Perspectives

Patient-Centered Teaching in a Technology-Dominated Era

Authors: Joost Frenkel, MD, PhD, H. Carrie Chen, MD, PhD, Olle ten Cate, PhD

Abstract

Medical education today should provide physicians with the capacity to serve the needs of the patients of tomorrow. Many in the medical community have called for increased attention to anticipated future challenges, including changes in healthcare delivery and rapid advancements in technology,1–4 yet patients remain at the center of our health systems.1 Why, then, is a perspective article about patient-centered teaching not a cliché?

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010;376:1923-1958.
 
2. Norman G. Medical education: past, present and future. Perspect Med Educ 2012;1:6-14.
 
3. Pershing S, Fuchs VR. Restructuring medical education to meet current and future health care needs. Acad Med 2013;88:1798-1801.
 
4. Borleffs JC. Medical education: future-proof? Perspect Med Educ 2013;2:1-3.
 
5. Wachter R. The Digital Doctor-Hope, Hype, Harm at the Dawn of Medicine's Computer Age. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2015.
 
6. O&#x2019Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Baker DW. How hospitalists spend their time: insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med 2006;1:88-93.
 
7. Mamykina L, Vawdrey DK, Hripcsak G. How do residents spend their shift time? A time and motion study with a particular focus on the use of computers. Acad Med 2016;91:827-832.
 
8. Peters M, Ten Cate O. Bedside teaching in medical education: a literature review. Perspect Med Educ 2014;3:76-88.
 
9. ten Cate O, Peters M. Who can do without patients? Perspect Med Educ 2015;4:98-99.
 
10. Dornan T, Scherpbier A, Boshuizen H. Supporting medical students&#x2019 workplace learning: experience-based learning (ExBL). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2009.00305.x/full. Published August 19, 2009. Accessed September 30, 2016.
 
11. Wenger E. Communities of Practice. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
 
12. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
 
13. Jarvis-Selinger S, Pratt DD, Regehr G. Competency is not enough: integrating identity formation into the medical education discourse. Acad Med 2012;87:1185-1190.
 
14. Cooke M, Irby D, O'Brien BC. Educating Physicians-A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 2010.
 
15. Merton R, Reader R, Kendall P. The Student-Physician: Introductory Studies in the Sociology of Medical Education. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1957.
 
16. Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Boudreau JD, et al. Reframing medical education to support professional identity formation. Acad Med 2014;89:1446-1451.
 
17. Schmidt HG, Rikers RM. How expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Med Educ 2007;41:1133-1139.
 
18. Custers EJ. Thirty years of illness scripts: theoretical origins and practical applications. Med Teach 2015;37:457-462.
 
19. LeBlanc VR, McConnell MM, Monteiro SD. Predictable chaos: a review of the effects of emotion on attention, memory and decision making. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2015;20:265-282.
 
20. Varpio L, Day K, Elliot-Miller P, et al. The impact of adopting EHRs: how losing connectivity affects clinical reasoning. Med Educ 2015;49:476-486.
 
21. Skeff KM. Reassessing the HPI: the chronology of present illness (CPI). J Gen Intern Med 2014;29:13-15.
 
22. Griswold-Theodorson S, Ponnuru S, Dong C, et al. Beyond the simulation laboratory: a realist synthesis review of clinical outcomes of simulation-based mastery learning. Acad Med 2015;90:1553-1560.
 
23. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, et al. Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Acad Med 2011;86:706-711.
 
24. Naik VN, Brien SE. Review article: simulation: a means to address and improve patient safety. Can J Anaesth 2013;60:192-200.
 
25. Jagsi R, Lehmann LS. The ethics of medical education. BMJ 2004;329:332-334.
 
26. Benner P. Using the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition to describe and interpret skill acquisition and clinical judgment in nursing practice and education. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2004;24:188-199.
 
27. Zendejas B, Brydges R, Wang AT, et al. Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2013;28:1078-1089.
 
28. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ 2010;44:543-549.
 
29. Harden RM, Sowden S, Dunn W. Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model. Med Educ 1984;18:284-297.
 
30. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, et al. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Link&#x00F6ping, Sweden. Med Teach 2002;24:280-285.
 
31. Koens F, ten Cate OT, Custers EJ. Context-dependent memory in a meaningful environment for medical education: in the classroom and at the bedside. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2003;8:155-165.
 
32. Koens F. Vertical Integration in Medical Education. [doctoral dissertation]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2005.
33. Koens F, Mann KV, Custers EJ, et al. Analysing the concept of context in medical education. Med Educ 2005;39:1243-1249.
 
34. ten Cate O, Chen HC, Hoff RG, et al. Curriculum development for the workplace using Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). AMEE Guide No. 99. Med Teach 2015;37:983-1002.
 
35. ten Cate O, Hart D, Ankel F, et al. Entrustment decision making in clinical training. Acad Med 2016;91:191-198.
 
36. Chen HC. Early Learner Engagement in the Clinical Workplace.  [doctoral dissertation]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2015.
37. ten Cate TJ, Kusurkar RA, Williams GC. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE Guide No. 59. Med Teach 2011;33:961-973.
 
38. Gawande A. Being Mortal. New York: Doubleday; 2014.
 
39. van Houwelingen CT, Moerman AH, Ettema RG, et al. Competencies required for nursing telehealth activities: a Delphi-study. Nurse Educ Today 2016;39:50-62.
 
40. Topol E. The Patient Will See You Now. The Future of Medicine Is In Your Hands. New York: Basic Books; 2015.
 
41. Hirsh DA, Ogur B, Thibault GE, et al. "Continuity" as an organizing principle for clinical education reform. N Engl J Med 2007;356:858-866.
 
42. Gaufberg E, Shtasel D, Hirsh D, et al. Harvard Medical School Cambridge Integrated Clerkship : challenges of longitudinal integrated training. Clin Teach 2008;5:78-82.
 
43. Poncelet AN, Wamsley M, Hauer KE, et al. Patient views of continuity relationships with medical students. Med Teach 2013;35:465-471.
 
44. Mittal V. Family-centered rounds. Pediatr Clin North Am 2014;61:663-670.