Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:00:51.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology and the Undergraduate Medical Curriculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Jeremiah A. Barondess
Jeremiah A. Barondess
Affiliation:
Cornell University Medical College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Instruction of medical students in the use of technologic procedures in clinical medicine has emerged in recent years on a more or less piecemeal basis. Individual technologies are introduced as the teaching hospital acquires the requisite equipment and personnel; as experience is gained by faculty and attending staff some sense emerges of the indications, contraindications, risks, accuracy, and usefulness of a procedure, which then is transmitted to housestaff and students. Instruction is likely to occur on a case-by-case basis, supplemented occasionally by conferences or formal presentations, generally oriented around major innovations, such as computerized transaxial tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. As relevant clinical literature appears, it is used to reiterate and expand the available information base of trainees, but to a considerably greater extent for housestaff than for students. Ultimately what emerges is a pattern of use, a gestalt, for each technology, reflecting the synthesis of the available information and clinical experience with the procedure in the particular institution. In view of the enormous number and variety of technologies available, the task of the student or house officer in acquiring even basic familiarity with those in common use is formidable. A coherent approach to instruction in the use of technologic procedures is required. Students need, and medical faculties must find, a way to provide intellectual systems for incorporating technologies into the clinical armamentarium in a manner that permits them to be maximally useful.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 19 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Association of American Medical Colleges. Physicians for the twenty-first century: The GPEP report: Report of the Panel on the General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges, 1984.Google Scholar
2.Barondess, J. A.The clinical transaction—themes and descants. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1983, 27, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Domoto, K., Ben, R., Wei, J. Y., et al. Yield of routine annual laboratory screening in the institutionalized elderly. American Journal of Public Health, 1985, 75, 243–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Eckenhoff, J. E.Choosing students—making doctors. Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 1986, 8, 7–17.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Eichna, L.Medical school education, 1975–1979. A student’s perspective. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 727-34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Griner, P. F. & Liptzin, B.Use of the laboratory in a teaching hospital—implications for patient care, education and hospital costs. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1971, 75, 157–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Hubbell, F. A., Greenfield, S., Tyler, J. L., et al. The impact of routine admission chest x-ray films on patient care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312, 209–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kassirer, J. P.The principles of clinical decision making: An introduction to decision analysis. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1976, 49, 149–64.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Moloney, T. W. & Rogers, D. E.Medical technology—a different view of the contentious debate over costs. New England Journal of Medicine, 1979, 301, 1413–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Myers, L. P., Chapman, S. A., McPhee, S. J., et al. Which hospital services are most overused? Results from a medical audit. Western Journal of Medicine, 1985,143, 397–98.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Office of Technology Assessment. Medical Technology and Costs of the Medicare Program. OTA-H-227 Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1984.Google Scholar
12.Ring, A. M.Multiphasic screening: Panacea or diagnostic nightmare. (Editorial) Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985, 254, 1499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Rogers, D. E.On technologic restraint. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1975, 135, 1393–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Scitovsky, A. A.Changes in the costs of treatment of selected illnesses, 1971–1981. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 1345–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Scitovsky, A. A. & McCall, N.Changes in the costs of treatment of selected illnesses, 1951–1964–1971. DHEW publication no. (HRA) 77–3161. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.Google Scholar
16.Scitovsky, A. A.Changes in the costs of treatment of selected illnesses, 1951–65. American Economics Review, 1968, 57, 1182–95.Google Scholar
17.Showstack, J. A., Stone, M. H., & Schroeder, S. A.The role of changing clinical practices in the rising costs of hospital care. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 313, 1201–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Sox, H. C. Jr.Probability theory in the use of diagnostic tests. An introduction to critical study of the literature. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1986, 104, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Swanson, A. G.Medical education in the United States and Canada. Journal of Medical Education, 1984, 59, 35–42.Google Scholar
20.White, R. E., Quimby, B. B., Skipper, B. J., Webster, G. D.: Cost of residents’ decisions on actual patients and in simulated encounters. Journal of Medical Education, 1984, 59, 833.Google ScholarPubMed