Beat Steiner

For years, US medical schools have relied on community-based, private clinicians to educate medical students. There has been a steady decline in the number of physicians willing to take on medical ...

Over the past 40 years, the physician supply of North Carolina (NC) grew faster than the total population. However, the distribution of physicians between urban and rural areas increased, with many more physicians in urban areas. In rural counties, access to care and health disparities remain concerning. As a result, the medical school implemented pipeline programs to recruit more rural students. This study investigates the results of these recruitment efforts. Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare the number and percentage of rural and urban students from NC who applied, interviewed, and were accepted to the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine (UNC SOM). The likely pool of rural applicants was based on the number of college-educated 18-34-year-olds by county. Roughly 10.9% of NC’s population of college-educated 18-34-year-olds live in rural counties. Between 2017 and 2019, 9.3% (n = 225) of UNC SOM applicants were from a rural county. An increase of just 14 additional rural applicants annually would bring the proportion of rural UNC SOM applicants in alignment with the potential applicant pool in rural NC counties. Our model of analysis successfully calculated the impact of recruitment efforts to achieve proportional parity in the medical school class with the rural population of the state. Addressing rural physician workforce needs will require multiple strategies that affect different parts of the medical education and healthcare systems, including boosting college completion rates in rural areas. This model of analysis can also be applied to other pipeline programs to document the success of the recruitment efforts.

Background To say that the transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) is under scrutiny would be an understatement. Findings from a panel discussion at the 2018 Association of American Medical Colleges Annual meeting entitled, "Pass-Fail in Medical School and the Residency Application Process and Graduate Medical Education Transition" addressed what and when information should be shared with residency programs, and how and when that information should be shared. Materials and Methods Over 250 participants representing UME and GME (e.g. leadership, faculty, medical students) completed worksheets addressing these questions. During report-back times, verbal comments were transcribed in real time, and written comments on worksheets were later transcribed. All comments were anonymous. Thematic analysis was conducted manually by the research team to analyze the worksheet responses and report back comments. Results Themes based on suggestions of what information should be shared included the following: 1) developmental/assessment benchmarks such as demonstrating the ability/competencies to do clinical work; 2) performance on examinations; 3) grades and class ranking; 4) 360 evaluations; 5) narrative evaluations; 6) failures/remediation/gaps in training; 7) professionalism lapses; 8) characteristics of students such as resiliency/reliability; and 9) service/leadership/participation. In terms of how this information should be shared, the participants suggested enhancements to the current process of transmitting documents rather than alternative methods (e.g., video, telephonic, face-to-face discussions) and information sharing at both the time of the match and again near/at graduation to include information about post-match rotations. Discussion Considerations to address concerns with the transition from medical school to residency include further enhancements to the Medical Student Performance Evaluation, viewing departmental letters as ones of evaluation and not recommendation, a more meaningful educational handoff, and limits on the number of residency applications allowed for each student. The current medical education environment is ready for meaningful change in the UME to GME transition.

Background Over the past 40 years, North Carolina’s physician supply grew faster than the total population, but the maldistribution of physicians between urban and rural areas increased. In rural counties, access-to-care and health disparities remain concerning. Method Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare the number and percentage of rural and urban students from North Carolina (NC) who applied, interviewed, and were accepted to the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine. The likely pool of rural applicants was based on the number of college-educated 18-34-year-olds by county. Results Roughly 10.9% of NC’s population of college-educated 18-34-year-olds live in rural counties. Between 2017–2019, 9.3% (n = 225) of UNC SOM applicants were from a rural county. Conclusion An increase of just 14 additional rural applicants annually would bring the proportion of rural UNC SOM applicants in alignment with the potential applicant pool in rural NC counties. Addressing NC’s rural physician workforce needs will require multiple strategies that affect different parts of the medical education and health care systems, including boosting college completion rates in rural areas.

Patients with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) have high rates of emergency department visits and high premature mortality rates, often due to poor primary care. A model of enhanced primary care services integrated in a behavioral health location is being implemented and studied at the UNC WakeBrook Primary Care Center (UNCWPC). This research was conducted as a retrospective cohort study. ED Visit Utilization before and after establishing care at UNCWPC were calculated for a cohort and a subset of patients. There was a decrease in ED utilization after years 3–4 of enrollment for physical health complaints for the overall cohort (n = 101), from 3.23 to 1.83 visits/person/year, and for patients with multiple physical comorbidities (n = 50), from 4.04 to 2.48 visits/person/year. This study indicated that an enhanced model of primary care can help decrease ED utilization for primary care conditions. The decline was not seen until the patients were well-established.

Issue: Despite clear relevance, need, descriptive literature, and student interest, few schools offer required curriculum to develop leadership skills. This paper outlines a proposed shared vision for leadership development drawn from a coalition of diverse medical schools. We advocate that leadership development is about self (looking inward), teams (not hierarchy), and change (looking outward). We propose that leadership development is for all medical students, not for a subset, and we believe that leadership curricula and programs must be experiential and applied. Evidence: This paper also draws on the current literature and the experience of medical schools participating in the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium, confronts the common arguments against leadership training in medical education, and provides three cross-cutting principles that we believe must each be incorporated in all medical student-centered leadership development programs as they emerge and evolve at medical schools. Implications: By confronting common arguments against leadership training and providing a framework for such training, we give medical educators important tools and insights into developing leadership training for all students at their institutions.

Despite pronounced disparities in mortality and physical health outcomes, no well accepted models exist for integrating primary care with behavioral health for patients with serious mental illness (SMI). This article describes a case study of an enhanced approach to primary care that builds on the patient centered medical home (PCMH) model and adds three additional components: (1) longer and more frequent visits to establish trust and increase adherence, (2) a primary care team that has both the skills to provide effective primary care and the heart to take care of patients with SMI and (3) planned and proactive communication between the behavioral health team and the primary care team.