Curricular adaptations in inpatient child psychiatry for the 21st century: the Flexner model revisited.

University of Hawai'i, Department of Psychiatry, 1356 Lusitana Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA.
Academic Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 0.81). 01/2010; 34(3):195-202. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ap.34.3.195
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors describe curricular modifications created in response to the changing culture of medical education, health care systems, academic medicine, and generational differences. The authors propose a model child psychiatry inpatient curriculum that is sustainable within a community teaching hospital in the 21st century.
The authors built upon the existing literature in health care financing, academic medicine, effective leadership, and the collective clinical, educational and administrative experience of its faculty to design a model inpatient curriculum that should be portable to other training programs.
An innovative training model was developed, implemented, and improved over a 5-year period without any additional fiscal resources.
This training model has the potential to improve patient care, resident training, interdisciplinary functioning, and resident satisfaction.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinician-educator faculty are increasing in numbers in academic medical centers, but their academic advancement is slower than that of research faculty. The authors sought to quantify the magnitude of this difference in career advancement and to explore the characteristics of faculty that might explain the difference. In 1999, a questionnaire was administered to all MD faculty at the rank of instructor and above (259) in the Department of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. A total of 180 (69%) faculty returned questionnaires. Of these, 178 identified with one of four career paths: basic researcher (46), clinical researcher (69), academic clinician (38), or teacher-clinician (25). Career path did not differ by age, gender, rank, years on faculty, hours worked per week, family responsibility, or global work satisfaction. After adjusting for age, gender, time at rank, and work satisfaction, the odds of being at a higher rank were 85% less for academic clinicians (odds ratio,.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.40) and 69% less for teacher-clinicians (odds ratio,.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.88) than for basic researchers. Clinical researchers did not differ from basic researchers in the likelihood of being at higher rank. Similarly, compared with basic research faculty, the adjusted odds of being more satisfied with progress towards academic promotion were 92% lower for academic clinicians and 87% lower for teacher-clinicians. Clinician-educator faculty were less likely to be at higher rank at this institution than were faculty in research paths. Differences in rank may be explained by lower rank at hire for faculty in these career paths, time available for scholarly activities, or other resources available to support scholarship. Retaining clinician-educators will require further exploration of barriers to promotion inherent to these career paths and methods of modifying these barriers.
    Academic Medicine 04/2004; 79(3):258-64. · 3.47 Impact Factor