Skip to main content

Status: Closed — this petition is no longer accepting signatures.

Neurology in the Application Phase

Neurology in the Application Phase

Closed — 75 supporters Verified

Final supporters

K
Katherine L.
S
Sydney H.
C
Chris K.
R
Rosemary S.
S
Scott M.
M
Michael C.
S
Someone
S
Someone
A
Ayumi N.
M
Meryem O.
+65 more
SS
Started by Sarah Street 9 years, 8 months ago

Dear Members of the Application Phase Committee,

We the undersigned students write in regards to our concern over the changes in the neurology clerkship. We would like to formally request that changes in the curriculum that place neurology as a “coil” or a “thread” be abandoned for a more substantial experience in inpatient neurology. We strongly urge the committee to consider the importance of immersion in a neurology experience that would allow students to see first presentations of neurological emergencies and hospital courses of common neurological issues that affect patients, regardless of future chosen specialty. We also hope that you would take into account the need for students to be exposed to neurological conditions and their appropriate management and diagnosis, not just for board exams, which are certainly important to us, but also for our future success as physicians, especially physicians who will one day serve the state of North Carolina. North Carolina lies directly in the “stroke belt” and we feel that it would do a disservice, not only to us, but also to our future patients, to not have some experience in seeing how acute strokes present, are managed, and the general hospital course and discharge of stroke patients. Again, we feel that this cannot be achieved through a “thread” that is mostly composed of the occasional outpatient experience and didactic sessions sewn throughout the Application Phase.

While we understand that time is a limited resource in any medical curriculum, and some topics need to be compressed or eliminated, we do not understand the rationale for the proposed changes that would substantially reduce our exposure to neurological patients. We oppose these changes for the following reasons:

1) The previous curriculum included 1 year of core clerkships that included neurology, as well as the other clerkships required by the LCME. Our current core clerkship experience is also 1 year in length, so we do not understand why neurology has to be taken out of the Application Phase given that there is the same time frame as before. Unlike the Foundation Phase, which changed preclinical curriculum from 20 months to 15 months that therefore necessitated eliminating material, the Application Phase, theoretically, should not have had to work under the same constraints. Theoretically, all material that existed in the previous iteration should have been able to exist in some form in our current curriculum.

2) A point of consensus (a rarity) amongst current Application Phase students is that the 16-week longitudinal outpatient clerkships or “CBLC” is too long, and too spread out. While we enjoy having more time to ourselves due to the more relaxed schedule during this block, we feel that we could get the same experience in a shorter, more compressed schedule, possibly even just 2-4 weeks shorter, with regular clinic days scheduled more often than the current 3 days a week.

3) A point of less strongly held consensus, is that the current curriculum has many days already scheduled that are less helpful in our medical education. For instance we are taken out of clinic once a month for Intensive Integration, which is often useful, but once a month seems exceed the usefulness of these days. Also CBLC is filled with half days of what amounts to shadowing a physician in an outpatient specialty clinic, which we feel we could do on our own if we are interested in a given specialty. These experiences are certainly viewed as more “low yield” with regards to our development as physicians, especially when compared to the essential experiences we gain during our time in neurology. It is no question to us that if experiences need to be compressed or omitted from the Application Phase, there are certainly other places to look than neurology.

We understand that a 4-week formal neurology clerkship might not be feasible now that the curriculum has changed so substantially; however, we cannot overstate how essential we feel that some contiguous inpatient neurology experience be included, to, at the very least, give us exposure to stroke, seizure, and altered mental status patients. Similar to psychiatry, there is no specialty within the walls of medicine that will not treat patients with neurological conditions. Thus, we would propose that at least a 2-week inpatient experience be added to the 16-week CBLC clerkship, where students would rotate through their choice of neurology wards, peds neurology, or neurology consults. The 4 adult, and 2 pediatric clinic days that would be missed in those 2 weeks of CBLC could seemingly be easily fit into the other 14 weeks. We realize that would mean a busier schedule for us, but given what we would be giving up otherwise, we feel that this is a more than worthy cause for us to have a few weeks with 4-5 days of clinic during CBLC.

Building a new curriculum is a very difficult endeavor, and we appreciate your efforts to build one that better prepares us to deliver quality patient care. We hope that you will take our feelings into account as your make your final plans for Application Phase 2.0.

Sincerely,

Updates

January 5, 2017

I AM HEARING FROM SO MANY OF YOU ABOUT THE NEED FOR REAL INPATIENT CLINICAL TRAINING!! YOUR STORIES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF STROKE CARE IN OUR REGION ARE ABSOLUTELY POWERFUL AND PROVE THAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT THING!! KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO SEE OUR PASSION FOR THIS EDUCATION!!

January 5, 2017

I AM ABSOLUTELY BLOWN AWAY BY THE SURGE OF SUPPORT FOR THIS CAUSE!! SEEING SO MANY OF YOU STAND UP FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF NEUROLOGY TRAINING PROVES THAT OUR FUTURE PATIENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA ARE GOING TO BE IN GREAT HANDS!! THE MOMENTUM IS GENUINELY INCREDIBLE AND I AM SO PROUD TO BE LEADING THIS CHARGE WITH ALL OF YOU!!

8 Comments

D
Dylan James Hunter
9 years ago Featured

A longitudinal thread in neurology would only serve as detriment to the students in that it will oppose the goals of their current rotation (reading on patients, studying for shelf, etc.) while providing at best a mediocre experience in neurology. Unless the longitundinal neurology experience can somehow be structered in a manner that does not make the students feel as if it is stuffed on top of their coinciding rotation, in my opinion it will fail.

A
Allison Cummings
9 years ago Featured

I agree with what is stated above. My inpatient neurology experiences on adult and pediatric consults provided me with numerous valuable learning opportunities that would not be replicable in the outpatient setting. Thank you for taking the time to consider our input while adjusting the curriculum.

M
Mike Norton
9 years ago Featured

Totally spot on. You cant learn neurology by just showing up to a few random outpatient clinics. We need to be on the floors seeing the emergencies happen.

D
David Patel
9 years ago Featured

THIS IS SO TRUE. Being in the stroke belt without actual inpatient training is a huge mistake for our education.

E
Emily Roberts
9 years ago Featured

The thread model sounds like a logistical nightmare that wont actually teach us anything practical. Please reconsider.

S
Sarah Young
9 years ago Featured

Completely agree with this. Trying to squeeze neuro into a thread is just going to make us worse at recognizing strokes. We need the real inpatient experience.

S
Sydney Hartsell
9 years ago

As medical students trying to decide on our careers, seeing both the inpatient and outpatient aspect of potential specialties is like seeing two different worlds and experiencing both is helpful to our decision process as well as our growth as physicians, because the "sick" and "well" patients are very distinct populations even within one specialty like neurology. Secondly, having sporadic one-day-here and there is a much different student experience than a consecutive week in inpatient and a week in outpatient, etc. It takes time for a new student to integrate with the flow of the team and I have found my learning experience greatly improved as I get a few days in to a rotation or a clinic. As I am more comfortable with the environment and material, I can take greater charge of my patients and team activities and concentrate more on learning, less on orientating myself. A "longitudinal" outpatient neuro experience would take both of these away.

E
Eleanor Saunders
9 years ago

In the Asheville curriculum in 2015-2016, we had one week of inpatient neurology, 5-or-so very dispersed outpatient half-days, and one peds neurology outpatient half-day. (I would have valued seeing inpatient peds neuro.) This sounds similar to the new changes proposed, and was decidedly not enough. We received particularly focused, "high yield" teaching from neurological preceptors and patients. I would submit that neurological conditions present some of the most challenging and important physical exam findings. These take time and multiple patients to learn effectively. Some of the best and most experienced ER physicians I have worked with can tease out slight alterations in gait and posture which aid in diagnosis and care. Though we have new technology at our disposal which may make it tempting to overlook the relevance of the physical exam, it remains integral to forming our clinical gestalt, and cohesive neurological instruction is a valuable tool in this direction.