The fact that it took place in Tucson is telling in some way. Not in a glass-tower conference hotel in San Francisco or a vast convention center in Chicago, but inside the University of Arizona’s Health Sciences Innovation Building—a name that, for once, truly reflected what was happening inside. By most accounts, the Arizona ACS Chapter’s 2025 Annual Meeting, which attracted 56 members—including 21 trainees—punched well above its weight class.
Smaller regional events like this one might accomplish something that large national conferences can’t quite match: they compel attendees to stay in one place long enough to engage in meaningful conversation. It is intimate with fifty-six people. Discussions become serious. In front of surgeons who will recall their names the following morning, residents showcase their work.
Over the course of those two days, three ideas emerged that merit far more attention than a travel report can provide. To be honest, every medical school with a rigid curriculum ought to be closely examining these ideas.
The first is the effort to incorporate what scientists refer to as “Health Systems Science” into the foundation of surgical education. Although this is not a novel idea, it became immediately apparent how far most programs still fall short when residents of Arizona gave presentations on rural trauma delivery, pancreatectomy patient prehabilitation, and firearm violence prevention in the same session. Medical students are frequently instructed to treat the patient in front of them and end there. Without giving a speech, the Arizona meeting showed that the upcoming generation of surgeons is considering prevention, systems, and populations. It is not an accident that this orientation develops. It must be taught, and taught at a young age.
Genuine AI literacy is the second concept, which clearly unnerves some faculty members. There isn’t a single guest lecture on ChatGPT or a “responsible use” policy attached to a course syllabus. Genuine, methodical, continuous training for collaborating with algorithmic tools in clinical environments. According to a recent study from the Center for Innovative Medical Education at Jagiellonian University, the majority of instructors and students report having little confidence when using AI tools, but they also want formal training. In 2025, that disparity shouldn’t exist. With its emphasis on cutting-edge teaching resources for minimally invasive surgery and robotic applications in trauma care, the Arizona meeting demonstrated a community that is aware of the future. Whether curricula will follow is the question.
The third concept, competency-based advancement, is the one that administrators oppose the most. The conventional approach, which calls for two years of classroom instruction followed by clinical rotations on a set schedule, was created more for institutional convenience than for educational purposes. Some pupils are prepared beforehand. Some require additional time. They hardly all fit the same mold. The resident presentations in Tucson included everything from operative skill progression analyses to OSATS-based training assessments, indicating that this community is already measuring mastery more accurately than most schools do when making decisions about advancement.
None of these concepts originated in Arizona. However, the summit gave them a platform, exposed them to locals who will eventually run their own programs, and showed what a meeting looks like when the focus is on content rather than show. Gatherings like this one, which are cooperative, pragmatic, and open to discussing whether or not doctors should form a union on a Sunday afternoon, seem to be where the real thinking in American medicine tends to take place.
Naturally, whether medical schools react is a completely different matter. Institutions take their time. If you’re fortunate, curriculum committees convene every three months. However, the surgeons who spent those two days in Tucson left with something more valuable than CME credits: a better understanding of what medical education could look like if people stopped waiting for authorization to make changes.
