scholarly journals Building a Medical Education Outcomes Center: Development Study (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E Rosenberg ◽  
Jacqueline L Gauer ◽  
Barbara Smith ◽  
Austin Calhoun ◽  
Andrew P J Olson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Education Outcomes ◽  
Learner Outcomes ◽  
Education Data ◽  
The University ◽  
Training Practice

BACKGROUND Medical education outcomes and clinical data exist in multiple unconnected databases, resulting in 3 problems: (1) it is difficult to connect learner outcomes with patient outcomes, (2) learners cannot be easily tracked over time through the education-training-practice continuum, and (3) no standard methodology ensures quality and privacy of the data. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to develop a Medical Education Outcomes Center (MEOC) to integrate education data and to build a framework to standardize the intake and processing of requests for using these data. METHODS An inventory of over 100 data sources owned or utilized by the medical school was conducted, and nearly 2 dozen of these data sources have been vetted and integrated into the MEOC. In addition, the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile data of the University of Minnesota Medical School (UMMS) graduates were linked to the data from the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry to develop a mechanism to connect alumni practice data to education data. RESULTS Over 160 data requests have been fulfilled, culminating in a range of outcomes analyses, including support of accreditation efforts. The MEOC received data on 13,092 UMMS graduates in the AMA Physician Masterfile and could link 10,443 with NPI numbers and began to explore their practice demographics. The technical and operational work to expand the MEOC continues. Next steps are to link the educational data to the clinical practice data through NPI numbers to assess the effectiveness of our medical education programs by the clinical outcomes of our graduates. CONCLUSIONS The MEOC provides a replicable framework to allow other schools to more effectively operate their programs and drive innovation.

scholarly journals Building a Medical Education Outcomes Center: Development Study

10.2196/14651 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e14651
Author(s):  
Mark E Rosenberg ◽  
Jacqueline L Gauer ◽  
Barbara Smith ◽  
Austin Calhoun ◽  
Andrew P J Olson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
Education Outcomes ◽  
Learner Outcomes ◽  
Education Data ◽  
The University ◽  
Training Practice

Background Medical education outcomes and clinical data exist in multiple unconnected databases, resulting in 3 problems: (1) it is difficult to connect learner outcomes with patient outcomes, (2) learners cannot be easily tracked over time through the education-training-practice continuum, and (3) no standard methodology ensures quality and privacy of the data. Objective The purpose of this study was to develop a Medical Education Outcomes Center (MEOC) to integrate education data and to build a framework to standardize the intake and processing of requests for using these data. Methods An inventory of over 100 data sources owned or utilized by the medical school was conducted, and nearly 2 dozen of these data sources have been vetted and integrated into the MEOC. In addition, the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile data of the University of Minnesota Medical School (UMMS) graduates were linked to the data from the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry to develop a mechanism to connect alumni practice data to education data. Results Over 160 data requests have been fulfilled, culminating in a range of outcomes analyses, including support of accreditation efforts. The MEOC received data on 13,092 UMMS graduates in the AMA Physician Masterfile and could link 10,443 with NPI numbers and began to explore their practice demographics. The technical and operational work to expand the MEOC continues. Next steps are to link the educational data to the clinical practice data through NPI numbers to assess the effectiveness of our medical education programs by the clinical outcomes of our graduates. Conclusions The MEOC provides a replicable framework to allow other schools to more effectively operate their programs and drive innovation.

scholarly journals Academic relationships between Hungarian professors and the Second Vienna Medical School

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Béla Szende ◽  
Attila Zalatnai
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Medical Doctors ◽  
Surgical Department ◽  
Treatment And Prevention ◽  
Obstetrics And Gynaecology ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
Vienna Medical School ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact

SummaryThis article discusses the impact of the ‘second’ Vienna Medical School, hallmarked by Karl Rokitansky, Joseph Skoda and Ferdinand Hebra, on the study and practice of medicine in Hungary. Six medical doctors’ lives and achievements are outlined, who formed a bridge between Vienna and Budapest through their studies and work. Four of them returned to Hungary and promoted the cause of medicine and medical education there. Lajos Arányi (1812–1877) founded in 1844 the Institute of Pathology at the University of Pest. János Balassa (1814–1868) took the Chair of the Surgical Department. Ignaz Philip Semmelweis (1818–1865), the ‘Saviour of Mothers’, received a position at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Vienna in 1846. Gustav Scheuthauer (1832–1894) became Arányi’s successor. Each of them continued to keep contact with their tutors in Vienna, especially with Karl Rokitansky, and followed the clinicopathological conception pioneered by the Vienna Medical School regarding diagnostics, treatment and prevention of diseases. Two physicians remained in Vienna: Mór Kaposi (1837–1902), who became known worldwide posthumously due to the connection between Kaposi’s sarcoma and AIDS, was the director of the Department of Dermatology of the Vienna University in 1878. Salomon Stricker (1837–1898) undertook the leadership of the Department of General and Experimental Pathology in 1872.

John Hatton’s manuscript record of the surgical and pathological lectures given by Joseph Jordan, FRCS, in 1837–1838

2019 ◽  
pp. 096777201986694
Author(s):  
Peter D Mohr
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Royal Infirmary ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Manchester Royal Infirmary ◽  
Teaching Anatomy ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The University ◽  
University Of Manchester ◽  
Insight Into

John Hatton, LSA MRCS FRCS MD (1817–1871), was apprenticed from 1833 to Joseph Jordan, MRCS FRCS (1787–1873), a well-known Manchester surgeon. Jordan, who had been teaching anatomy since 1814, closed his Mount Street Medical School in 1834 and was elected as surgeon to the Manchester Royal Infirmary in 1835. He continued to lecture on surgery and surgical pathology at the Infirmary, and sometimes at the Pine Street Medical School run by Thomas Turner, LSA FRCS (1793–1873). During 1837–38 Hatton transcribed and illustrated these lectures in a bound manuscript and also added notes and drawings in his personal copy of The Dublin Dissector. He gained his Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries (LSA) in 1836 and Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) in 1839 and set up in Manchester as surgeon from around 1840. This paper is based on three previously unrelated documents in the University of Manchester Archives: a handwritten catalogue of specimens in Jordan’s Anatomy Museum, Hatton’s annotated copy of The Dublin Dissector and his manuscript record of Jordan’s lectures. These documents provide a valuable insight into medical education during the 1830s.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document