Acad Psychiatry 30:29-35, February 2006
doi: 10.1176/appi.ap.30.1.29
© 2006 Academic Psychiatry
APA Summit on Medical Student Education Task Force on Informatics and Technology: Learning About Computers and Applying Computer Technology to Education and Practice
Donald M. Hilty, M.D.,
Deborah J. Hales, M.D.,
Greg Briscoe, M.D.,
Sheldon Benjamin, M.D.,
Robert J. Boland, M.D.,
John S. Luo, M.D.,
Carlyle H. Chan, M.D.,
Robert S. Kennedy, M.D.,
Harry Karlinsky, M.D.,
Daniel B. Gordon, M.D.,
Joel Yager, M.D. and
Peter M. Yellowlees, M.D.
Received July 3, 2005; revised October 20, 2005; accepted October 20, 2005. Dr. Hilty is Associate Professor of Psychiatry, UCDMC, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Sacramento, California. Dr. Yellowlees is affiliated with UCDMC, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Sacramento, California. Dr. Hales is Director, Division of Education and Career Development, American Psychiatric Association, Arlington, Virginia. Dr. Briscoe is affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Norfolk, Virginia. Dr. Benjamin is affiliated with the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Boland is affiliated with Brown University, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Providence, Rhode Island. Dr. Luo is affiliated with the University of California Los Angeles, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, California. Dr. Chan is affiliated with the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Department of Psychiatry, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Dr. Kennedy is affiliated with AATP, Technology, New York, New York. Dr. Karlinsky is affiliated with the University of British Columbia, Department of Psychiatry, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Dr. Gordon is affiliated with Vahalla Partners, Department of Research, Arlington, Virginia. Dr. Yager is affiliated with the University of New Mexico, Department of Psychiatry, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Address correspondence to Dr. Hilty, UC Davis Psychiatry, 2230 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95817; dmhilty{at}ucdavis.edu (E-mail). Copyright © 2006 Academic Psychiatry.
|
ABSTRACT
|
OBJECTIVE: This article provides a brief overview of important issues for educators regarding medical education and technology.METHODS: The literature describes key concepts, prototypical technology tools, and model programs. A work group of psychiatric educators was convened three times by phone conference to discuss the literature. Findings were presented to and input was received from the 2005 Summit on Medical Student Education by APA and the American Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry. RESULTS: Knowledge of, skills in, and attitudes toward medical informatics are important to life-long learning and modern medical practice. A needs assessment is a starting place, since student, faculty, institution, and societal factors bear consideration. Technology needs to "fit" into a curriculum in order to facilitate learning and teaching. CONCLUSION: Learning about computers and applying computer technology to education and clinical care are key steps in computer literacy for physicians.
|
INTRODUCTION
|
Students, faculty, and institutions are applying computer technology to modern medical practice more than ever before. However, a curriculum or method of teaching computer technology as it relates to medical practice has not yet been established. In this information age, portable technology such as CDs and web-based resources allows us to interactively learn at our convenience. E-mail, telecommuting, and the Internet (e.g., movies and music) have radically altered our lives at work and home. Medical educators must assess these technological developments carefully in order to make best use of them. Medical educators should also prepare for future useful advances in technology while avoiding technological development that might not be applicable to the medical field.
Medical informatics is one of nine objectives in the Council on Graduate Medical Education for the Undergraduate Medical Education for the 21st Century (UME-21) curriculum project (1). It "... is the science underlying the acquisition, maintenance, retrieval and application of biomedical knowledge and information to improve patient care, education, research and administration" (2). It is increasingly clear that computers help us to systematically respond to problems (3). Many students, faculty, and institutions have applied the principles and techniques of computer technology to medical education as well as life-long learning.
Psychiatrists are in a unique position to use and evaluate technology since the content and process of therapy are conducive to technological learning and adaptation. The field, however, appears to be struggling to find and maintain a comfortable relationship to medical informatics. Presently, students and interns are often more comfortable with computers than faculty (4). Simulation (e.g., examinations with standardized patients), handhelds (data and algorithms), simulators (e.g., entire medical wards), pharmacy databases (e.g., ePocrates), telemedicine, and virtual reality (e.g., schizophrenia) (5–7) are ground-breaking but only insofar as they are carefully taught and fit within a broader curriculum. Having invested in computer systems that proved inefficient, many institutions have concerns about costs as well as uncertainty about how to proceed with change.
This article provides a brief overview of key issues for educators regarding medical education and technology, discussing how successful programs got started and the issues these programs faced. Principles of using computers to teach and options for assessment are summarized. Further, we define computer literacy—the processes of learning about computers, learning through computers, and applying technology to clinical care—to help readers learn how computers are successfully used and how the medical field can stay abreast of the latest technology. Model programs, tools, and resources are also reviewed.
|
Issues Related to Technology for Institutions
|
Faculty, departments, and institutions are examining their mission and how it relates to technology and medical education. In the past, technology was unsuccessfully added to rather than incorporated as a core part of curriculum. Presently, the influence and impact of technology are so great that its place in the medical infrastructure must be assessed, including its fluency with other systems of education, clinical care, administration, and research. Input from current and future users is critical throughout this process, and educators must adapt technology to curricular content, teaching styles, and teaching methods.
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Medical School Objectives Project and the General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine Report (8) suggest integration of technology into the medical curricula, but most programs are struggling to achieve this. However, most programs are applying technology to clinical care (9). Students appear to understand the shortcoming, with only 37% considering themselves to be computer literate but 92% agreeing that technology should be taught in medical school (10).
One inroad of technology has been the personal digital assistant (PDA). The American Medical Student Association (AMA) reports that "possessing a PDA during the clinical years is now regarded to be nearly as essential as owning a stethoscope" (from http://www.amsa.org/resource/pda.cfm). In 1994, only 10% of medical students owned PDAs (11), and only recently have medical students received PDAs when they begin school. The number of physicians using PDAs is increasing, with "50% ... as users by 2005 ... as a point-of-care medical informatics tool" (from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt). The PDA, however, is only successful when students are taught how to use it (e.g., what programs to use, how it interfaces with other information systems).
A viable first step for institutions is to assess the needs and possibilities of informatics on multiple levels that include:
1. Infrastructure: hardware and software;
2. Connectivity of information between participants (students, staff, faculty, hospital and others);
3. The relationship of technology to the curriculum: technology to facilitate, "take over" and add to current programs (e.g., use of questionnaire data to guide instructional services in a computer-based instructional laboratory and via the Internet) (11) is faster and had better data integration than a program taught hands-on by faculty);
4. Computer literacy of all participants: knowledge, skills, behaviors and attitudes; and
5. A computer-based learning platform to chart and evaluate the learning path of an individual (e.g., Blackboard, Sakai), with integrated feedback to faculty.
|
Principles of Teaching Technology
|
There are many principles and methods for successful development of medical informatics programs for learning and clinical care (see Appendix 1). Initial assessment and follow-up quantitative (e.g., scores) and qualitative (e.g., attitudes) evaluations are crucial. A model institution has an integrated plan of assessing needs and tailoring resources, with feedback between students, teaching faculty, and administrators (11). Clinical, education, evaluation/research, and healthcare manager roles need better definition to support lifelong learning in technology by the student—teaching them how to access, evaluate, and use information resources (12).
Students in many fields prefer online services, wireless when possible, for flexibility and ease of learning. The integration of technology into a "real" curriculum is needed.
The process of teaching technology is as important as structure, content, or the tool of technology. For example, activities simulating how students will use technology on their own or later in practice are critical. This could be considered the problem-based learning (PBL) or case-based equivalent of technology education.
|
Computer Literacy and Applications
|
Content and process intervention is needed to achieve computer literacy and involves balancing student need, faculty expertise, administrative resources, and time in a curriculum (see Appendix 2). Students want to learn how to utilize medical applications (83%) and technology (44%) and how to effectively perform database searches (23%) (10).
Learning About Computers
To effectively use computers, one must first have some technical knowledge, conceptual understanding of their function, and awareness of information flow and linkage (see Appendix 2). Some students still need to learn the use of e-mail, software programs, and computer maintenance skills (e.g., security, data back-up). Information searching has also been an area of intense focus (guidelines) (13), with most schools teaching students software programs early on in order to prepare them to "learn with" the programs later.
Learning Through Computers
Once those basic computer literacy skills have been enhanced, there are many ways to learn through computers—simulators, virtual reality, tutorials, web-based curricula, and formative examinations. Most institutions use demonstrations, lectures, small-group tutorials, hands-on labs, and task-based assignments in years 1–3 of a curriculum. A review of e-learning practices revealed that 66% of studies discuss web-based systems, and 48% focus on outcomes for first- and second-year students (14). A computer may provide a clinical experience for students to augment clinical encounters, since the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) requires clerkship directors to expose all medical students to a uniform set of patient illnesses.
Computer-aided instruction is used by approximately 60% of students (11) and helps with skill acquisition at novice and intermediate levels for surgery (15). Such programs teach symptoms and diagnostic skills in preparation for clinical encounters.
Computers offer feedback to students in a variety of ways, from formative examinations to communication skills via an objective structured video examination (OSVE; 16). WebCT, front-end software for Internet-delivered material, became an integral part of a problem-based learning, student-centered curriculum (17). Success was dependent on many factors: training, clear goals linked to learner needs, quality of content with regular updates, user-friendly software, visual graphics, easy access, and evaluation (outcomes, feedback).
Learning With Computers
Opportunities to learn with computers are also extensive and may involve information searches (e.g., National Library of Medicine, MEDLINE, Micromedex, PubMed, Cochrane, Highwire) and programs to enhance clinical care (e.g., ePocrates). Presently, more emphasis is needed on processing rather than obtaining information. Diagnostic databases (e.g., Dermadex atlas) and decision-support programs are more accessible, and some are portable. Assessment of learner needs and preferences before purchase and implementation of programs is recommended to suit needs and goals.
Decision-support systems generally help with supplementing physician memory, memory retrieval, and automated decision making in situations that are predictable or routine (18). More complex decisions are supported by information retrieval but are ultimately dependent on clinician judgment. These technological resources change physician behavior and improve outcomes per self-report studies. As a result, adherence to guidelines is enhanced (18).
Handhelds have been endorsed by the Health Care Information and Management Systems Society (19) for communication, service administration (6), and clinical care. Databases for prescribing (e.g., iScribe and PocketScript) and documentation systems are commonly used (6, 20). PDAs, Pocket PCs, Tablet PCs with handwritten input, and other Windows-based PCs vary in terms of software operating systems, price, size/weight, display, expansion slots, connections with desktop, multimedia, file organization, and other software (6, 21–23).
Clinical information systems integrate patient information in an EMR with billing and administrative data; prompt physicians to initiate evaluations or treatment; and offer clinical pathways, protocols and guidelines (2). Preferences among users (e.g., patient, student, faculty, hospital administration and third party payers) need to be considered in order to increase the likelihood that such preferences will be employed.
Many applications are available for psychiatry and medical practice (see Appendix 3). Some help collect and process information (e.g., patient-information managers, logs to track clinical experience, tools to collect research data), and others provide information (e.g., practice guidelines, diagnostic tools) (24). Computerized decision-support systems are being evaluated with regard to learning styles (25) to improve "fit" with users. A skill set for use of video, telephone, e-mail, and other modalities may also be necessary if used extensively for patient care (7).
Selected Technology Tools, Models, and Programs
A collaborative academic network based on technology assists students, faculty, and institutions because it integrates materials, methods, and administration. Registration and grade book programs are examples of computer-based administration. A computer center may offer a support system with resources. E-portfolios organize the journals and learning tools specific to the learner, a course, or other tasks. A connection to faculty’s teaching materials, including syllabi, may be part of the network (e.g., My Info Vault).
Tools, models, and programs specific or applicable to medical and psychiatric education have also been highlighted for adoption (see Appendix 4). Other applications in medicine could be applied to psychiatry (see Appendix 3). It is time and cost-effective not to reinvent the wheel.
Several areas of advancement deserve special highlighting:
1. Workflow: Clinical (as above), educational programming (e.g., the Oasis online submission and review program requires) and peer review process for scientific and medical journals (Scholar One);
2. Data aggregation: Aggregation, integration and dissemination of educational and clinical data for larger scale analysis is possible for clinical and research purposes (e.g., Cochrane Library); and
3. Multi-site collaboration: Release of educational innovations for a standardized, international, online medical school curriculum (e.g., IVIMeds); peer-reviewed instructional materials, assessment materials, virtual patients, faculty development materials and educational standards (e.g., AAMC’s MedEd Portal); available, high-quality multimedia materials (e.g., The Health Education Assets Library).
Successful programs have the following in common:
1. Assessment of needs and skills at all levels (students, faculty, department and school);
2. Increased focus on skills and attitudes compared to knowledge;
3. Use of sound informatics principles and methods to implement programs (see Appendix 1);
4. Education on relating to technology (how it works, learning through/with it) (see Appendix 2);
5. Evaluation and application of existing resources to institution’s need (see Appendix 3); and
6. E-integration for a collaborative academic network (learning tools, evaluation, portfolios, libraries/resource centers and communication).
|
Conclusions
|
Learning about computers, learning with computers, and applying computers to care are key steps toward computer literacy for physicians. A balanced approach between content and process is necessary. Selection, application, and integration of technology require effort but may simplify work. New prototypes, models, and programs in technology enable learner-specific progress, flexibility, and significant integration through a collaborative learning environment. Interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary in the future, and more discussion is needed on the context for successful integration of technology in terms of faculty development, management of change, and securing funding.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
The authors thank the following organizations: American Psychiatric Association (APA); American Psychiatric Publishing, Incorporated; Association for Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry; Association for Academic Psychiatry; Association of American Directors of Psychiatry Residency Training; American Association of Chairs of Departments of Psychiatry; American Association of Medical Colleges; American Association of Technology in Psychiatry.
The authors also thank Nancy Delanoche, APA Office of Education; and Krisy Edenharder, Medical College of Wisconsin.
|
REFERENCES
|
- Council on Graduate Medical Education Resource Paper: Preparing learners for practice in a managed care environment. Washington, DC, HRSA, Sept, 1997
- Friedman CF: "Medical Informatics: Challenges and Opportunities" Center for Biomedical Informatics: Introductory Lecture Series, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996
- Martich GD, Waldmann CS, Imhoff M: Clinical informatics in critical care. J Intensive Care Med 2004; 19(3):154–163[Abstract]
- Jerant AF, Lloyd AJ: Applied medical informatics and computing skills of students, residents, and faculty. Fam Med 2000; 32(4):267–272[Medline]
- Banks J, Ericksson G, Burrage K, et al: Constructing the hallucinations of psychosis in virtual reality. J Network Comp Applic 2003; 27:1–11
- Luo JS: Portable computing in psychiatry. Can J Psychiatry 2004; 49:24–30[Medline]
- Hilty DM, Marks SL, Urness D, et al: Clinical and educational applications of telepsychiatry: a review. Can J Psychiatry 2004; 49(1):12–23[Medline]
- Kirby RL: The GPEP report on undergraduate medical education: implications for rehabilitation medicine. Association of American Medical Colleges Panel on the General Professional Education of the Physician. Am J Phys Med 1987; 66(4):184–191[Medline]
- Koschman T: Medical education and computer literacy: learning about, through, and with computers. Acad Med 1995; 70(9):818–821[Medline]
- Gjerde CL, Pipas CF, Russell M: Teaching of medical informatics in UME-21 medical schools: best practices and useful resources. Fam Med 2004; 36(Jan suppl):S68-S73
- Gouveia-Oliveira A, Rodrigues T, Galvao de Melo F: Computer education: attitudes and opinions of first-year medical students. Med Educ 1994; 28:501–507[Medline]
- Seago BL, Schlesinger JB, Hampton CL: Using a decade of data on medical student computer literacy for strategic planning. J Med Libr Assoc 2002; 90(2):202–209[Medline]
- Linton AM, Wilson PH, Gomes A, et al: Evaluation of evidence-based medicine search skills in the clinical years. Med Ref Serv Q 2004; 23(2):21–30[Medline]
- Lau F, Bates J: A review of e-learning practices for undergraduate medical education. J Med Syst 2004; 28(1):71–87[CrossRef][Medline]
- Uribe JI, Ralph WM Jr, Glaser AY, et al: Learning curves, acquisition, and retention of skills trained with the endoscopic sinus surgery simulator. Am J Rhinol 2004; 18(2):87–92[Medline]
- Hulsman RL, Mollema ED, Hoos AM, et al: Assessment of medical communication. Med Educ 2004; 38(8):813[CrossRef][Medline]
- McLean M, Murrell K: WebCT: integrating computer-mediated communication and resource delivery into a new problem-based curriculum. J Audiov Media Med 2002; 25(1):8–15[CrossRef][Medline]
- Pluye P, Grad RM: How information retrieval technology may impact on physician practice: An organizational case study in family medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 2004; 10(3):413–430[CrossRef][Medline]
- De Groote SL, Doranski M: The use of personal digital assistants in the health sciences: results of a survey. J Med Libr Assoc 2004; 92(3):341–349[Medline]
- Carroll AE, Tarczy-Hornoch P, O’Reilly E, et al: The effect of point-of-care personal digital assistant use on resident documentation discrepancies. Pediatrics 2004; 113(3):450–454[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wilderman I, Dobrousin A, Cameron S: Which hand-held computer is better for doctors? Part 1: Comparing models with Palm operating systems. Can Fam Phys 2003; 49:1507–1511[Free Full Text]
- Dobrousin A, Wilderman I: Which hand-held computer is better for doctors? Part 2: Comparing models with Microsoft operating systems. Can Fam Phys 2004; 50:595–598[Free Full Text]
- Barron R: An evaluation of personal digital assistant software for drug interactions. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61:380–385[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Tseng HM, Tiplady B, Macleod HA, et al: Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. Br J Psychol 1998; 89:599–610[Medline]
- Bergman LG, Fors UGH: Computer-aided DSM-IV–diagnostics—acceptance, use and perceived usefulness in relation to users’ learning styles. BMC Med Informatics Decision Making 2005; 5:1
- Green CJ, van Gyn GH, Moehr JR, et al: Introducing a technology-enabled problem-based learning approach into a health informatics curriculum. Int J Med Inform 2004; 73(2):173–179[Medline]
- Heninger GR, Cho TA: Neuroscience based research training: The Yale Model—medical students. Psychiatric Res Rep 2003; 19(3):3–5
- Johnston JM, Leung GM, Tin KY, et al: Evaluation of a hand-held clinical decision support tool for evidence-based learning and practice in medical undergraduates. Med Educ 2004; 38(6):628–637[CrossRef][Medline]
- Leung GM, Johnston JM, Tin KYK, et al: Randomized controlled trial of clinical decision support tools to improve learning of evidence-based medicine in medical students. BMJ 2004; 327:1090–1903
Related Article:
-
Educating a New Generation of Physicians in Psychiatry
- Deborah J. Hales and Deborah Danoff
Acad Psychiatry 2006 30: 4.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A. E. Levine, R. D. Bebermeyer, J.-W. Chen, D. Davis, and C. Harty
Development of an Interdisciplinary Course in Information Resources and Evidence-Based Dentistry
J Dent Educ.,
September 1, 2008;
72(9):
1067 - 1076.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Hilty
The Present and Future Interface of Technology and Medical Education
Acad Psychiatry,
December 1, 2006;
30(6):
437 - 438.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. M. Hilty, S. Benjamin, G. Briscoe, D. J. Hales, R. J. Boland, J. S. Luo, C. H. Chan, R. S. Kennedy, H. Karlinsky, D. B. Gordon, et al.
APA Summit on Medical Student Education Task Force on Informatics and Technology: Steps to Enhance the Use of Technology in Education Through Faculty Development, Funding and Change Management
Acad Psychiatry,
December 1, 2006;
30(6):
444 - 450.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. W. Briscoe, L. G. Fore Arcand, T. Lin, J. Johnson, A. Rai, and K. Kollins
Students' and Residents' Perceptions Regarding Technology in Medical Training
Acad Psychiatry,
December 1, 2006;
30(6):
470 - 479.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Get information about faster international access.
Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2006
Academic Psychiatry.
All rights reserved.
Home
| Search
| Current Issue
| Past Issues
| Subscribe
| All APPI Journals
| Help
| Contact Us
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
