The accreditation process is both an opportunity and a burden for medical schools in Korea. The line that separates the two is based on how medical schools recognize and utilize the accreditation process. In other words, it would be a burden on the medical school if the medical school recognized the accreditation process as merely a formal procedure or a means to maintain accreditation status for medical education. However, if a medical school acknowledges the positive value of the accreditation process, it can be both an opportunity and a tool for developing medical education. The accreditation process's educational value is to improve the quality, equity, and efficiency of medical education and increase the options of choice. For the accreditation process to contribute to medical education development, accrediting agencies and medical schools must first be recognized as partners of an "educational alliance" working together towards common goals. Secondly, clear guidelines on the accreditation standards should be periodically reviewed and shared. Finally, a formative evaluation using self-evaluation must be introduced to utilize the accreditation process as an opportunity to develop medical education. This evaluation system could be developed through collaboration among medical schools, academic societies for medical education, and the accrediting authority.
To examine medical students’ perceptions of leadership and explore their implications for medical leadership education. We conducted a qualitative analysis of the essays submitted by students in the medical leadership course from 2015 to 2019. We categorised the essays by the characteristics of the selected model leaders (N = 563) and types of leadership (N = 605). A statistically significant proportion of students selected leaders who were of the same gender as themselves (P < 0.001), graduate track students chose leaders in science (P = 0.005), while; military track students chose leaders in the military (P < 0.001). Although the highest proportion of students chose politicians as their model leaders (22.7%), this number decreased over time (P < 0.001), and a wider range of occupational groups were represented between 2015 and 2019. Charismatic leadership was the most frequently selected (31.9%), and over time there was a statistically significant (P = 0.004) increase in the selection of transformational leadership. Students tended to choose individuals whose acts of leadership could be seen and applied. Medical leadership education should account for students’ changing perceptions and present a feasible leadership model, introducing specific examples to illustrate these leadership skills.
The accreditation process (AccP) is both an opportunity and a burden for medical schools—which one it becomes depends on how medical schools recognize and utilize the AccP. In other words, if a medical school recognizes the AccP only as a formal procedure or as a means for continuing medical education, it will be a burden for the medical school. However, if a medical school recognizes the real and positive value of the AccP, it can be both an opportunity and a tool for developing medical education. The educational value of the AccP is to improve the quality, equity, and efficiency of medical education, along with increasing the options of choice. In order for the AccP to contribute to the development of medical education, accrediting agencies and medical schools must first be recognized as part of an “educational alliance” working together towards common goals. Secondly, clear guidelines on the accreditation standards should be periodically reviewed and shared. Finally, a formative evaluation using self-evaluation as a system that can utilize the AccP as an opportunity to develop medical education must be introduced. This type of evaluation system could be developed through collaboration among medical schools, academic societies for medical education, and the accrediting authority.
Despite the importance of how the premedical education curriculum is organized, the basic direction of the curriculum has not been evaluated at a fundamental level. In order to explore the basic directions of the premedical education curriculum, this study examined medical education as a university education, the historical basis of premedical education, and the direction of the premedical education curriculum. Historically, as medical education was incorporated into the university education system, premedical education developed based on basic science and liberal arts education. Accordingly, the direction of the premedical education curriculum began to split into two approaches: one believing in a basic science-based education intended to serve as the foundation of medical training, and the other believing in a liberal arts-based education intended to cultivate the qualities of a doctor. In recent years, however, the binary division in the direction of premedical education has ceased to exist, and the paradigm has now shifted to an agreement that premedical education must cultivate the basic scientific competence required for learning medical knowledge as well as the social qualities that a doctor should have, which are cultivated through the liberal arts. Furthermore, it has been asserted that the direction of premedical education should move toward the qualities that will be required in the future. With the fourth industrial revolution underway, the role of doctors is now being re-examined. This means that today's medical education must change in a future-oriented way, and the direction of the premedical education curriculum must be on the same page.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.