Although overall health in the United States has improved over the past 30 years, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality consistently reports that differences in patients’ income and ethnicity affect disparities in quality and timeliness of care, access to care, and patient outcomes.¹ One increasingly popular approach to address health care disparities is interprofessional collaboration. 

Over the past 2 decades, interprofessional education (IPE) has become an integral teaching component to better understand population health, cultural competency, health literacy, and social determinants of health (SDOH). Medical education is expected to provide opportunities for interprofessional engagement, but it can be challenging to find time and space in an already dense curriculum. In an attempt to address this concern, both the American Association for Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) and the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) have incorporated the Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework into published medical student competency documents, thus articulating expected knowledge and skill development for medical school graduates.^2-4 

How can IPE approaches be implemented to improve awareness of SDOH? Duffy et al⁵ explored this question using a transdisciplinary approach with the inclusion of students in the masters of public health (MPH) program on the IPE teams. Students who participated in the IPE program with an MPH student were twice as likely to be aware of the influence of SDOH. However, only nonclinical students were significantly more likely to report the importance of SDOH for the plan of care.⁵ This study supports an inherent value in the IPE model. However, it also opens the door for additional research using IPE models to transition medical students from personal awareness to public action regarding psychosocial factors of health. 

As educators, we are constantly pursuing the most effective teaching methods. We are tasked with teaching a vast breadth and depth of material, clinical skills, and clinical decision making while ensuring at least minimal competency and entrustment. We are continually evaluating different approaches to assess positive effects on student knowledge acquisition and application. In 2010, the US Department of Education published an extensive meta-analysis to appraise the evidence surrounding blended learning.⁶ Students performed better in online learning compared with face-to-face instruction when online learning was integrated with elements of blended learning, including teacher interaction, extra time, and engaged learning.⁶ 

Langenau et al⁷ investigated blended learning (online plus face-to-face components) vs standard learning (no online component) in a third-year clinical pediatrics rotation. Students in both settings demonstrated similar scores in knowledge application. However, student survey responses reflected the practicality and effectiveness of the integrated online learning with face-to-face preceptor learning as a helpful balance.⁷ Additional exploration on this topic might further address adult learning theory and the establishment of a social contract. 

As we move to a single accreditation system for GME, many questions arise regarding the current status of programs accredited by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and osteopathic recognition through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Buser et al⁹ illuminate the history, policies, and future directions of the single accreditation system. Important updates to the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Board Examinations-USA are provided by Gimpel et al,¹⁰ and Weiting et al¹¹ provide specialty board certification updates. In line with continued GME efforts, we have experienced momentum and needed growth in osteopathic GME.¹² Six states and the District of Columbia demonstrated a greater than 50% increase in total number of trainees, and 14 other states recorded growth in the number of training programs. The 2 specialty programs demonstrating the most growth were family medicine and internal medicine.¹² This finding is especially encouraging considering that primary care has been identified as a physician workforce aggregate shortage category.⁸ 

Along with GME growth and the transition process, residency placement is increasingly important. VanOrder et al¹³ investigated the residency interview process across 83 osteopathic and dually accredited programs and specialties. This study identified preferred interview approaches and highly regarded candidate qualities such as ethical behaviors, honesty, self-motivation, and ability to work in a team effectively. Interestingly, no criterion standard was identified that directly corresponded to residents’ performance or program directors’ satisfaction.¹³ 

Promotion and maintenance of osteopathic distinctiveness through osteopathic recognition and osteopathic-focused curricula is incredibly important to the future of the osteopathic medical profession. And, among third-year medical students, 70% reported that an ACGME program with osteopathic recognition was more appealing than one without osteopathic recognition.¹⁴ Does familiarity with osteopathic medicine affect program directors’ perceptions of residency candidates? Hempstead et al¹⁵ investigated this question and found that residency programs with formal OMT curricula ranked the academic preparation of osteopathic residents higher than did programs without. In addition, program directors of dually accredited programs rated the clinical preparedness of osteopathic residents higher when compared with program directors of programs with ACGME-only accreditation.¹⁵ Points of discussion for further inquiry include: Does exposure and familiarity with OMT curricula reduce preconceived biases against osteopathic medicine? Will osteopathic recognition through the ACGME positively affect our future osteopathic residents by exposing other health care professionals to OMT and osteopathic medicine? 

The final article of this issue considers the most important aspect of medicine: humanism. Key habits that affect humanism and potentially reduce physician burnout are seeking a connection with patients and achieving work-life balance. These habits have positive effects on patients and physicians alike.¹⁶ Both AACOM and the AAMC have directed focus on a broad spectrum of factors influencing humanism, including mental health and well-being, physician burnout, mindfulness, resilience, and empathy. Programs that promote humanism encourage students to identify and practice effective skills in patient observation and connections, but skills are not always measureable through traditional approaches. Baltonado, a third-year osteopathic medical student, and Cymet¹⁷ present a well-articulated journey through humanism and medicine. They encourage us to be reflective and creative and challenge us to maintain or reestablish our joy in medicine through humanistic engagement with our patients. 

As we continue our journey through ACGME accreditation and begin to look more deeply into the value of what it means to truly be osteopathic, how can we effectively promote and integrate osteopathic tenets with osteopathic recognition for osteopathic medical graduates as well as allopathic medical graduates who demonstrate interest in the osteopathic tenets? We are challenged not only to encourage and teach humanism in medicine, but also to demonstrate practices that promote humanism in our own lives. We are encouraged as educators to address new learning modalities to promote engagement and application of knowledge and skills. As we navigate the future of osteopathic medical education, let us envision change, explore collaborative practices, and test innovative approaches to promote what makes us osteopathic.