A Survey of Disaster Medical Education in Osteopathic Medical School Curricula.

Parrillo SJ , Christensen D , Teitelbaum HS , Glassman ES . A survey of disaster medical education in osteopathic medical school curricula. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(6):581-582.

Canadian DOs: International Expansion of Osteopathic Medical Education North of the Border.

CONTEXT: The growth of osteopathic medicine in the United States has led to a vibrant expansion of the profession internationally. Canadian students represent the majority of international applicants and matriculants to US colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs); however, to our knowledge, no studies have explored this population. OBJECTIVE: To gain a better understanding of Canadian students attending US colleges of osteopathic medicine by examining their residency training preference, visa preference, intent to practice in the United States or Canada, receptiveness to incorporating osteopathic manipulative medicine into practice, specialty preference, estimated debt incurred, and effect of debt on specialty choice. METHODS: A 10-question electronic survey was sent to Canadian osteopathic medical students in the 17 COMs and branch campuses that accept international applicants. The initial survey pool consisted of frst-, second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students (classes of 2014-2017) compiled from a database managed by the Canadian Osteopathic Medical Student Association. RESULTS: Of the 102 students contacted, 66 (65%) completed the survey. Respondents had a strong desire to practice in Canada (44 [67%]) but were considering an Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or dually accredited residency program in the United States (46 [70%] and 15 [23%], respectively) that would sponsor an H1B visa. Respondents were receptive to incorporating osteopathic manipulative medicine into practice (44 [67%]). Most respondents chose non-primary care specialties (40 [61%]) and incurred a debt of more than $200,000 (44 of 65 [68%]); however, debt had a limited infuence on respondents' choice of specialty (χ23=1.911; P=.591). CONCLUSION: Most respondents planned to complete ACGME training, to return to Canada to practice medicine, and to practice in a non-primary care specialty. As a growing population that will play a large role in the expansion and reception of the profession internationally, Canadian osteopathic medical students and US-trained Canadian DOs merit further examination.

The status and future of osteopathic medical education in the United States.

Osteopathic medical education (OME) developed during the 20th century into a separate system of training U.S. physicians. Doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) were educated in osteopathic medical colleges and residencies in osteopathic hospitals, took separate specialty and licensure examinations, and generally practiced in separate clinical environments from those of MDs. Founded more than 110 years ago in the United States to train osteopaths as an alternative to MD training of that time, by midcentury schools of osteopathy became schools of osteopathic medicine with the adoption of public health and biomedical principles, and osteopaths became osteopathic physicians, achieving full practice rights throughout the country. By 2000 there were 19 osteopathic medical schools, 42,000 practitioners, and a parallel system of osteopathic graduate medical education specialty training. Recently, OME's academic and clinical training environment has changed. Heightened accreditation requirements, curriculum innovations, competency-based standards, evidence-based training, increased research on osteopathic manipulative medicine (a distinctive aspect of OME), and new and expanding colleges have occurred (nine new osteopathic campuses developed between 2000 and 2008 and a 30% increase in the first-year osteopathic medical student class). During recent decades, a movement away from osteopathic medicine's traditionally primary-care-focused and separate training/practice system has occurred. Nearly all osteopathic hospitals closed or were integrated into allopathic hospital systems, student clinical training expanded into venues with MD education programs, fewer DO graduates pursued traditional primary care training, 60% entered training programs of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and DO and MD specialty practice integration became widespread. These developments have triggered a reassessment process for OME and professional organizational leadership.

Factors affecting specialty choice among osteopathic medical students.

PURPOSE: The availability of primary care directly and favorable affects the health status of local communities. This study shows the predictors and characteristics of osteopathic medical students who chose a primary care specialty (PCS). METHOD: The authors surveyed 2,345 fourth-year osteopathic medical students during 2003-2004. A total of 1,882 (80%) responded. By means of their survey, the authors examined many aspects of the students' experiences and other factors in relation to choice of a PCS versus a nonprimary nonsurgical specialty (NPCS) and compared their findings against findings in the allopathic specialty-choice literature. RESULTS: Dealing with people was favored by those entering a PCS, whereas the NPCS group cited technical skills, prestige and income, and lifestyle as being highly influential. Both PCS and NPCS respondents favored dually accredited programs (American Osteopathic Association-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education). Women showed a slightly greater preference for a PCS, whereas men overwhelmingly chose an NPCS. Those who anticipated practicing in cities of fewer than 100,000 citizens tended to choose a PCS. Those individuals choosing a PCS expect their income to be less than those choosing an NPCS. Debt showed a monotonic influence on specialty choice, with respondents who had greater debt favoring NPCSs. CONCLUSIONS: No single factor reliably predicts specialty choice; it is a complex decision-making process. There are modifiable factors (debt) and nonmodifiable factors (gender) that influence specialty choice. The study's findings suggest that positively influencing the modifiable risk factors will increase the probability but not the certainty of osteopathic medical students' choosing a PCS.

Clinical prevention and population health: curriculum framework for health professions.

The Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework is the initial product of the Healthy People Curriculum Task Force convened by the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine and the Association of Academic Health Centers. The Task Force includes representatives of allopathic and osteopathic medicine, nursing and nurse practitioners, dentistry, pharmacy, and physician assistants. The Task Force aims to accomplish the Healthy People 2010 goal of increasing the prevention content of clinical health professional education. The Curriculum Framework provides a structure for organizing curriculum, monitoring curriculum, and communicating within and among professions. The Framework contains four components: evidence base for practice, clinical preventive services-health promotion, health systems and health policy, and community aspects of practice. The full Framework includes 19 domains. The title "Clinical Prevention and Population Health" has been carefully chosen to include both individual- and population-oriented prevention efforts. It is recommended that all participating clinical health professions use this title when referring to this area of curriculum. The Task Force recommends that each profession systematically determine whether appropriate items in the Curriculum Framework are included in its standardized examinations for licensure and certification and for program accreditation.