Search

OBJECTIVES Participants in faculty development workshops often comment that 'those who need faculty development the most attend the least'. The goals of this study were to explore the reasons why some clinical teachers do not participate in centralised faculty development activities and to learn how we can make faculty development programmes more relevant to teachers' needs. METHODS In 2006, we conducted focus groups with 16 clinical teachers, who had not participated in faculty development activities, to ascertain their perceptions of faculty development, reasons for non-participation and perceived barriers to involvement. Content analysis and team consensus guided the data interpretation. RESULTS Focus group participants were aware of faculty development offerings and valued the goals of these activities. Important reasons for non-participation emerged: clinical reality, which included volume of work and lack of (protected) time; logistical issues, such as timing and the central location of organised activities; a perceived lack of financial reward and recognition for teaching, and a perceived lack of direction from, and connection to, the university. CONCLUSIONS Clinical reality and logistical issues appeared to be greater deterrents to participation than faculty development goals, content or strategies. Moreover, when asked to discuss faculty development, teachers referred to their development as faculty members in the broadest sense, which included personal and career development. They also expressed the desire for clear guidance from the university, financial rewards and recognition for teaching, and a sense of 'belonging'. Faculty development programmes should try to address these organisational issues as well as teachers' personal and professional needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIM: This study was designed to assess medical school teachers' tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles and to explore the specific character of the knowledge base. METHODS: We developed a 50-item, multiple-choice question test based on important pedagogic principles, and classified all questions as requiring either declarative or procedural knowledge. A total of 72 medical teachers representing 5 different groups of clinicians and educators agreed to sit the test. RESULTS: Teachers in all 5 groups performed well on the test of tacit pedagogic knowledge but those with advanced education degrees, or local recognition as experts, performed best. All test takers performed best on questions requiring procedural knowledge. CONCLUSION: Medical teachers possess tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles. Superior test performance on questions requiring procedural knowledge is consistent with their working in a clinical environment characterised by repeated procedural activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic faculty members in medical schools rarely receive formal instruction in basic pedagogic principles; nevertheless many develop into competent teachers. Perhaps they acquire tacit knowledge of these principles with teaching experience. This study was designed to assess clinical teachers' tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles and concepts. The authors developed a multiple-choice question (MCQ) exam based on 20 pedagogic principles judged by a panel of education experts to be important for clinical teaching. Three groups of clinician-educators sat the test: (1) clinicians with advanced education training and experience; (2) internal medicine specialists; (3) surgical specialists. All four groups of clinicians-educators passed the test, indicating that they possess a reasonable tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles. Those with advanced education training performed much better than members of the other two groups while specialists and residents working in teaching hospitals outperformed specialists from non-teaching hospitals. It is possible that converting this tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge may improve individual teaching effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective was to determine whether the year and medical school of graduation, the medical specialty and the sex of the treating physician was associated with prescribing beta-blockers after hospital discharge among survivors of myocardial infarction (MI), after adjusting for patient characteristics.Methods: We carried out a dynamic retrospective cohort study using data from a longitudinal database that contained information on Quebec residents over the age of 65 years sent home from hospital after MI between 1990 and 1993. The outcome was a beta-blocker being dispensed after hospital discharge. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between training characteristics and beta-blocker dispensation and clustering of patients within physicians was accounted for using Generalized Estimating Equations.Results: The cohort consisted of 14,334 MI survivors who were treated by 3209 physicians, yielding a mean of about 4.5 patients per physician [standard deviation (SD) = 8.2]. Beta-blockers were prescribed to approximately one-third of subjects. After adjusting for patients' demographic characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, and markers of MI severity, physicians who were more likely to prescribe a beta-blocker included cardiologists and the most recent graduates (graduating after 1989). Systematic differences were also observed between graduates of different medical schools.Conclusions: After adjusting for differences between patients', the sex of the physician was largely unrelated to prescribing beta-blockers for secondary prevention of MI. However, prescribing differed by training characteristics such as medical specialty and year and medical school of graduation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]