Laboratory Medicine Education at U.S. Medical Schools

Abstract

Purpose To assess the current state of laboratory medicine education at U.S. medical schools. Method From 2013 to 2014, the authors surveyed the appropriate dean, department chair, or undergraduate education director at each U.S. medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education about the state of laboratory medicine education, curriculum and competency assessment, and barriers to education at his or her institution. The authors used descriptive statistics to analyze the results. Results The authors received 98 (75%) responses. Eighty-two schools (84%) offered course work in laboratory medicine; 76 (78%) required it. The median number of hours of required course work was 12.5, with 8.0 devoted to lectures and 4.5 to small-group, problem-based learning and/or laboratory sessions. Only 8 schools required training in a clinical setting. Fewer than half reported regular, formal review of the laboratory medicine curriculum. The assessment of students’ competency in laboratory medicine was rare (8 schools), and only half of respondents were aware of published curriculum guidelines. Barriers to teaching laboratory medicine included lack of sufficient time in the preclinical curriculum (86; 88%) or clinical curriculum (84; 86%), lack of knowledge of best laboratory practices by residents (70; 72%), lack of student interest (62; 63%), and lack of knowledge by attending physicians (58; 59%). Half of respondents were likely to use a national standardized examination to assess competency in laboratory medicine, if one was available. Conclusions Significant opportunities exist to improve laboratory medicine education, including in the proper use and interpretation of clinical laboratory testing.

Knowledge of Laboratory Medicine in Medical Students: Is It Sufficient?

“…It is believed that dramatic growth in laboratory testing has reinforced the need for optimal formal medical student education (8).…”

“…In a nearly recent survey published by Smith et al, Among received responses, 84% offered some course works; 78% required it during the first two years and 19% also in clinical years. All required course works included a lecture component with or without laboratory session or small group problem-based learning (8). Some offered an elective pathology course at some parts in curriculum in addition to or in lieu of a required course which could include laboratory medicine (8).…”

“…In an updated report of CDC in a May 2009 (1,7), however, it was addressed that "medical education on laboratory testing is inadequate". It is believed that the amount of time devoted to this important subject in undergraduate medical education is not adequate (3,8).…”

Bioinformatics Education in Pathology Training: Current Scope and Future Direction

“…In recent years, medical schools have transitioned from traditional discipline-based didactic curricula to problem-based learning curricula9,10 most of which offer limited structured informatics education 11. Furthermore, as an unintended consequence, the principles of histopathology and laboratory medicine were marginalized to electives or abandoned entirely 12,13. Thus, medical school graduates not only lack exposure to basic bioinformatics principles but also lack exposure to basic principles in pathology which are necessary to function as a competent pathology resident.…”

It's Our Turn: Implications for Pathology From the Institute of Medicine's Report on Diagnostic Error

“…More specifically, the committee cited a study involving a survey of approximately 75% of medical schools in the United States about the teaching of both anatomic and clinical pathology. 3 The survey showed that the hours spent teaching anatomic pathology in US medical schools ranges from 61 to 302 hours. On the other hand, the median time spent in lecture teaching the practical aspects of laboratory medicine-that is, the selection of the appropriate tests and the correct interpretation of the test results-is only 8 hours.…”