Statement of challenging questions for Iranian medical education with a view to medical education in England

Volume 13, 3-4
July 2024
Pages 11-14

Document Type : Commentary

Author

MSc in Nursing, Shiraz University of Medical sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Abstract
Introduction:How can universities improve their ability to cultivate high-quality and innovative medical talent? It is always an important and fundamental question. The primary goal is to develop an educational system to discover and promote superior talents in medical sciences. Talents that anticipate and solve future needs by emphasizing on innovation and interdisciplinary approaches(1). Deputy Education of Health and Medical Education Ministry in Iran has been actively trying to innovate in medical education for many years and has implemented various plans. But we should not forget the principle that innovation is of no use unless the conditions improve compared to what they were before (2). Of course, other countries in the world, such as England, have taken measures to fundamentally revise medical education. Medical education in England is among the best in the world. Four faculties (Cambridge University, Oxford University, Imperial College London and University College London) in England, are among the top 10 medical schools in the world (3). In this article, the researcher has briefly discussed the educational systems used in medical schools in England, in order to present challenging scientific questions for the reform of the medical education system in Iran. Because the new era of medical education has arrived and artificial intelligence has been able to change medical education and the work of doctors.

Keywords

Subjects
  1. 1. Dent J, Harden RM, Hunt D. A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers, E-Book: A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers, E-Book: Elsevier health sciences; 2021.
  2. 2. Mian A, Khan S. Medical education during pandemics: a UK perspective. BMC medicine. 2020;18:1-2.
  3. 3. Longhurst GJ, Stone DM, Dulohery K, Scully D, Campbell T, Smith CF. Strength, weakness, opportunity, threat (SWOT) analysis of the adaptations to anatomical education in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland in response to the Covid‐19 pandemic. Anatomical sciences education. 2020;13(3):301-11.
  4. 4. Essex R, Weldon SM. The justification for strike action in healthcare: a systematic critical interpretive synthesis. Nursing Ethics. 2022;29(5):1152-73.
  5. 5. Chen G, Delves PJ. Aligning the education of medical students to healthcare in the UK. Global Medical Education. 2024(0).
  6. 6. Organization WH. Global Health Observatory Data repository/medical doctors. 2020.
  7. 7. Council GM. The state of medical education and practice in the UK. The workforce report. 2019.
  8. 8. Klitzman R. When doctors become patients: Oxford University Press; 2008.
  9. 9. Parry J, Mathers J, Stevens A, Parsons A, Lilford R, Spurgeon P, et al. Admissions processes for five year medical courses at English schools. Bmj. 2006;332(7548):1005-9.
  10. 10. Murdoch-Eaton D, Manning D, Kwizera E, Burch V, Pell G, Whittle S. Profiling undergraduates’ generic learning skills on entry to medical school; an international study. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(12): 1033-46.
  11. 11. Harden RM, Laidlaw JM. Essential skills for a medical teacher: an introduction to teaching and learning in medicine: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020.
  12. 12. Devine OP, Harborne AC, Horsfall HL, Joseph T, Marshall-Andon T, Samuels R, et al. The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning. BMC medicine. 2020;18(1):126.
  13. 13. McManus I, Harborne AC, Horsfall HL, Joseph T, Smith DT, Marshall-Andon T, et al. Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise. BMC medicine. 2020;18(1):136.
  14. 14. Masters K. Artificial intelligence in medical education. Medical Teacher. 2019;41(9):976-80.
  15. 15. Devine OP, Harborne AC, McManus I. Assessment at UK medical schools varies substantially in volume, type and intensity and correlates with postgraduate attainment. BMC Medical Education. 2015;15:1-13.
  16. 16. Sayek I, Turan S, Batı AH, Demirören M, Baykan Z. Social accountability: A national framework for Turkish medical schools. Medical Teacher. 2021;43(2):223-31.
  17. 17. Goldstein EA, Maestas RR, Fryer-Edwards K, Wenrich MD, Oelschlager A-MA, Baernstein A, et al. Professionalism in medical education: an institutional challenge. Academic Medicine. 2006;81(10):871-6.
  18. 18. Singh T. Principles of assessment in medical education: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2021.