I serve on the interviewing panel at my school; recently, I have had the privilege to interview a few candidates for the incoming class. During the last interview, a candidate asked me if a patient would be assigned to him to follow during the years. I was surprised by that question, as I did not do this during my years and was not aware of any existing programs. The question puzzled me. So, after the interview, I did some online research and learned that some medical schools do provide unique clinical-exposure opportunities to their students. Some programs introduce direct clinical experience as early as first year. Some assign a patient during third year and have the student follow that patient the entire year, a longitudinal integrated clerkship of sort.
At my program, the students have ample opportunities to work with a physician, to volunteer at a school-affiliated acute care clinic, or to participate in other community clinic events; however, they are not required to have direct clinical experience during the first two years to graduate. Core clinical clerkships are entirely during third and fourth years.
The question that candidate had asked me made me wonder. Should medical students have clinical exposure integrated into their curriculum as early as first year? Would the early and sustained clinical experience gives medical students more confidence and interest in medicine and help to develop comfort to excel as a physician-in-training? Or would it be counterproductive by increasing the workload of the didactic years, which is already considered rigorous at some level?
Most of these pilot programs, where medical students are introduced to early longitudinal integrated clerkship, have recently started and have yet to assess or confirm the significant benefits of early clinical exposure.
Nevertheless, I can’t imagine how this new direction in undergraduate medical training would be less beneficial than the traditional "rotation blocks." I view this as a better way to have early training for patient-centered and continuity care.
*This post has been published on Medscape's "Differential Blog."
At my program, the students have ample opportunities to work with a physician, to volunteer at a school-affiliated acute care clinic, or to participate in other community clinic events; however, they are not required to have direct clinical experience during the first two years to graduate. Core clinical clerkships are entirely during third and fourth years.
The question that candidate had asked me made me wonder. Should medical students have clinical exposure integrated into their curriculum as early as first year? Would the early and sustained clinical experience gives medical students more confidence and interest in medicine and help to develop comfort to excel as a physician-in-training? Or would it be counterproductive by increasing the workload of the didactic years, which is already considered rigorous at some level?
Most of these pilot programs, where medical students are introduced to early longitudinal integrated clerkship, have recently started and have yet to assess or confirm the significant benefits of early clinical exposure.
Nevertheless, I can’t imagine how this new direction in undergraduate medical training would be less beneficial than the traditional "rotation blocks." I view this as a better way to have early training for patient-centered and continuity care.
*This post has been published on Medscape's "Differential Blog."