Promoting fundamental clinical skills: a competency-based college approach at the University of Washington.

The focus on fundamental clinical skills in undergraduate medical education has declined over the last several decades. Dramatic growth in the number of faculty involved in teaching and increasing clinical and research commitments have contributed to depersonalization and declining individual attention to students. In contrast to the close teaching and mentoring relationship between faculty and students 50 years ago, today's medical students may interact with hundreds of faculty members without the benefit of a focused program of teaching and evaluating clinical skills to form the core of their four-year curriculum. Bedside teaching has also declined, which may negatively affect clinical skills development. In response to these and other concerns, the University of Washington School of Medicine has created an integrated developmental curriculum that emphasizes bedside teaching and role modeling, focuses on enhancing fundamental clinical skills and professionalism, and implements these goals via a new administrative structure, the College system, which consists of a core of clinical teachers who spend substantial time teaching and mentoring medical students. Each medical student is assigned a faculty mentor within a College for the duration of his or her medical school career. Mentors continuously teach and reflect with students on clinical skills development and professionalism and, during the second year, work intensively with them at the bedside. They also provide an ongoing personal faculty contact. Competency domains and benchmarks define skill areas in which deepening, progressive attention is focused throughout medical school. This educational model places primary focus on the student.

Communication between programs and applicants during residency selection: effects of the match on medical students' professional development.

PURPOSE: Communication between programs and applicants during the Match has raised concern among medical educators. This study explores the patterns of such communication and its effect on the ethical and professional development of medical students. METHOD: In March and April 2001, the authors made a secure, anonymous questionnaire available online to 1,362 medical students who were graduating from ten U.S. medical schools and who participated in the 2001 Match. Data analysis included chi square, ANOVA, and correlation tests as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 740 students (54.3%) completed the questionnaire. Patterns of communication between programs and applicants varied significantly by medical school and specialty. Communication initiated by applicants came predominantly from those from less highly ranked medical schools (p =.000), and those applying to specialties with lower fill rates (p =.000). Programs initiated significantly more communication with applicants from more highly ranked schools (p =.006), and with those applying to specialties with higher fill rates (p =.000). The amount of pressure felt by applicants was related to the level of communication, whether initiated by applicants (p =.028) or programs (p =.000). Applicants who felt more pressure were significantly more likely to make misleading statements to programs (p =.000). CONCLUSIONS: Communication between applicants and programs during the Match varies and may have adverse effects on the ethical and professional development of medical students. This study provides support for proposals to limit communication between programs and applicants during the residency selection process.