Medical history education enables the medical students to understand the humanistic aspects of medicine and also help to promote the professionalism of doctors. It makes them understand the disappearing or emerging diseases by recognizing the historical changes and trends to respond appropriately. Therefore, it is helpful to study and understand modern medicine.As of March 2023, 22 (55.0%) out of 40 medical schools in Republic of Korea have medical history course as an independent subject and two schools have integrated courses with medical ethics. Compared to 53.1% in 1995 and 56.2% in 2010, similar percentage of medical schools maintained the subject independently. However, the average credits of 18 schools in 2023(2.0) are higher than those of 1995(1.4) and 2010(1.2).The number of full-time professor who specialized in the history of medicine was 2 in 1995, 6 in 2010, and 11 in 2023. Generally, a full-time professor majoring medical history tend to have other duties besides the education and research of medical history, depending on the role of the department to which he or she belongs since they are assigned to the humanities education other than medical history education.Currently, the curriculums that have been recommended by Korea Association of Medical Colleges(KAMC), Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation(KIMEE), and The Korean Society of Medical Education(KSMED), emphasize medical humanities but do not necessarily include the medical history. As a result, medical history courses have increased slightly, but the other humanities classes have increased significantly since 2000.The knowledge of medical history will help students become a doctor, and a doctor with professionalism adapting to the rapidly changing medical environment. Students will also be able to establish the ideas they must pursue in the present era when they come into contact with numerous historical situations. And if they share a sense of history, they will inspire a sense of unity as a profession and will be more active in solving social problems such as health equity.It is hoped that The Korean Society for the History of Medicine will step forward to set the purpose and goal of the medical history education, and organize the contents of the education. Classes should be prepared so that students are interested in them, and education should be focused on how the contents of education will be able to be used in medicine. To this end, it is necessary to establish the basic learning outcomes of history of medicine, and prepare learning materials based on these learning outcomes. It is also necessary to increase the competencies of educators for the history of medicine, such as performing workshops.With the dedication of the pioneers who devoted their energy to the education of medical history, it is expected that medical history will find out what to do in medical education to foster better doctors and provide better education.

According to the World Health Organization, for medical schools to fulfill their obligation of social accountability, it is necessary for medical education, research, and service areas to ref lect the healthcare system’s relevance, quality, cost-effectiveness, and equity. This study utilized Boelen and Heck’s (1995) social accountability grid model to analyze the degree to which the Accreditation Standards of Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019) standards apply the World Federation for Medical Education’s (WFME) standards. The social accountability characteristics of the former were compared to those of the WFME, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and the Australian Medical Council. Experts with experience and certification in medical education and evaluation classified the ASK2019 standards according to the grid model, evaluated social accountability perspectives, and categorized them according to the process, content, and outcome. Of the 92 standards, 61 (66.30%) were selected as social accountability standards; these encompassed all areas. There was a particular focus on outcome-related areas, such as “mission and outcomes,” “student assessment,” “educational evaluation,” and “continuous improvement.” Education and quality were the most common (33, 54.11%), followed by 18 standards related to education and relevance. However, the standards on cost effectiveness and equity corresponding to education, research, and service were significantly insufficient. As a result of classification using a logic model, many criteria were incorporated into the process, producing results similar to those of international accreditation institutions. Therefore, to fulfill medical schools’ social accountability, it is necessary to develop cost effectiveness and equity standards with reference to grid models and expand them beyond education to include research and service areas. Developing content and outcome standards is also required.

Systems thinking, a linking domain of health systems science (HSS), is an approach that investigates specific problems from a holistic perspective. It supports improving patients’ health, fulfilling their health needs, and anticipating issues that threaten patient safety within the healthcare system. It also helps solve problems through critical thinking and reflection. This study aimed to develop an curriculum on systems thinking, explore the effectiveness of the course, and investigate the applicability of HSS education at individual universities. In this study, the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model was utilized to design, develop, implement, and evaluate an elective course on systems thinking. In the design process, learning outcomes and goals were developed, and educational content, teaching-learning methods, and student evaluation methods were linked. In the development process, class materials and evaluation materials were prepared. In the implementation process, the course was implemented, and the evaluation process analyzed the results of learning performance and curriculum assessments. The evaluation found the following results. First, the students in the study realized the importance of systems thinking and experienced the need for systems thinking through non-medical and medical situations. Second, the students were very satisfied with the learning activities in the course (mean=4.84), and the results of the self-competence evaluation, conducted before and after the course, also showed a significant improvement. This study confirmed the effectiveness of the elective course, and its results can serve as a reference for developing an HSS curriculum .

Interprofessional education (IPE) fosters knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to interprofessional collaboration (IPC) for safe, quality patient care. In recent years, the importance of IPC has extended beyond the medical field to local community settings. However, IPE has only recently been introduced and has yet to become widespread. This study reviews the origin and development of IPE in Korean medical education by comparing it with established models in other countries that provide useful insights into future directions for IPE in Korea. Dedicated institutions led the IPE effort in other countries; however, IPE initiatives in Korea were mainly driven by individual professors’ and medical schools’ interest and commitment, without structural support systems. An important finding of this study is that the lack of awareness and organizational support within the medical education community resulted in the absence of a mandatory curriculum for IPE, as it was omitted from the accreditation standards. For more organized adoption and implementation of IPE in Korea, this study suggests the need to widely communicate the importance of IPE to the medical community and the public. It is also imperative to establish leadership capable of guiding IPE, share materials through trusted institutions with IPE experience, and include IPE in the accreditation standards. These steps are essential for actively implementing IPE and meeting societal healthcare needs in Korea.