The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools.

BACKGROUND: Medical and public health scientists are using evolution to devise new strategies to solve major health problems. But based on a 2003 survey, medical curricula may not adequately prepare physicians to evaluate and extend these advances. This study assessed the change in coverage of evolution in North American medical schools since 2003 and identified opportunities for enriching medical education. METHODS: In 2013, curriculum deans for all North American medical schools were invited to rate curricular coverage and perceived importance of 12 core principles, the extent of anticipated controversy from adding evolution, and the usefulness of 13 teaching resources. Differences between schools were assessed by Pearson's chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Spearman's correlation. Open-ended questions sought insight into perceived barriers and benefits. RESULTS: Despite repeated follow-up, 60 schools (39%) responded to the survey. There was no evidence of sample bias. The three evolutionary principles rated most important were antibiotic resistance, environmental mismatch, and somatic selection in cancer. While importance and coverage of principles were correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.01), coverage (at least moderate) lagged behind importance (at least moderate) by an average of 21% (SD = 6%). Compared to 2003, a range of evolutionary principles were covered by 4 to 74% more schools. Nearly half (48%) of responders anticipated igniting controversy at their medical school if they added evolution to their curriculum. The teaching resources ranked most useful were model test questions and answers, case studies, and model curricula for existing courses/rotations. Limited resources (faculty expertise) were cited as the major barrier to adding more evolution, but benefits included a deeper understanding and improved patient care. CONCLUSION: North American medical schools have increased the evolution content in their curricula over the past decade. However, coverage is not commensurate with importance. At a few medical schools, anticipated controversy impedes teaching more evolution. Efforts to improve evolution education in medical schools should be directed toward boosting faculty expertise and crafting resources that can be easily integrated into existing curricula.

SNAPPS: a learner-centered model for outpatient education.

The unique character of medical education in the outpatient setting has created challenges in teaching and learning that cannot be solved by the adaptation of traditional inpatient approaches. Previous work and the authors' own observational study describe a relatively passive learner focused on reporting history and physical examination data to the preceptor. Based on the work of Bordage in cognitive learning, and that of Osterman and Kottkamp on reflective practice for educators, the authors have developed a collaborative model for case presentations in the outpatient setting that links learner initiation and preceptor facilitation in an active learning conversation. This learner-centered model for case presentations to the preceptor follows a mnemonic called SNAPPS consisting of six steps: (1) Summarize briefly the history and findings; (2) Narrow the differential to two or three relevant possibilities; (3) Analyze the differential by comparing and contrasting the possibilities; (4) Probe the preceptor by asking questions about uncertainties, difficulties, or alternative approaches; (5) Plan management for the patient's medical issues; and (6) Select a case-related issue for self-directed learning. The authors conducted a pilot study of SNAPPS, introducing the model to both third-year medical students and their preceptors. Feedback was enthusiastic and underscored the importance of the paired approach. SNAPPS represents a paradigm shift in ambulatory education that engages the learner and creates a collaborative learning conversation in the context of patient care.