The Leapfrog Initiative: a potential threat to surgical education

Barone, James E.; Tucker, James B.; Bull, Sherman M.

doi:10.1016/s0149-7944(02)00684-0

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a change has been documented in surgical education where a paradigm shift has been described[19]. This shift has occurred as a response to work hour restrictions[20], financial constraints[21], patient safety endeavours[22] and availability and use of the Internet[19]. In response, surgical educators have changed their curriculum to include Internet-based learning tools and surgical skill simulators[19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal education: a curriculum evaluation at one university

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe increasing burden of illness related to musculoskeletal diseases makes it essential that attention be paid to musculoskeletal education in medical schools. This case study examines the undergraduate musculoskeletal curriculum at one medical school.MethodsA case study research methodology used quantitative and qualitative approaches to systematically examine the undergraduate musculoskeletal course at the University of Calgary (Alberta, Canada) Faculty of Medicine. The aim of the study was to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum guided by four questions: (1) Was the course structured according to standard principles for curriculum design as described in the Kern framework? (2) How did students and faculty perceive the course? (3) Was the assessment of the students valid and reliable? (4) Were the course evaluations completed by student and faculty valid and reliable?ResultsThe analysis showed that the structure of the musculoskeletal course mapped to many components of Kern's framework in course design. The course had a high level of commitment by teachers, included a valid and reliable final examination, and valid evaluation questionnaires that provided relevant information to assess curriculum function. The curricular review identified several weaknesses in the course: the apparent absence of a formalized needs assessment, course objectives that were not specific or measurable, poor development of clinical presentations, small group sessions that exceeded normal 'small group' sizes, and poor alignment between the course objectives, examination blueprint and the examination. Both students and faculty members perceived the same strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum. Course evaluation data provided information that was consistent with the findings from the interviews with the key stakeholders.ConclusionsThe case study approach using the Kern framework and selected questions provided a robust way to assess a curriculum, identify its strengths and weaknesses and guide improvements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal education: a curriculum evaluation at one university

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based upon procedure volumes of graduating residents, many training programs are not meeting the initial or revised Leapfrog volume standards and have seen a decline in the volume of index cases like AAAs in recent years. 53,54 If standards force the regionalization of certain procedures, training programs will see a diversion of these procedures to select institutions and, therefore, will likely have even more difficulty meeting training requirements in certain topic areas.…”

Section: Reconciling Supply and Demand Mismatch With Leapfrog: Trainimentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping the Future of Surgery

Callcut

Breslin

2006

Annals of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The apprenticeship model originated by William Halstead has been supplanted by competing models due to a rapidly changing practice environment and advancing technologies [1]. Surgical education has been forced to evolve as a response to work hour restrictions [2], financial constraints [3], shifting practice patterns [4], and public scrutiny regarding patient safety issues [5]. Additionally, technologic advancements such as electronic medical records [6], computerized decision support [7], and simulation [8] have altered the face of surgical practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%