Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integration of Biomedical Sciences in the Family Medicine Clerkship Using Case-Based Learning

  • Monograph
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integration of biomedical and clinical sciences has been a focus of curricular change in undergraduate medical education since the second half of the twentieth century. While clinical sciences have been successfully embedded throughout the preclinical curriculum of many schools, integration of biomedical science into clinical clerkships remains a challenge. Here, we describe our approach to create case-based learning modules that integrate infectious disease and pharmacology content into the third-year family medicine clerkship rotation to improve transfer of biomedical science knowledge to the clinical setting, and to enhance student recall and use of biomedical science knowledge within a clinical context. To assess student perceptions and experience of the learning event, students completed a voluntary questionnaire, the results of which revealed that the majority of students felt that the exercise focused on high-yield concepts in infectious disease, pharmacology, and family medicine. Students also indicated that integration of additional biomedical science disciplines into the family medicine rotation would be valuable, as would extending the approach into the other third-year clerkships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hopkins R, et al. Integrating basic science without integrating basic scientists: reconsidering the place of individual teachers in curriculum reform. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):149–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harden RM, Sowden S, Dunn WR. Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model. Med Educ. 1984;18(4):284–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bandiera G, et al. Integration and timing of basic and clinical sciences education. Med Teach. 2013;35(5):381–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide no. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mann KV. Thinking about learning: implications for principle-based professional education. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2002;22(2):69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bordage G. Elaborated knowledge: a key to successful diagnostic thinking. Acad Med. 1994;69(11):883–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vidic B, Weitlauf HM. Horizontal and vertical integration of academic disciplines in the medical school curriculum. Clin Anat. 2002;15(3):233–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Regehr G, Norman GR. Issues in cognitive psychology: implications for professional education. Acad Med. 1996;71(9):988–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burnett E, Phillips G, Ker JS. From theory to practice in learning about healthcare associated infections: reliable assessment of final year medical students’ ability to reflect. Med Teach. 2008;30(6):e157–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Grande JP. Training of physicians for the twenty-first century: role of the basic sciences. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):802–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Norman G. Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):807–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilkerson L, Stevens CM, Krasne S. No content without context: integrating basic, clinical, and social sciences in a pre-clerkship curriculum. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):812–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dahle LO, et al. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linkoping, Sweden. Med Teach. 2002;24(3):280–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldman E, Schroth WS. Perspective: deconstructing integration: a framework for the rational application of integration as a guiding curricular strategy. Acad Med. 2012;87(6):729–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harden R, et al. Task-based learning: the answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years. Med Educ. 2000;34(5):391–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kulasegaram KM, et al. Cognition before curriculum: rethinking the integration of basic science and clinical learning. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1578–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Malik AS, Malik RH. Twelve tips for developing an integrated curriculum. Med Teach. 2011;33(2):99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Muller JH, et al. Lessons learned about integrating a medical school curriculum: perceptions of students, faculty and curriculum leaders. Med Educ. 2008;42(8):778–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Salmon M, Williams D, Rhee K. Refocusing medical education reform: beyond the how. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):136–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmidt H. Integrating the teaching of basic sciences, clinical sciences, and biopsychosocial issues. Acad Med. 1998;73(9 Suppl):S24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Spencer AL, et al. Back to the basic sciences: an innovative approach to teaching senior medical students how best to integrate basic science and clinical medicine. Acad Med. 2008;83(7):662–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Functions and Structure of a Medical School, In Standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the MD Degree. March 2017, Liaison Committee on Medical Education.

  23. Cooke M, Irby DM, O'Brien BC. Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency. Series on preparation for the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marston RQ. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission on medical education. The sciences of medical practice, summary report. JAMA. 1992;268(9):1144–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hirsh D, et al. Educational outcomes of the Harvard Medical School–Cambridge integrated clerkship: a way forward for medical education. Acad Med. 2012;87(5):643–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bowe CM, Voss J, Thomas Aretz H. Case method teaching: an effective approach to integrate the basic and clinical sciences in the preclinical medical curriculum. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):834–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dubois EA, Franson KL. Key steps for integrating a basic science throughout a medical school curriculum using an e-learning approach. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):822–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Finnerty EP, et al. Flexner revisited: the role and value of the basic sciences in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):349–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Report IV—Contemporary issues in medicine: basic science and clinical research. Medical School Objectives Project. 2001, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Washington, DC: AAMC.

  30. Sakles JC, Maldonado RJ, Kumari VG. Integration of basic sciences and clinical sciences in a clerkship: a pilot study. Med Sci Educator. 2006;61(1)

  31. Wilkins, K.M., et al., Integration of basic and clinical science in the psychiatry clerkship. Acad Psychiatry, 2016.

  32. Rajan SJ, Jacob TM, Sathyendra S. Vertical integration of basic science in final year of medical education. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2016;6(3):182–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bahner I, Stevenson F, Zwygart K. Vertical integration of basic science: returning the basic sciences to the final medical school year using individuated, career-specific short courses. Med Sci Educ. 2015;25(4):481–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Harden RM, Stamper N. What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher. 1999;21(2):141–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bauler TJ, S. B, van Enk R, Lutwick L, Dickinson BL. Design and implementation of an integrated course to teach immunology and infectious disease to first year medical students. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26(4):701–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Educ. 2000;34(7):551–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Anderson MB. Definitions and explanations of selected terms used in this supplement. Acad Med. 2010;85(9 Suppl):S646–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. MedBiquitous Curriculum Inventory Working Group Standardized Vocabulary Subcommittee. MedBiquitous Curriculum Inventory Working Group Standardized Vocabulary Subcommittee. (2012). Curriculum Inventory standardized instructional and assessment methods and resource types (September 2012 version). 2012, Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.

  39. Dussart C, et al. Optimizing clinical practice with case-based reasoning approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):718–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bransford JD, B.A., Cocking RR, How people learn. 2000, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

  41. KV, K.D.a.M., Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice. Understanding medical education: evidence, theory and practice, ed. T. Swansick. 2010, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

  42. Ambrose S, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK. How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Brown PC. Make it stick: the science of successful learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. xi; 2014. 313 pages

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Karpicke JD, Blunt JR. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science. 2011;331(6018):772–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Karpicke JD, Roediger HL 3rd. Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007;33(4):704–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Karpicke JD, Roediger HL 3rd. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 2008;319(5865):966–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. de Bruin AB, Schmidt HG, Rikers RM. The role of basic science knowledge and clinical knowledge in diagnostic reasoning: a structural equation modeling approach. Acad Med. 2005;80(8):765–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Loftus S. Understanding integration in medical education. Medical Science Educator. 2015;25(3):357–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Richard Brandt and Duncan Vos in the Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology for their role in questionnaire data collection and analysis, and Jayme Salinas and Amber Tuner in the Department of Educational Affairs for their administrative role in this study. The authors also thank Drs. Barbara Bregman and Daniel Pratt for critical review of this manuscript. This study was developed by BLD as part of the Harvard Macy Program for Educators in Health Professions Education and presented as a seminar at the 2017 Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Conference by Drs. VanDerKolk and Dickinson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA

    Bonny L. Dickinson, Kristi VanDerKolk, Timothy Bauler & Shanna Cole

Authors
  1. Bonny L. Dickinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristi VanDerKolk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy Bauler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shanna Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bonny L. Dickinson.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

Case-based learning modules complete with answers and instructional notes. (DOCX 78 kb)

ESM 2

Questionnaire. (DOCX 133 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dickinson, B.L., VanDerKolk, K., Bauler, T. et al. Integration of Biomedical Sciences in the Family Medicine Clerkship Using Case-Based Learning. Med.Sci.Educ. 27, 815–820 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0484-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0484-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation