⢠PRINT
⢠Write a 3-4 page paper to analyze the scope of change in medical education from the 1800s to today, the apprenticeship and academic models, and the importance of understanding the history in order to help improve medical education in the future.
Jake is seeking a position in health care recruiting and human capital management. He is examining the many different professional roles that make up the health care workforce in the United States. He finds that clinical and administrative roles are significantly different today than those in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Physicians, nurses, technologists, and many of the administrative positions today require state licensure, periodic revalidation, certifications, recertification, or registration in order to practice their profession.
Throughout the ages there have been many landmark studies, reports, and events that have changed the course of history in medicine and medical education. The Flexner Report (1910) reformed medical education and brought it to where it is today (Young & Kroth, 2018). This report was the catalyst that pushed for legislation requiring physicians to be licensed. The report called for formalizing medical education and increasing the length of time in structured, formal medical programs. This report has influenced medical education and licensing for all of the many different types of clinical, technical, and administrative health care disciplines of today.
For your assessment, think about the evolution of health care education and its effect on the various clinical and administrative roles. Where does provider credentialing fit into the
Sample Solution
Modern ideal of Science attempts to specify a procedure an individual must follow to come up with a credible idea or theory. However, recently Iâve caught myself thinking that scientific method with its sequence of action wherein a hypothesis is followed by experimental verification canât possibly describe all the advances in the history of science. Sometimes scientists must call upon their powers of individual rationality to decide what ideas to test, in advance of the sort of definite experiments and observations of phenomena that Science demands to bless an idea as confirmed. Letâs start with a readily understandable, non-disturbing example. A scientist identifies a strong regularity in the cumulative data of previous experiments. But the corresponding hypothesis has not yet made and confirmed a novel experimental predictionâwhich his academic field demands. Thus, the individual scientist has readily understandable, rational reasons to believe something not yet blessed by Science as public knowledge. Noticing a regularity in a huge mass of experimental data before a hypothesis is made doesnât seem all that contrary to scientific method. Youâre still data-driven, right? But thatâs because I deliberately chose a non-disturbing example. When Einstein invented General Relativity, he had almost no experimental data to go on or a phenomenon to explain, except the precession of Mercuryâs perihelion. And Einstein did not use that data, except at the end. Einstein came up with the theory of Special Relativity using the following principle: You begin by saying, âIt doesnât seem reasonable to me that you can tell, in an enclosed box, how fast you and the box are going. Since this number shouldnât be observable, it shouldnât exist in any sense.â You then observe that Maxwellâs Equations invoke a seemingly absolute speed of wave propagation, c, commonly referred to as âthe speed of lightâ. So, you reformulate your physics in such fashion that the absolute speed of a single object no longer meaningfully exists, and only relative speeds exist. I am skipping over quite a bit here, >
GET ANSWER
Modern ideal of Science attempts to specify a procedure an individual must follow to come up with a credible idea or theory. However, recently Iâve caught myself thinking that scientific method with its sequence of action wherein a hypothesis is followed by experimental verification canât possibly describe all the advances in the history of science. Sometimes scientists must call upon their powers of individual rationality to decide what ideas to test, in advance of the sort of definite experiments and observations of phenomena that Science demands to bless an idea as confirmed. Letâs start with a readily understandable, non-disturbing example. A scientist identifies a strong regularity in the cumulative data of previous experiments. But the corresponding hypothesis has not yet made and confirmed a novel experimental predictionâwhich his academic field demands. Thus, the individual scientist has readily understandable, rational reasons to believe something not yet blessed by Science as public knowledge. Noticing a regularity in a huge mass of experimental data before a hypothesis is made doesnât seem all that contrary to scientific method. Youâre still data-driven, right? But thatâs because I deliberately chose a non-disturbing example. When Einstein invented General Relativity, he had almost no experimental data to go on or a phenomenon to explain, except the precession of Mercuryâs perihelion. And Einstein did not use that data, except at the end. Einstein came up with the theory of Special Relativity using the following principle: You begin by saying, âIt doesnât seem reasonable to me that you can tell, in an enclosed box, how fast you and the box are going. Since this number shouldnât be observable, it shouldnât exist in any sense.â You then observe that Maxwellâs Equations invoke a seemingly absolute speed of wave propagation, c, commonly referred to as âthe speed of lightâ. So, you reformulate your physics in such fashion that the absolute speed of a single object no longer meaningfully exists, and only relative speeds exist. I am skipping over quite a bit here, >
