|
|
DOCTORING: MEDICAL HUMANITIES SEGMENT
YEAR FOUR
SOCIETY, LAW, AND HEALTH CARE
Theodore R. LeBlang, J.D., Chairman
Department of Medical Humanities
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine
PO Box 19603
913 N Rutledge Street
Springfield, IL 62794-9603
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Society, Law and Health Care
MODULE
-
Overview of the Judicial
Process
-
The Physician as Expert
Witness
-
Forensic
Medicine—Medical-Legal Investigation
-
The Physician as Expert
Witness—Regulating the Medical Expert
-
Mock Trial
-
Introduction to the United
States Health Care System— A Policy Overview
-
The United States Health Care
System— A Comparative Overview
-
Fundamentals of Health
Economics
-
Financing Health Care
-
Managed Care—Physician and
Hospital Services
-
Clinical Decision Making and
Quality of Care— Contemporary Challenges
-
Quality of Care—Professional
Responsibilities
-
Access to Health Care—EMTALA
-
Mental Health Care—Cost,
Quality, Access
-
Health Care Access and
Availability—Issues for Rural and Underserved Populations
-
The Health Care
System—Focused Perspectives on Health Policy 16.0
|
|
INTRODUCTION
The Doctoring: Medical Humanities curriculum is designed to
provide students with core knowledge in the humanities, emphasizing
application of the content and methodologies of humanities disciplines to
the practice of medicine. Substantive areas of teaching emphasis include
ethics, health policy, law, medical history, and psychosocial care. During
Year 4, the Medical Humanities Segment is a two-week learning experience
entitled, "Society, Law and Health Care: The Physician's Role."
The first part of the segment focuses on the legal aspects
of the physician's role in society with emphasis on the judicial process and
the administration of justice. During this time, students will expand their
knowledge of the interplay between the medical and legal systems through
learning about the physician as an expert witness in civil and criminal
proceedings, regulating the medical expert, and the role of forensic
medicine. Students also will experience a "Mock Trial" designed to introduce
them to the reality of the courtroom setting and the trial process.
During the second part of the segment, students will be
provided with an overview of the United States health care system. Strengths
and inadequacies of the present system will be considered. Students will
examine a variety of important policy issues including the following: access
to and availability of health care in the United States; the economics,
financing and cost of health care; responsibility and accountability of
physicians; assessing quality in health care; access to care for rural
populations; parity in mental health care services; and clinical, ethical,
legal, and policy issues in managed care.
GENERAL LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students will be able to:
-
Discuss the physician’s role in the administration of
justice, with emphasis on describing an overview of the judicial process,
including physician involvement as an expert witness in civil and criminal
litigation.
-
Describe various systems of medical-legal investigation
and the manner in which these systems affect public health.
-
Explain the legal and professional structures that
regulate the conduct of physicians as expert witnesses.
-
Evaluate the manner in which the legal system functions
through observation and analysis of a mock trial.
-
Describe the health care system in the United States,
discussing its strengths and inadequacies, and comparing it with other
health care systems.
-
Describe the economics, financing, and cost of health care
in the United States.
-
Discuss policy issues of access to and availability of
health care in rural and underserved areas in the United States.
-
Explain the concept of parity for mental health care
services and describe social and economic barriers to achieving parity.
-
Discuss issues in ensuring quality in medical practice and
patient-centered clinical decisionmaking in the context of the changing
health care environment.
-
Compare ethical, legal, and policy issues arising in
fee-for-service medicine and in managed care.
|
|
FORMAT
Three classroom approaches will be used throughout the
learning experience: (1) plenary sessions (e.g. seminars, panel
discussions); (2) a Mock Trial that provides exposure to the conduct of
judicial proceedings; and (3) tutor groups. During plenary sessions and the
Mock Trial, core material will be presented. The information provided
complements required reading assignments. In conjunction with required
readings, the content of plenary sessions will constitute the major basis
for written examinations.
Tutor group sessions are designed to allow in-depth
exploration of the material covered during plenary presentations.
Approximately eight students are assigned to each tutor group. These
students will meet with the same tutor during all sessions. Each student
will be responsible for formally presenting assigned cases in the tutor
group setting. Because tutor group participation constitutes an important
part of the overall performance evaluation, significant responsibility is
given to students in the tutor groups to identify relevant learning issues,
present individual cases, and elucidate learning issues that pertain to
those cases. All students are expected to interact as informed participants
in the discussion of cases presented by other students during each tutor
group session.
Attendance at all scheduled activities is required.
|
|
TUTOR GROUP SESSIONS AND
ASSIGNMENTS
Tutor Group Faculty and Student Assignments are listed on
page ix and Tutor Group Room Assignments are listed on page x. Tutors will
assist students in identifying and defining pertinent issues for discussion
based on the General Learning Objectives. Students will identify and define
other issues based upon their own perspectives as individuals newly entering
the medical profession.
At each of the Tutor Group Sessions, case presentations
should focus on issues drawn from plenary sessions and required readings.
Students will be responsible for formally presenting at least two assigned
cases. Active participation in the discussion of all cases is expected.
|
|
EVALUATION
Evaluation of performance assumes full participation in and
attendance at all scheduled activities. Criteria for evaluation include
performance in the context of the following activities: an objective
short-answer law examination; a written analysis of the Mock Trial; tutor
group participation; and a final case-based essay examination. In evaluating
student performance, faculty will assess student knowledge of course
material, critical thinking and problem-solving ability, application of
knowledge, oral and written communication skills, self-directed learning,
interpersonal relationships, personal/professional maturity, and
motivation/dependability/responsibility. Tutors will evaluate students on
the basis of preparation for and participation in tutor group discussions.
The written analysis of the Mock Trial will be assessed against the
evaluation criteria specified in that assignment. The objective short-answer
law exam will assess student knowledge of information covered in the first
four modules. The final written examination will consist of several cases
that focus on issues relevant to core material presented during the
remaining modules. Students will be asked to respond to certain features of
these cases in concise written essays (2-4 pages). The final written
examination will be "open book." Class notes, the course document, handouts,
and suggested readings may be brought to the examination and used in
responding to essay questions.
Students receive a performance rating for each of the
following:
-
tutor group participation (30%)
-
written analysis of the mock trial (15%)
-
objective short-answer law exam (25%)
-
final case-based essay examination (30%).
The rating scale for student performance is as follows:
-
5 = Excellent
-
4 = Commendable
-
3 = Meets Expectations
-
2 = Marginal
-
1 = Unsatisfactory.
Students who receive an unsatisfactory rating for any aspect
of the course will be required to make up the deficiency. Minor deficiencies
may result in an incomplete ("I") transcript notation until the deficiency
has been corrected. A time frame for making up minor deficiencies will be
established by the Segment Director in cooperation with Medical Humanities
Department faculty. Significant performance deficiencies will be identified
by Department faculty and the Student Progress Committee will be informed of
specific faculty recommendations for formal remediation.
For students who received an overall performance rating of
Satisfactory or Excellent in Medical Humanities A, December 1999 or March
2000, the transcript notation was recorded as "S." At the conclusion of
Doctoring: Medical Humanities Segment—Year 4, students who receive an
overall performance rating of Excellent in either Medical Humanities A or
Doctoring: Medical Humanities Segment—Year 4, will be considered for Honors
in Medical Humanities, provided all other work in Medical Humanities
required curriculum segments has been satisfactory. From the group of
eligible students, Department faculty will nominate individual students for
Honors. The faculty, as a whole, will then determine which nominated
students deserve Honors recognition. These recommendations are then
forwarded to the Student Progress Committee. Students who receive Honors
will have their transcripts amended to denote Honors in both Medical
Humanities A and Doctoring: Medical Humanities Segment—Year 4.
2004 SCHEDULE
|
DATE/TIME |
ACTIVITY/FACULTY |
PLACE
|
|
MONDAY,
Jan. 29 |
|
8:30 - 9:00 |
Orientation
Phillip V. Davis, Ph.D.
Segment Director |
So. Aud
|
|
9:00 - 9:30 |
Shaping
Law–The Physician's Role (Module 1)
Theodore R. LeBlang, J.D. |
So. Aud
|
|
9:30 -
12:00 |
Overview of
the Judicial Process (Module 1)
Theodore R. LeBlang, J.D. |
So. Aud
|
|
1:00 - 1:45 |
Overview of
the Appellate Court Process in Illinois
(Module 1)
Honorable Sue E. Myerscough Justice, Illinois Appellate Court |
So. Aud
|
|
2:00 - 3:00 |
Federal and
State Courts–A Comparison (Module 1)
Honorable Richard H. Mills United States District Court Judge |
So. Aud |
|
3:00 - 5:00 |
Self-Directed Study |
|
|
TUESDAY,
Jan. 30 |
|
8:30 -
12:00 |
The
Physician as Expert Witness in Civil Litigation (Module 2)
Theodore R. LeBlang, J.D. |
So. Aud
|
|
1:00 - 4:00 |
Forensic
Medicine–Medical-Legal Investigation (Module 3)
Travis Hindman, M.D. |
So. Aud
|
|
4:00 - 5:00 |
Self-Directed Study |
|
|
WEDNESDAY,
Jan. 31 |
|
8:30 - 9:45
|
The
Physician as Expert Witness in Criminal Litigation (Module 2)
J. William Roberts, J.D. |
751: Room
0200 |
|
10:00 -
11:30 |
The
Physician as Expert Witness–Regulating
0200 the Medical Expert (Module 4)
Ross Silverman, J.D., M.P.H. |
751: Room
|
|
11:30 -
12:00 |
Introduction to Mock Trial
(Module 5)
Theodore R. LeBlang, J.D. |
751: Room
0200 |
|
1:00 - 5:00 |
Mock Trial
Preparation (Self-Directed Study) |
|
|
7:15 -
10:45 |
Mock Trial
Honorable Sue E. Myerscough
Justice, Illinois Appellate Court |
Sangamon County Bldg
Courtroom
7D
200 S. Ninth St |
|
THURSDAY,
Feb. 1 |
|
8:30 -
11:00 |
Self-Directed Study |
|
|
11:00 -
12:00 |
Written
Examination (Modules 1.0–4.0) |
911/1330 B
& C |
|
911/1331
and 1320 1:00 - 2:00 |
Introduction to the United States Health Care System– A Policy Overview (Module 6)
Phillip V. Davis, Ph.D. |
So. Aud |
|
2:15 - 3:15 |
Tutor Group
Session I |
See Tutor
Schedule |
|
3:15 - 5:00 |
Self-Directed Study |
|
|
FRIDAY,
Feb. 2 |
|
8:30 -
11:30 |
The United
States Health Care System–A Comparative Overview ( Module 7)
Phillip V. Davis, Ph.D. |
So. Aud |
|
1:00 - 2:30 |
| | |
