Integrating basic, clinical, and health system science in a medical neuroscience course of an integrated pre‐clerkship curriculum

Abstract

AbstractBasic science, clinical science, and health system science (HSS) have become three pillars of integration upon which modern, post‐Flexner, medical education is now based. Because of this new approach to curricular integration in a clinical presentation curruculum, medical training is now placed in the context of healthcare delivery. This study described the design, implementation, and assessment of an integrated teaching strategy, including the effect on students' performance in a medical neuroscience course's summative and formative examinations of an integrated clinical presentation curriculum. The integrated teaching of basic science content, clinical case discussion, and HSS was performed in the first year of an allopathic integrated pre‐clerkship curriculum. The two cohorts were from two different years, spring 2018 and 2019. The acceptance of the integrated teaching strategy by medical students was above 80% in all categories that were assessed, including enhancing the integrated experience in learning basic and clinical science materials in the context of HSS; understanding of the learning lessons; facilitation of self‐directed learning; provision of a better learning environment; and a holistic understanding of materials including the relevance of HSS issues in the discussion of neurological cases in the medical career of the students. More than 90% of the students scored ≥70% in summative questions mapped to the four learning objectives of the integrated teaching session. The objectives are the correlation of structure to specific functions (94.0 ± 0.21), clinical anatomical features of the nervous system (95.0 ± 0.27), cross‐sectional features of the nervous system (96.0 ± 0.31), and the effect of lesions on the structure and functional pathways of the nervous system (97.0 ± 0.34). This result was significantly higher when compared to students' performance in the non‐integrated teaching cohort (p < 0.05). Formative assessments (F(7,159) = 92.52, p < 0.001) were significantly different between the two groups. When medical students were evaluated using the same questions for formative assessment, they performed better in the integrated teaching cohort (*p < 0.05) compared to the non‐integrated teaching cohort (**p < 0.05).