The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.

The development and implementation of a systematic program evaluation framework is critical for improving the quality of the undergraduate medical education. At Yonsei University College of Medicine, we established the following five evaluation domains that encompass various aspects of educational experiences: (1) preclinical curriculum; (2) clinical curriculum; (3) educational environment, resources, and systems; (4) performance of students and graduates and program outcomes; and (5) implementation and outcomes of the curriculum. Specific evaluation indicators were designed within these domains and validated through the Delphi technique, which integrated expert opinions. In total, 98 indicators were identified across five domains. These indicators will function as a comprehensive tool for assessing medical education programs. The proposed evaluation framework addresses both shortand long-term educational changes, facilitating systematic monitoring, continuous quality improvement of curricula, and better outcomes for students. As this framework is grounded in the unique context of the institution, it is appropriate for a comprehensive evaluation of interactions at various educational stages. Furthermore, it may serve as a strategic foundation for identifying areas that require improvement, ensuring that the curriculum aligns with current medical education standards and practices. The framework’s structured approach and continuing evaluation processes may make it possible to obtain essential data for ongoing development, potentially contributing to a robust system for quality improvement in medical education. The findings of this study are expected to serve as a valuable reference for developing similar evaluation frameworks in other medical schools.