Abstract
Computational thinking (CT) in medicine means deliberating when to pursue computer-mediated solutions to medical problems and evaluating when such solutions are worth pursuing in order to assist in medical decision making. Teaching computational thinking (CT) at medical school should be aligned with learning objectives, teaching and assessment methods, and overall pedagogical mission of the individual medical school in relation to society. Medical CT as part of the medical curriculum could help educate novices (medical students and physicians in training) in the analysis and design of complex healthcare organizations, which increasingly rely on computer technology. Such teaching should engage novices in information practices where they learn to perceive practices of computer technology as directly involved in the provision of patient care. However, medical CT as a teaching and research field is only beginning to be established in bioinformatics and has not yet made headway into the medical curriculum. Research is needed to answer questions relating to how, when, and why medical students should learn to engage in CT, e.g., to design technology to solve problems in systemic healthcare and individual patient care. In conclusion, the medical curriculum provides a meaningful problem space in which medical computational thinking ought to be developed. We argue not for the introduction of a stand-alone subject of medical CT, but as researchers, teachers, clinicians, or curriculum administrators, we should strive to develop theoretical arguments and empirical cases about how to integrate the demand for medical CT into the medical curriculum of the future.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. Computer Journal, 55(7), 833–835. doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxs074.
Audet, A.-M., Doty, M. M., Peugh, J., Shamasdin, J., Zapert, K., & Schoenbaum, S. (2004). Information technologies: When will they make it into physicians’ black bags? MedGenMed: Medscape General Medicine, 6(4), 2.
Bordage, G. (1987). The curriculum: Overloaded and too general? Medical Education, 21(3), 183–188. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1987.tb00689.x.
Darcy, A. M., Louie, A. K., & Roberts, L. W. (2016). Machine learning and the profession of medicine. Jama, 315(6), 551–552. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.18421.
Denning, P. J. (2010). The great principles of computing. American Scientist, 98(5), 369–372. doi:10.1145/948383.948400.
Dhar, S. U., Alford, R. L., Nelson, E. a., & Potocki, L. (2012). Enhancing exposure to genetics and genomics through an innovative medical school curriculum. Genetics in Medicine, 14(1), 163–167. doi:10.1038/gim.0b013e31822dd7d4.
Diana, M., & Marescaux, J. (2015). Robotic surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 102(2), 15–28. doi:10.1002/bjs.9711.
Doherty, M. E., Mynatt, C. R., Tweney, R. D., & Schiavo, M. D. (1979). Pseudodiagnosticity. Acta Psychologica, 43(2), 111–121.
Ellaway, R., & Masters, K. (2008). AMEE Guide 32: e-learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment. Medical Teacher, 30(5), 455–473. doi:10.1080/01421590802108331.
Elstein, A. S. (2009). Thinking about diagnostic thinking: A 30-year perspective. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(Suppl. 1), 7–18. doi:10.1007/s10459-009-9184-0.
Elstein, A. S., Kagan, N., Shulman, L. S., Jason, H., & Loupe, M. J. (1972). Methods and theory in the study of medical inquiry. Journal of Medical Education, 47, 85–92.
Freeman, J. V., Collier, S., Staniforth, D., & Smith, K. J. (2008). Innovations in curriculum design: a multi-disciplinary approach to teaching statistics to undergraduate medical students. BMC Medical Education, 8, 28. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-8-28.
Kassirer, J. P. (2010). Teaching clinical reasoning: Case-based and coached. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 85(7), 1118–1124. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d5dd0d.
Kaushal, R., Shojania, K. G., & Bates, D. W. (2003). Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163(12), 1409–1416. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.12.1409.
Kern, L., & Doherty, M. E. (1982). “Pseudodiagnosticity” in an idealized medical problem-solving environment. Journal of Medical Education, 57, 100–104.
Leblanc, V. R., Brooks, L. R., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Believing is seeing: the influence of a diagnostic hypothesis on the interpretation of clinical features. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 77(Suppl. 10), S67–S69.
McAuley, R. J. (1998). Requiring students to have computers: Questions for consideration. Academic Medicine, 73(6), 669–673.
Monteiro, S. M., & Norman, G. (2013). Diagnostic reasoning: Where we’ve been, where we’re going. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 25(Suppl. 1), S26–S32.
Nelson, E. A., & McGuire, A. L. (2010). The need for medical education reform: genomics and the changing nature of health information. Genome Medicine, 2(3), 18. doi:10.1186/gm139.
Patel, V. L., Kaufman, D. R., & Cohen, T. (2014). In V. L. Patel, D. R. Kaufman, & T. Cohen (Eds.), Cognitive informatics in health and biomedicine. Case studies on critical care complexity and errors. London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5490-7.
Patel, V. L., Kaufman, D. R., & Kannampallil, T. G. (2013). Diagnostic reasoning and decision making in the context of health information technology. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergono, 8, 149–190. doi:10.1177/1557234X13492978.
Patel, V. L., Shortliffe, E. H., Stefanelli, M., Szolovits, P., Berthold, M. R., Bellazzi, R., & Abu-Hanna, A. (2009). The coming of age of artificial intelligence in medicine. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 46(1), 5–17. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2008.07.017.
Pauli, H. G., White, K. L., & McWhinney, I. R. (2000). Medical education, research, and scientific thinking in the 21st century (part three of three). Education for Health (Abingdon, England), 13(2), 173–186. doi:10.1080/13576280050074435.
Pevzner, P., & Shamir, R. (2009). Computing has changed biology–biology education must catch up. Science (New York, N.Y.), 325(5940), 541–542. doi:10.1126/science.1173876.
Qualls, J. A., & Sherrell, L. B. (2010). Integrated into the curriculum. JCSC, 25(5), 66–71.
Rubinstein, A., & Chor, B. (2014). Computational thinking in life science education. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(11), e1003897. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003897.
Shortliffe, E., & Blois, M. (2006). The computer meets medicine and biology: emergence of a discipline. Biomedical Informatics, 3–45. doi:10.1007/0-387-36278-9_1.
Simpson, J. G., Furnace, J., Crosby, J., Cumming, A. D., Evans, P. A., Friedman Ben David, M., et al. (2002). The Scottish doctor–learning outcomes for the medical undergraduate in Scotland: A foundation for competent and reflective practitioners. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 136–143. doi:10.1080/01421590220120713.
Steinhubl, S. R., Torkamani, A., & Topol, E. J. (2015). Digital medical tools and sensors. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(4), 353–354. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17125.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Wing06-ct. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. doi:10.1109/IPDPS.2008.4536091.
Wing, J. M. (2010). Research notebook: Computational thinking–what and why?. The magazine of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Musaeus, P., Tatar, D., Rosen, M. (2017). Medical Computational Thinking: Computer Scientific Reasoning in the Medical Curriculum. In: Rich, P., Hodges, C. (eds) Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52690-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52691-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)