG, Fors UGH: Computer-aided DSM-IV-diagnostics—acceptance, use and perceived usefulness in relation to users’ learning styles. BMC Med Informatics Decision Making 2005; 5: 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green CJ, van Gyn GH, Moehr JR, et al: Introducing a technology-enabled problem-based learning approach into a health informatics curriculum. Int J Med Inform 2004; 73(2): 173–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heninger GR, Cho TA: Neuroscience based research training: The Yale Model—medical students. Psychiatric Res Rep 2003; 19(3): 3–5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnston JM, Leung GM, Tin KY, et al: Evaluation of a handheld clinical decision support tool for evidence-based learning and practice in medical undergraduates. Med Educ 2004; 38(6): 628–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leung GM, Johnston JM, Tin KYK, et al: Randomized controlled trial of clinical decision support tools to improve learning of evidence-based medicine in medical students. BMJ 2004; 327: 1090–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald M. Hilty
    • 1
  • Deborah J. Hales
    • 2
  • Greg Briscoe
    • 3
  • Sheldon Benjamin
    • 4
  • Robert J. Boland
    • 5
  • John S. Luo
    • 6
  • Carlyle H. Chan
    • 7
  • Robert S. Kennedy
    • 8
  • Harry Karlinsky
    • 9
  • Daniel B. Gordon
    • 10
  • Joel Yager
    • 11
  • Peter M. Yellowlees
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesUCDMCSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Division of Education and Career DevelopmentAmerican Psychiatric AssociationArlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryEastern Virginia Medical SchoolNorfolkUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Psychiatry and Human BehaviorBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  6. 6.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.Department of PsychiatryMedical College of Wisconsin, MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  8. 8.AATP, TechnologyNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  10. 10.Department of ResearchVahalla PartnersArlingtonUSA
  11. 11.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations