Evaluation of the Program in Medical Education for the Urban Underserved (PRIME-US) at the UC Berkeley–UCSF Joint Medical Program (JMP): The First 4 Years

Abstract

Over the first 4 years of the program, PRIME-US students and non-PRIME students, faculty, and staff experienced educational benefits consistent with the intended program goals. Long-term evaluation is needed to examine the participants' medical careers and impacts on California's healthcare workforce and patient outcomes. Attention should also be paid to the challenges of implementing new medical education enrichment programs.

Association of a Health Equity Curriculum With Medical Students’ Knowledge of Social Determinants of Health and Confidence in Working With Underserved Populations

“…12,13 Although many schools have begun to implement health equity curricula, they are often limited to small classroom-based experiences without significant community involvement. [12][13][14] Many are delivered as electives that reach only students with self-identified interest in health disparities, 15,16 and only a few have reported student evaluation data. 12,13 Effective examples of experiential health equity curricula that are woven into the medical school's core curricula are needed.…”

A summer prematriculation program to help students succeed in medical school

“…As medical schools have made significant changes to diversify their matriculants by adopting a more holistic review of applicants (Bailey and Willies-Jacobo 2012;Deas et al 2012;Girotti et al 2015;Sokal-Gutierrez et al 2015), an even greater effort is required to ensure that these students have a sufficient biomedical science background and academic preparation at the start of medical school. In this study, we provide a general framework on how a prematriculation program can be structured and, most importantly, evaluated to ensure program effectiveness and ongoing improvements.…”

Implementing longitudinal integrated curricula: Systematic review of barriers and facilitators

“…No opportunity for discussions about patients 34 Unanswered questions 44 Nursing staff were using students as cleaners and messengers 34 Lack of structure in the learning environment 43 Safe learning environment 30,35 Companionship, interaction with young enthusiastic people and the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion about patient care 33 Learning opportunities: corridor discussions, bedside team discussions 33 Continuity of relationship 36 Continuity of setting 31 opportunity becoming part of a medical community 30 continuity with peers 30,40 supportive learning environment offering group learning sessions 46 collegiality 46 supportive community of patients 46 discussions and community-based activities 41…”

“…Dependence on patient opportunities 42 Lack of continuity with patients 45 Feelings of ineptitude and vulnerability in fulfilling the expectations for this new clinical role 38 Moments of burnout related to doubts about patient management 38 Lack of responsibility for patient care 45 Patient continuity 27,[29][30][31]36,40,44,45 Undifferentiated patients as the basis for learning 29,37 Patient involvement in the LIC 37 Patients willingly/patient integration 39 Patient integration in care (open conversations) 39 Consultations involving the student and doctor 39 Parallel consulting model 39 variety of patients 31 Patient portfolio method 43 Seeing many patients 44 Continuity of care 33,39,43 Real clinical experiences 30,38 learning clinical approaches 44 Seeing a caseload relevant to practice 44 Feeling part of the practice team with a useful contribution to make to patient care 27 Students taking on responsibilities for patient care [35][36][37]42,45 Community-based experiences 41 (Continues)…”