Medicine X is an event that’s one part performance art, two parts academic conference, and three parts social movement. The last 24 hours have been a whirlwind of awe and inspiration that’s left me speechless—sorry, tweet-less.
First and foremost, I have to applaud Medicine X for its unique approach to medical education. Traditionally, medical education meetings are where deans, program directors, and educators meet to prescribe a top-down vision of what’s best for medical learners. MedX|Ed—and naturally, MedX is anything but traditional—takes the opposite approach. It begins with the end users, learners and patients. Next, it identifies these users’ needs in an evolving healthcare system and dynamic social-technological climate, and imagines how academic medical ecosystems might be re-engineered to better support them.
What a wild idea: that medical students might actually have a vested interest in crafting their ideal learning modalities, and that patients might actually have a vested interest in shaping their ideal provider’s skill set. Imagine that.
As the MedX webcast and tweet-stream illustrate, when students, patients, providers, and educators converge, the discussions are delightful, and the ideas are incredible. If you’re not keen on combing through 6,500+ tweets of lofty ideation, raw emotion, and heated disruption, here’s a “fast four” of take-always to ponder.
Reimagining pre-med. Creative destruction of medical practice starts with creative destruction of medical training, which starts with creative destruction of medical admissions and selection. If we want scholars, innovators, and humanists, why do we, as Nisha Pradhan critiqued, put physician-hopefuls through a meat grinder of memorization and multiple-choice assessments? As a medical student, I never solve Diels-Alder reactions or draw Krebs cycle intermediates. I frequently search for the subtexts in dialogues and make perceptual assessments of subjective situations—you know, fluencies I built from my humanities coursework. How might we rethink pre-medical prerequisites to actually hold relevance to the practice of medicine?
Reimagining med ed. Anki, Picmonic, Firecracker, Pathoma, Goljean, DIT, UWorld: the last decade has seen an explosion of digital study tools, tutorials, and Q-banks in medical education, and it’s all driven by the increasing centrality of standardized testing in residency selection. Have dreams of derm? Better splurge for that $500 test prep resource. Now consider that this ‘Step 1 economy’ exists in addition to a medical education that costs $30-60,000 per year. Medical students today are dually enrolled in the study of patient care and the study of Step 1. Why is that? If our tests are so detached from the curricula they evaluate, shouldn’t we aim to close the gap? How might we redesign assessments to capture a holistic excellence in clinical practice, rather than an acute ability in factual recall?
Reimagining patient ed. It’s no coincidence that the word ‘doctor’ derives from the Latin word ‘docere’: to teach. At its core, to be a physician is to be an educator. In today’s volume-driven healthcare system, though, that teaching interaction is often confined to a brief moment at the close of a patient visit. As more physicians become content creators and digital connectivity becomes ubiquitous, might we extend patient education beyond the clinic? It’s easy to imagine a near future where a patient’s ‘presenting complaint’ triggers an email with curated educational content, like an Evans Health Lab video, ahead of a visit. Such ‘flips’ would allow more time for the clinic visit to focus on hands-on teaching or addressing questions. How might we use digital media, informatics, and educational theory to inform a ‘flipped classroom’ for tomorrow’s patients?
Reimagining educators. Traditionally, teaching moves down the hierarchy: attending physicians teach residents and fellows, who teach medical students, who sit at the bottom of the totem pole and try not to mess up. As we continually extend the competencies and fluencies expected of providers in an age of accountable care and networked medicine, perhaps the best educators aren’t solely physicians. Maybe the best educator on empathy, bedside dialogue, and the patient experience is, as Dave DeBronkart and Emily Kramer Golinkoff proposed, a patient. And maybe not even just learning from a patient lecturer, but from a patient’s chronological illness narrative on social media,or from a patient who brings their ‘Google biopsy’ results to an appointment. How might we create structure opportunities for trainees to connect to and learn from non-conventional teachers?
Clearly, we have much to think about, and even more to still accomplish. Again, a huge kudos to MedX for extending the vision of ‘nothing about me, without me’ from the clinic to the classroom. And a final note for healthcare students: now that we’ve been given the opportunity to participate and speak, we’re charged with the responsibility to co-lead and actively shape our learning ecosystems. Let’s get to work.
Closing question: what are your “how might we’s” from MedX|Ed, and how do you envision implementing them by MedX|Ed 2016?