To gain a better understanding of the effects of medical schools related to transformations in medical practice, science, and public expectations, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) established the Advisory Panel on the Mission and Organization of Medical Schools (APMOMS) in 1994. Recognizing the privileges academic medicine enjoys as well as the power of and the strain on its special relationship with the American public, APMOMS formed the Working Group on Fulfilling the Social Contract. That group focused on the question: What are the roles and responsibilities involved in the social contract between medical schools and various interested communities and constituencies? This article reports the working group's findings. The group describes the historical and philosophical reasons supporting the concept of a social contract and asserts that medical schools have individual and collective social contracts with various subsets of the public, referred to as "stakeholders." Obligations derive implicitly from the generous public funding and other benefits medical school receive. Schools' primary obligation is to improve the nation's health. This obligation is carried out most directly by educating the next generation of physicians and biomedical scientists in a manner that instills appropriate professional attitudes, values, and skills. Group members identified 27 core stakeholders (e.g., government, patients, local residents, etc.) and outlined the expectations those stakeholders have of medical schools and the expectations medical schools have of those stakeholders. The group conducted a survey to test how leaders at medical schools responded to the notion of a social contract, to gather data on school leaders' perceptions of what groups they considered their schools' most important stakeholders, and to determine how likely it was that the schools' and the stakeholders expectations of each other were being met. Responses from 69 deans suggested that the survey provoked thinking about the broad issue of the social contract and stakeholders. Leaders on the same campuses disagreed about what groups were the most important stakeholders. Similarly, the responses revealed a lack of national consensus about the most important stakeholders, although certain groups were consistently included in the responses. The group concludes that medical school leaders should examine their assumptions and perspectives about their institutions' stakeholders and consider the interests of the stakeholders in activities such as strategic planning, policymaking, and program development.

As health care delivery and its associated costs have been scrutinized carefully over the past decade, educational institutions have been expected to demonstrate how a particular educational requirement such as residency training brings benefit to the purchasers and users of their health care services. As part of this trend, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recently enacted new accreditation standards mandating the inclusion of curricular elements that expose residents to basic concepts and principles of the non-technical areas of health care across a variety of topics, including ethics, cost containment, socioeconomics, medical-legal issues, communication skills, research design, statistics, and critical review of the medical literature. The authors report the efforts at the Medical University of South Carolina to overcome obstacles and successfully implement an institution-wide core curriculum program, dealing with the kinds of topics mentioned above, across 47 specialty and subspecialty programs with over 500 residents and fellows. The seminal events and critical strategies are described, along with lessons learned along the way. The following were key elements to success: (1) adhering to a strategic plan assigning oversight of residency education to the graduate medical education (GME) office; (2) gaining strong support from the dean and other college officials; (3) creating a stepwise centralization of residencies in college via the GME committee; (5) making the first core curriculum element one that had an excellent chance to succeed; (6) having core curriculum sessions begin in evenings and weekends to not interfere with regular curriculum, but later, when the value of the curriculum became evident to departments, moving the sessions to be within the week; (7) having the philosophy of the GME office be to maintain a flexible approach and serve departments.

No abstract