Neuroscience curriculum changes and outcomes: Medical university of South Carolina, 2006 to 2010

Kenton R. Holden, S. Lewis Cooper, Jeffrey G. Wong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To develop future neurologists and translational neuroscientists, we created a neurosciences pathway throughout our medical school curriculum that included early exposure to clinical neurosciences decision-making and added variety to the choices of later clinical neurosciences experiences. METHODS:: Our curricular innovation had 3 parts: (1) integrating basic neurosciences content into an explicit clinical context in a College of Medicine (COM) first year of medical school; (2) expanding pathophysiological principles related to neurosciences in COM second year of medical school; and (3) creating a variety of 3-week clinical neurosciences selectives in COM third year of medical school and 4-week electives/externships for interested learners in COM fourth year of medical school. These new changes were evaluated (1) by comparing national standardized examinations including Neurology Subject examination scores for students choosing clinical neurosciences selectives; (2) by student satisfaction Graduate Questionnaires; and (3) by the total number of our graduates matching in US neurosciences disciplines. Results: Students taking neuroscience selectives demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward higher Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores. The students' Neurology Subject examination scores were comparable with those scores reported nationally for other US COM third year of medical school students on 4-week rotations. Student-reported satisfaction in clinical neurology teaching improved from 43.9% (before) to 81.8% (after). The percentage of students matching into clinical neuroscience disciplines rose from 2% (before) to 6% (after). Conclusions: Our neurosciences curricular innovation increased graduating student satisfaction scores, had a mild positive impact on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores, and increased the number of students choosing careers in the clinical neurosciences. This model may be a consideration for other medical schools who wish to integrate neurosciences teaching throughout their curriculum.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)190-195
Number of pages6
JournalNeurologist
Volume18
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2012

Fingerprint

Neurosciences
Curriculum
Medical Schools
Students
Medicine
Neurology
Teaching
Medical Students

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

@article{3320f56e24324e46acb692ee2ad5aebf,
title = "Neuroscience curriculum changes and outcomes: Medical university of South Carolina, 2006 to 2010",
abstract = "Objectives: To develop future neurologists and translational neuroscientists, we created a neurosciences pathway throughout our medical school curriculum that included early exposure to clinical neurosciences decision-making and added variety to the choices of later clinical neurosciences experiences. METHODS:: Our curricular innovation had 3 parts: (1) integrating basic neurosciences content into an explicit clinical context in a College of Medicine (COM) first year of medical school; (2) expanding pathophysiological principles related to neurosciences in COM second year of medical school; and (3) creating a variety of 3-week clinical neurosciences selectives in COM third year of medical school and 4-week electives/externships for interested learners in COM fourth year of medical school. These new changes were evaluated (1) by comparing national standardized examinations including Neurology Subject examination scores for students choosing clinical neurosciences selectives; (2) by student satisfaction Graduate Questionnaires; and (3) by the total number of our graduates matching in US neurosciences disciplines. Results: Students taking neuroscience selectives demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward higher Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores. The students' Neurology Subject examination scores were comparable with those scores reported nationally for other US COM third year of medical school students on 4-week rotations. Student-reported satisfaction in clinical neurology teaching improved from 43.9{\%} (before) to 81.8{\%} (after). The percentage of students matching into clinical neuroscience disciplines rose from 2{\%} (before) to 6{\%} (after). Conclusions: Our neurosciences curricular innovation increased graduating student satisfaction scores, had a mild positive impact on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores, and increased the number of students choosing careers in the clinical neurosciences. This model may be a consideration for other medical schools who wish to integrate neurosciences teaching throughout their curriculum.",
author = "Holden, {Kenton R.} and Cooper, {S. Lewis} and Wong, {Jeffrey G.}",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/NRL.0b013e3182613e1b",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "190--195",
journal = "Neurologist",
issn = "1074-7931",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

Neuroscience curriculum changes and outcomes : Medical university of South Carolina, 2006 to 2010. / Holden, Kenton R.; Cooper, S. Lewis; Wong, Jeffrey G.

In: Neurologist, Vol. 18, No. 4, 01.07.2012, p. 190-195.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neuroscience curriculum changes and outcomes

T2 - Medical university of South Carolina, 2006 to 2010

AU - Holden, Kenton R.

AU - Cooper, S. Lewis

AU - Wong, Jeffrey G.

PY - 2012/7/1

Y1 - 2012/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To develop future neurologists and translational neuroscientists, we created a neurosciences pathway throughout our medical school curriculum that included early exposure to clinical neurosciences decision-making and added variety to the choices of later clinical neurosciences experiences. METHODS:: Our curricular innovation had 3 parts: (1) integrating basic neurosciences content into an explicit clinical context in a College of Medicine (COM) first year of medical school; (2) expanding pathophysiological principles related to neurosciences in COM second year of medical school; and (3) creating a variety of 3-week clinical neurosciences selectives in COM third year of medical school and 4-week electives/externships for interested learners in COM fourth year of medical school. These new changes were evaluated (1) by comparing national standardized examinations including Neurology Subject examination scores for students choosing clinical neurosciences selectives; (2) by student satisfaction Graduate Questionnaires; and (3) by the total number of our graduates matching in US neurosciences disciplines. Results: Students taking neuroscience selectives demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward higher Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores. The students' Neurology Subject examination scores were comparable with those scores reported nationally for other US COM third year of medical school students on 4-week rotations. Student-reported satisfaction in clinical neurology teaching improved from 43.9% (before) to 81.8% (after). The percentage of students matching into clinical neuroscience disciplines rose from 2% (before) to 6% (after). Conclusions: Our neurosciences curricular innovation increased graduating student satisfaction scores, had a mild positive impact on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores, and increased the number of students choosing careers in the clinical neurosciences. This model may be a consideration for other medical schools who wish to integrate neurosciences teaching throughout their curriculum.

AB - Objectives: To develop future neurologists and translational neuroscientists, we created a neurosciences pathway throughout our medical school curriculum that included early exposure to clinical neurosciences decision-making and added variety to the choices of later clinical neurosciences experiences. METHODS:: Our curricular innovation had 3 parts: (1) integrating basic neurosciences content into an explicit clinical context in a College of Medicine (COM) first year of medical school; (2) expanding pathophysiological principles related to neurosciences in COM second year of medical school; and (3) creating a variety of 3-week clinical neurosciences selectives in COM third year of medical school and 4-week electives/externships for interested learners in COM fourth year of medical school. These new changes were evaluated (1) by comparing national standardized examinations including Neurology Subject examination scores for students choosing clinical neurosciences selectives; (2) by student satisfaction Graduate Questionnaires; and (3) by the total number of our graduates matching in US neurosciences disciplines. Results: Students taking neuroscience selectives demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward higher Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores. The students' Neurology Subject examination scores were comparable with those scores reported nationally for other US COM third year of medical school students on 4-week rotations. Student-reported satisfaction in clinical neurology teaching improved from 43.9% (before) to 81.8% (after). The percentage of students matching into clinical neuroscience disciplines rose from 2% (before) to 6% (after). Conclusions: Our neurosciences curricular innovation increased graduating student satisfaction scores, had a mild positive impact on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores, and increased the number of students choosing careers in the clinical neurosciences. This model may be a consideration for other medical schools who wish to integrate neurosciences teaching throughout their curriculum.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863586377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863586377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/NRL.0b013e3182613e1b

DO - 10.1097/NRL.0b013e3182613e1b

M3 - Article

C2 - 22735242

AN - SCOPUS:84863586377

VL - 18

SP - 190

EP - 195

JO - Neurologist

JF - Neurologist

SN - 1074-7931

IS - 4

ER -