Search

Forty-five years ago, the first author of this paper surveyed the US medical schools to determine their offerings on EOL (End-of-Life) issues. The results showed limited exposure for medical school students to learn about dying and death, thus their "learning" was apparently on-the-job training. The EOL offerings were so limited that the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), following the 1975 publication from the survey, contacted the first author to inquire about death and dying in the curricula of their medical schools. Apparently, it was so insignificant that the AAMC did not have such information. Palliative medicine, geriatric medicine, and hospice were then in the "birthing" process, a mere blur on the horizon. Today, as in 1975, it is likely that most medical students have personally had minimal experience with death and that for many entering students, other than on television, the cadaver is their first sight of a dead person. The objective of this research is a longitudinal study at five-year intervals since 1975 reporting on EOL education in US medical schools. The total number of medical schools has increased from 113 in 1975 to 150 in 2020. The current study surveyed medical schools electronically and via postal services with a response rate of 37%. Findings from the survey over time revealed significant inclusion of death and dying and palliative medicine as well as geriatrics and hospice. Gross anatomy has evolved from strictly hands-on to integrating 3D/virtual models, a change not without controversy. A noticeable difference in emphasis is obvious as care now plays a more significant role in medical training than previously, thus making modern medicine not only about cure, but more about care than was previously emphasized. Communication with dying patients and families, analgesics for chronic pain, and advance directives all are covered in over 90% of schools today. The current emphasis on EOL care, not just disease management, is increasing and puts more of a human face on modern medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of conceptual frameworks have emerged with the goal of helping clinicians understand and navigate the intersections of the health system and broader political, economic, and cultural processes when they care for patients. In this study, we analyze the impact that one emerging framework, "structural competency," had on medical students' and physicians' understanding of societal problems affecting patient health and the practices of health systems. In this sub-analysis of a longitudinal qualitative study conducted between August and December 2020, we analyzed 19 semi-structured interviews with 7 first-year medical students, 7 upper-level medical students, and 5 physician course facilitators who participated in a course called Introduction to Medicine and Society at an medical school in the United States affiliated with a large urban academic medical center. This paper focuses on three main findings: how medical students and faculty describe "structures" and their effects on patients and patient care; how they use or imagine using structural competency to improve patient-physician communication and work interprofessionally to address social needs; and the emotional and personal reactions that confronting societal challenges provokes. We conclude that structural competency enhances existing efforts to improve patient-physician communication and to address patients' social needs. However, we highlight how structural competency efforts might fall short of their goal to shift physicians' perspectives "upstream" to the determinants of health due to both critical ambiguities in the concept and inattention to the emotional and personal impacts of addressing societal problems in the clinic. These findings have practical implications for how clinicians are trained to act on societal issues from within the health system and conceptual implications for refining how existing frameworks and curricula conceive of the intersection between healthcare and broader processes. • Ambiguity of 'structure' and 'structural competency' hinders applicability. • Emphasis on 'structure' may unintentionally essentialize marginalized patients. • Trainees' affective responses are key to addressing societal factors in the clinic. • Humility and self-reflection helped trainees better address 'structure'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]