AAMC Says Study Ranking Medical Schools' "Societal Mission" Is Flawed

AAMC ^ | June 15, 2010

[greatdefender]

Washington, D.C., June 15, 2010—The AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) issued the following statement today on "The Societal Mission of Medical Education: Ranking the Schools," a new study in the June 15 Annals of Internal Medicine:

"The new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine presents a flawed and limited picture of how medical schools serve society's needs through their integrated missions of education, research, and patient care. Medical schools are very committed to their social missions. While producing primary care physicians, ensuring more diversity in the physician workforce, and encouraging more doctors to practice in underserved areas are certainly important parts of that mission, they are not the only components.

As the accompanying editorial notes, the societal mission of medical education cannot be narrowly defined. Medical schools serve society in many ways. They conduct groundbreaking research that helps address the health needs of all patients; they provide vital community services such as geriatric care, nutrition counseling, health clinics, and free screenings for the uninsured and underinsured; and they work to improve medical care not only for Americans, but also for disadvantaged populations globally.

Medical schools are also committed to producing more primary care physicians. But again, as the editorial points out, the study fails to factor in primary care services delivered by a number of different kinds of physicians, including general surgeons, OB-GYNs, and some other specialists.

Like other attempts at ranking medical schools, this study falls short. By defining "societal mission" and "primary care" so narrowly, it provides a very limited picture of medical education's many contributions to society in the United States and around the world. And that serves no one well."

[kbennkc]

They should stick to limiting the numbers of students .

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

A good argument can be made that individual States should create their own medical schools, to provide “second tier” public medical care parallel to the private health care system.

To start with, medical schools and nursing colleges produce high quality graduates, but far too few of them. If they were solely for private practices, this would be adequate, but using them as well in public medical care spreads them too thin.

At the same time, much of the public health care system has a different medical orientation than private practices. This is based both on a greater emphasis on preventative care, and limitations on the degree of care provided by the willingness of the taxpayer.

As one example, a public care physician specializing in OB/GYN spends far more time with prenatal instructional care, as their patients are far more likely to have troublesome pregnancies. But this is not the best use of the time of a fully qualified OB/GYN.

In another example, a private dentist could go to great lengths to save a damaged tooth with fillings, caps, implants, etc. A public care dentist is more inclined to just remove the tooth entirely, as the loss of a single tooth is not functionally limiting, just less aesthetically attractive.

Since their practices are different, giving them different training in a “Second Tier” medical school makes sense. And this applies not just to doctors, but to nurses and other practitioners as well. As well, there would be no need to limit the number of graduates from these schools.

In some ways, State medical schools would be like the training of Doctors of Osteopathy, which are also trained on a private system parallel to Medical Doctors.

The end result of State medical schools would be that there would be far more qualified personnel serving public institutions, not just County hospitals, prisons and other institutions, but rural areas as well.

[mad_as_he$$]

ping