Guiding principles for undergraduate medical education in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York City's medical schools experienced dramatic disruptions in every aspect of medical education. Remote learning was created, seemingly overnight, clerkships were disrupted, licensing examinations were cancelled, teaching faculty were redeployed, student volunteers rallied, and everyone was required to shelter at home. Seismic changes were required to adapt the authors' educational programs to a constantly evolving, unpredictable, and ever-worsening public health crisis. Entirely new communication strategies were adopted and thousands of decisions had to be made, often with little time to carefully reflect on the consequences of those decisions. What allowed each school to navigate these treacherous waters was a set of guiding principles that were used to ground each conversation, and inform every decision. While the language varied somewhat between schools, the core principles were universal and framed a way forward at a time when information, data, precedent, and best practices did not exist. The authors share these guiding principles in the hope that colleagues at other medical schools will find them to be a useful framework as we all continue to cope with the impact of COVID-19 on the future of medical education.

Leveraging Economies of Scale via Collaborative Interdisciplinary Global Health Tracks (CIGHTs): Lessons From Three Programs.

As interest in global health education continues to increase, residency programs seeking to accommodate learners' expectations for global health learning opportunities often face challenges providing high-quality global health training. To address these challenges, some residency programs collaborate across medical specialties to create interdisciplinary global health residency tracks or collaborative interdisciplinary global health tracks (CIGHTs). In this Perspective, the authors highlight the unique aspects of interdisciplinary tracks that may benefit residency programs by describing 3 established U.S.-based programs as models: those at Indiana University, Mount Sinai Hospital, and the University of Virginia. Through collaboration and economies of scale, CIGHTs are able to address some of the primary challenges inherent to traditional global health tracks: lack of institutional faculty support and resources, the need to develop a global health curriculum, a paucity of safe and mentored international rotations, and inconsistent resident interest. Additionally, most published global health learning objectives and competencies (e.g., ethics of global health work, predeparture training) are not discipline specific and can therefore be addressed across departments-which, in turn, adds to the feasibility of CIGHTs. Beyond simply sharing the administrative burden, however, the interdisciplinary learning central to CIGHTs provides opportunities for trainees to gain new perspectives in approaching global health not typically afforded in traditional global health track models. Residency program leaders looking to implement or modify their global health education offerings, particularly those with limited institutional support, might consider developing a CIGHT as an approach that leverages economies of scale and provides new opportunities for collaboration.