Supporting Patient Involvement in U.S. Medical Education Through Changes in Accreditation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For over half of a century, there have been calls for greater patient and community involvement in U.S. medical education. Accrediting agencies, as the regulatory authorities for medical education, develop policies that impact every program in the U.S.; they have the ability to support patient involvement across the medical education system. In this article, we first review the requirements of U.S. accrediting agencies for undergraduate and graduate medical education to involve patients in educational programs. While agencies have patient members on their committees, they do little to encourage patient involvement through their standards or procedures. We then describe opportunities for accreditation to support patient involvement across teaching and learning activities, curriculum design and evaluation, policymaking and governance, and scholarly endeavors. We link these opportunities to specific standards that could be revised or have their data reporting requirements adjusted. U.S. agencies could also follow the examples of their counterparts outside the U.S., which have created new standards to encourage patient involvement. Ensuring patient representation on educational programs' governing and policymaking bodies is one among many immediate actions that could be taken by accrediting authorities to encourage system-level reforms. As medical school and residency training represent the beginnings of decades of practice for physicians, properly involving patients would maximize benefits for learners, educators, and society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".