Within the context of major medical education curricular reform ongoing in the United States, a subset of schools has re-initiated accelerated (3-year) medical education. It would be helpful for education leaders to pause and consider historical reasons such accelerated medical schools were started, and then abandoned, over the last century to proactively address important issues. As no comprehensive historical review of 3-year medical education exists, we examined all articles published on this topic since 1900. In general, US medical educational curricula began standardizing into 4-year programs in the early 1900s through contributions from William Osler, Abraham Flexner, and establishment of the American Medical Association (AMA) Council of Medical Education (CME). During WWII (1939–1945), accelerated 3-year medical school programs were initiated as a novel approach to address physician shortages; government incentives were used to boost the number of 3-year medical schools along with changed laws aiding licensure for graduates. However, this quick solution generated questions regarding physician competency, resulting in rallying cries for oversight of 3-year programs. Expansion of 3-year MD programs slowed from 1950s to 1960s until federal legislation was passed between the 1960s and the 1970s to support training healthcare workers. With renewed government financial incentives and stated desire to increase physician numbers and reduce student debt, a second rapid expansion of 3-year medical programs occurred in the 1970s. Later that decade, a second decline occurred in these programs, reportedly due to discontinuation of government funding, declining physician shortage, and dissatisfaction expressed by students and faculty. The current wave of 3-year MD programs, beginning in 2010, represents a ‘third wave’ for these programs. In this article, we identify common societal and pedagogical themes from historical experiences with accelerated medical education. These findings should provide today’s medical education leaders a historical context from which to design and optimize accelerated medical education curricula.

BackgroundMedical education is undergoing robust curricular reform with several innovative models emerging. In this study, we examined current trends in 3-year Doctor of Medicine (MD) education and place these programs in context.MethodsA survey was conducted among Deans of U.S. allopathic medical schools using structured phone interview regarding current availability of a 3-year MD pathway, and/or other variations in curricular innovation, within their institution. Those with 3-year programs answered additional questions.ResultsData from 107 institutions were obtained (75% survey response rate). The most common variation in length of medical education today is the accelerated 3-year pathway. Since 2010, 9 medical schools have introduced parallel 3-year MD programs and another 4 are actively developing such programs. However, the total number of students in 3-year MD tracks remains small (n=199 students, or 0.2% total medical students). Family medicine and general internal medicine are the most common residency programs selected. Benefits of 3-year MD programs generally include reduction in student debt, stability of guaranteed residency positions, and potential for increasing physician numbers in rural/underserved areas. Drawbacks include concern about fatigue/burnout, difficulty in providing guaranteed residency positions, and additional expense in teaching 2 parallel curricula. Four vignettes of alternative innovative and relevant curricular initiatives are also presented in order to place 3-year MD programs in a broader context of medical education reform in the U.S.ConclusionThree-year MD pathways are the most common accelerated alternative available at a small number of medical schools for highly selected students. Long-term evaluation of these programs will be essential to determine if these programs are meeting their goals (e.g., increasing the number of physicians in rural/underserved areas). Benefits and shortcomings of such programs should be carefully examined when considering this approach, or others described, as part of MD curricular options designed to individualize medical education.

Objective: To examine best practices and policies for effectively merging community and academic physicians in integrated health care systems. Methods: Deans of US allopathic medical schools were systematically interviewed between February and June 2017 regarding growth in their faculty practice plan (FPP), including logistics and best practices for integration of community physicians. Results: The survey was completed by 107 of 143 (74.8) of US medical school deans approached. Of these institutions, 73 met criteria for final analysis (research-based medical schools with FPPs of >300 physicians). Most academic medical centerebased FPPs have increased in size over the last 5 years, with further growth anticipated via adding community physicians (85%). Because of disparate practice locations, integration of community and academic physicians has been slow. When fully integrated, community physicians predominantly have a clinical role with productivity incentives. Deans report that cultural issues must be addressed to avoid conflict. Consensus exists that transparent clinical work requirements for all FPP members, clearly defined productivity incentives, additional promotion tracks, and early involvement of department chairs and other leaders enhances trust and creates better synergy among all physician providers. Conclusion: Findings from this study should help guide FPPs, academic medical center leaders, chief medical officers, and professional and trade organizations in working toward positive physician synergy in consolidated health care organizations. Work and cultural considerations must be addressed to honor distinct talents of each physician group, facilitating smooth transition from disparate groups to healthy synergy.