Category Archives: Education

The AAMC of the Future

Today Eric Topol is keynoting the American Association of Medical Colleges in San Francisco.  If you haven’t read The Creative Destruction of Medicine, it should be required reading for anyone looking for a lens into the future.  For academic leadership to ignore this book’s message is to put our profession on the fast track to irrelevance.

As medicine advances faster than our ability to keep up, Topol’s presence at the AAMC is important.  While there’s lots of talk about what needs to happen to get doctors to adopt new tools and workflows, it starts with the way we make doctors.  And we must start with every medical educator understanding Topol’s perspective.

On my flight from Houston, I got to thinking what I might want to get across if I were addressing the AAMC.  While I may never be privileged enough to keynote the nation’s elite medical leadership, here are a few points that I might make concerning the future of medicine and medical education.

Offer the freedom to innovate.  The restraints of educational regulation hobble our capacity to reshape medical education for the future.  Regulatory bodies must realize their role in allowing and facilitating change.

Shift the culture.  Change the habit of lockstep thinking.  Put an end to the culture of permission that keeps young doctors and medical students from taking on the bigger problems in medicine.  Promote and pay those creating real change in the way diagnose and treat patients and train doctors.  Punish those who put empty papers into print in the interest of self-promotion.  Reward the kind of failure that moves us closer to where we need to be.

Make leaders.  Doctors are trained to listen, memorize and follow.  Make doctors who create and lead.

Promote public thinking.  Mandate that teachers and faculty make their thinking and their processes public and collaborative.  Require students to make and shape ideas.  Replace telephone book length CVs with living platforms that demonstrate remarkable thinking.  Promote as leaders those motivated to move ideas within the global community of health providers.

Cultivate digital faculty.  Hire teachers who understand and are willing to adopt and fashion the tools of post-analog medicine.  Replace those who don’t.  Hire and adopt the mindset of the early innovators in digital medicine.  Promote faculty who are moving the chains.  Reward progressive thinking.  Squash the culture of fear.  Cultivate the energy, mindset and passion of medicine’s founders in a way that turns medicine upside down.

Uproot the curriculum.  Dated curricula breeds dated doctors.  Recognize that what worked for students in 1910 won’t work for your students.

Turn the amphitheater into a museum.  Or keep it as a charming relic of the way students once learned.  Recognize that in 2012 medical school lecture halls are increasingly empty.  The days of sitting and watching the learned men have come and gone.  Teaching is no longer one-way.  Knowledge is networked.  Learning is collaborative.

If we train students like it’s the 20th century we will breed physicians unable to function in a modern world.  We must replace or prepare to be replaced.

I’ll see you at the Moscone Center.

Be sure to mark your 2013 calendar to hear Eric Topol at Millennial Medicine – Knowledge Design for an Age of Digital Disruption in Houston.

Tagged ,

The Future of (Medical) Education

This video, Networked Society, was produced as part of Ericsonn’s 2020 Project.  Watch this and ask yourself:  How does this apply to medical education?

Where are the innovators in medical education with the vision evident in this video essay?

h/t to Maria Popova on Explore.
Tagged , ,

Where Should We Look to Discover the Future of Medical Education?

When some doctors in Paris starting making movies of their surgeries in the early twentieth century, they galvanized forward-thinking American physicians to try making their own medical motion pictures when they got back home. The Parisian surgeons used their films like athletes do now, to study and improve their performance. (Remember, this was before anesthesia and antisepsis had attained the life-saving sophistication they have today – “faster” was the closest to “safer” they could get.)

What the American doctors found, however, was that the medical establishment had serious reservations about this new-fangled technology and its association with the “lower classes.” Much like the current decade-plus lag in adoption of new medical technologies, medical motion pictures had to wait about 15 years to gain traction. Eventually, movies were widely embraced in medical education, and they still are today, in digital form.

Fast forward to the mid-twentieth century, when closed-circuit television seemed to offer a new and improved form of communication and teaching. Unlike the previous resistance, this time, the medical establishment was at the front of the line, begging for government grants to try to make this new technology useful for training new physicians. Had medicine become a driver of innovation? And if so, why then, but not fifty years before?

There’s no magic answer – any real explanation would be long and complex, but the question is still worth asking: why does medicine sometimes embrace new forms of communication that might disrupt traditional knowledge hierarchies, while at other times everyone has their head in the sand? Where is medicine today, in terms of the prevalent attitude toward mobile, social, personalized media platforms? And where should we look for change?

Scholarly Control of the Twitter Conversation

The scholars are aflutter over Twitter.  Who owns information presented at academic conferences?  How do we control the flow of information?  This week brought some interesting dialog about the matter from from Pete Rorabaugh who has aggregated the relevant posts.  I like the focused perspective of Kathleen Fitzpatrick.

While every professional group has to sort this out on their own, it’s interesting to watch it play out.  You can’t control conversation.  Social platforms don’t change the responsibility of those who work with information.  Those consuming information have a responsibility to consider the source.  Those delivering information also have a responsibility.   And just as in the old days, the information I share is at the mercy of those who hold it or interpret it.

While this conversation vilifies Twitter, the dialog shouldn’t be about a communication platform, but about a way of communicating.  Ideas now move in real-time.  And when that happens there’s always the risk that something may be misunderstood.  There’s are also remarkable benefits that typically outweigh those risks.

If we proscribe Twitter is it then okay to share via Instagram, Path, Facebook, Google+, SMS text, Tumblr or Posterous?  And what if my research group works on Socialcast?  What if I keep my notes on Evernote and then share my notes with a panel of 18 friends who also attended the meeting?  What if I write the information down and photocopy it?  What if I write the ideas on a cocktail napkin, and someone takes it?  What about discussion in the men’s room?

My mother once told me that if you don’t want something to get out, keep your mouth shut.  My 13-year-old now feeling his way in social networks understands this.  I think scholars can somehow get their hands around it.

Another option is to hoard you’ve brilliance until you’ve got it all figured out.  Good luck with that.  What the technofatalistic Twitter prohibitionists don’t understand is that effective ideation doesn’t happen in isolation.

You can’t control the conversation.

Tagged

Medical Futures Lab Launches at Medicine X

Welcome to the Medical Futures Lab blog! We publicly launched the Lab yesterday at the MedicineX conference at Stanford University, with a presentation by me and my collaborator Bryan Vartabedian.  One of our Rice University undergrads, Adithya Balasubramaniam, joined us and we highlighted a prototype he developed called “Project medBook.”

We were thrilled to see a great audience turnout and we got lots of excellent questions about how we see the Medical Futures Lab developing as we move forward. People asked about the role of patient involvement, using a “pull” approach as well as a “push” approach to medical education, and expanding to engage the allied health professions. All this and more is in our future, and we welcome thoughts and suggestions from the community as we move forward.

We plan to use this blog space to post our thoughts on the future of medical education in the digital era, to announce new Lab projects, and to discuss interesting developments in this field. Expect posts from the very different perspectives of our collaborators in medicine, media studies, bioinformatics, digital medical humanities, visual arts, and more. And we want to hear from you – what would you change about medical education and why? If you could re-design medicine from scratch, what would you create?

More on our upcoming symposium, “Millennial Medicine: Knowledge Design for an Age of Digital Disruption” (April 26, 2013 in Houston, TX) coming soon, and start gathering your top must-reads on medicine in the digital age – we’ll be tapping the crowd to help shape the content of our upcoming team-taught course, “Medicine in the Age of Networked Intelligence.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: