2019/08/15 by German Association For Medical Education GMA, Advisory Board, Daniel Tolks · 1 citation
Health Professions · Medicine · #610 Medical sciences #Health and Medical Studies #Medical Practices and Rehabilitation #Medical and Health Sciences Research #Medicine
paper · pdf · doi:10.3205/zma001254
openalex publication_date 2019/08/15 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/02
The “Masterplan for Medical Studies 2020” published in March 2017 came unexpected for many members of the Society for Medical Education (GMA). The document, which in part promises profound changes to admission to medical studies, medical programs’ structure and content, as well as the federal licensing exam, raised questions that were discussed intensively in the committees of the GMA. The basic thrust of the indicated readjustment of medical studies seemed to point in the right direction and some of the innovations which had been hard-won by lecturers and faculty seemed to be confirmed by the announced measures. But the GMA committees also made criticisms; that the Masterplan for Medical Studies 2020 left central terms and concepts undefined, did not fully take into account the relevant evidence for the measures and failed to address some relevant topics.