Search

Introduction: Health professions education often includes teaching observation to inform faculty development (FD) and indirectly improve student performance. Although these FD approaches are well received by faculty, they remain underused and/or underreported, with limited opportunities to receive feedback in workplace contexts. The goal of our study was to map the depth and breadth of education literature on the use of observation of teaching as a tool of professional development in medical education., Methods: Following the methodology by Arksey and O'Malley, we conducted a scoping review and searched four databases for articles published in English (final searches in April 2022)., Results: Of 2080 articles identified, 45 met the inclusion criteria. All observation activities were associated with one of the following FD approaches: peer observation of teaching (23 articles, 51%), peer coaching (12, 27%), peer review (9, 20%), and the critical friends approach (1, 2%). Thirty-three articles (73%) concerned formative versions of the observation model that took place in clinical settings (21, 47%), and they tended to be a voluntary (27, 60%), one-off (18, 40%), in-person intervention (29, 65%), characterized by limited institutional support (13, 29%). Both barriers and challenges of teaching observation were identified., Discussion: This review identified several challenges and shortcomings associated with teaching observation, such as inadequate methodological quality of research articles, inconsistent terminology, and limited understanding of the factors that promote long-term sustainability within FD programs. Practical strategies to consider when designing an FD program that incorporates teaching observation are outlined., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Association for Hospital Medical Education, and the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education.)

Introduction: Medical educators in residency programs have unique opportunities to teach health inequities, social determinants of health (SDOH), and implicit bias. However, faculty are not adequately trained to effectively teach these topics. The aim is to assess the effectiveness of a faculty-level workshop to teach health inequity., Methods: An interactive workshop was designed by an interprofessional faculty from a major urban teaching hospital, addressing SDOH, implicit bias, an "Enhanced Social History," and the benefits of interprofessional care. Before and after completion, workshop participants completed surveys regarding comfort in teaching these concepts. Survey results were analyzed to assess benefits of the intervention., Results: Sixty-four percent of participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop surveys. Participants reported increased contemplation and improved comfort in teaching SDOH, barriers to medical care, and implicit bias., Conclusion: Faculty comfort in teaching health inequity increased after this workshop. This may help bridge the gap between the expectation of clinical faculty to evaluate trainee practice of patient-centered, culturally competent care, and faculty possession of and confidence in health inequity teaching skills in clinical settings. Future research should focus on learner- and patient-based outcomes, including teaching time and impact on delivery of care., Competing Interests: Disclosures: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Association for Hospital Medical Education, and the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education.)

Continuing professional development of physicians often revolves around clinical activities. Accordingly, there is a lack of intentional development and support of medical education leaders despite such individuals having critical influence over key organizational functions. Unequivocally, educational leaders have complex and dynamic jobs that require clear delineation of roles, responsibilities, and resources available to successfully train the next generation of health professionals. Although there is guidance on how to longitudinally onboard medical education leaders, there is little information on how to effectively orient such leaders on the functional nature of their jobs. Baylor College of Medicine's medical school dean developed and delivered a 2-day orientation program to educational leaders to clarify roles, responsibilities, and resources. Postevaluation surveys aimed to identify key session content that would be frequently used by educational leaders to oversee key aspects of medical education. The purpose of this article is to outline the structure and content of an orientation program designed for medical education leaders, and share postevaluation data to identify which sessions were most used in practice. Other deans are encouraged to take ownership over the professional development of their educational leaders and delivering similar programming.

Introduction: Mentors are in short supply at academic health centers (AHCs). The effectiveness of training mentors (without preselection for their research skills) to support faculty mentees in scholarly activities at AHCs is not well known., Methods: The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center has a two-component program to develop effective mentors for scholarship for faculty mentees. It has an online component supplemented by an optional face-to-face (F2F) component. Study outcomes included changes in self-reported knowledge scores for online users and Mentoring Competency Assessment scores for F2F users., Results: One hundred five mentors, mostly women associate professors, used the online program. Online users demonstrated improvement in self-reported knowledge scores. Thirty-eight users additionally completed the F2F program-63% on a clinician-educator track and none with a National Institutes of Health-funded K-award mentee. The self-reported Mentoring Competency Assessment composite score rose from 4.3 ± 1.0 to 5.5 ± 0.8 (paired t = 7.37, df = 37, P < .001) for the F2F participants, with similar improvement noted in the clinician-educator subgroup., Discussion: Users of the online and F2F components of the program improved their self-assessed knowledge and mentoring skill, respectively, demonstrating the effectiveness of the program. Such programs may help AHCs enhance the scholarship and the diversity of their scientific and clinician-educator workforce.

Introduction: Medical school offices of faculty development aim to facilitate the academic growth of junior faculty by fostering independent research, enhancing teaching skills, and bolstering career opportunities. The Rush Research Mentoring Program aims to achieve this goal at Rush University medical center by offering a broad resource armamentarium and creating an environment that fosters productive relationships between mentees and mentors. This article describes the program's structure, evaluation, outcomes, and the university vision for its future., Methods: The program's contributions to the overall success of the University were measured by scholarly productivity, intramural and extramural funding, junior faculty retention, and mentee satisfaction with the program from its inception in 2006 until 2018., Results: Over 12 years, mentees have collectively received 639 grants. Of the 130 mentees who have completed the 5-year program and transitioned to program alumni, 65% have been retained as faculty members, with 40% receiving promotions to associate professor and 5% to full professor. Mentees report frequent use of the available resources and high satisfaction with the program., Discussion: We anticipate that structured mentoring programs with institutionally supported professional development activities and strategic mentor-mentee partnerships can be successfully adopted at similar academic medical centers.

Gender inequality exists in advanced faculty and leadership positions at academic medical centers; however, despite growing awareness, how to best approach and rectify the issue is unknown. To energize the conversation on gender inequality at one academic medical center, chairs and women faculty were surveyed to identify barriers faced by women navigating their careers. A symposium with short talks to increase awareness, a panel with University leaders to discuss issues and successful strategies to overcome gaps, and focus groups to delve further into key areas that underlie inequity through an active café style format were planned and implemented. This multifaceted approach resulted in a wealth of knowledge. The symposium and panel highlighted important relevant issues and offered personal strategies for successful career advancement, while the focus group discussions further identified barriers and inspired ongoing efforts across departments and novel approaches to overcome three key issues (work-life integration, deliberate promotion of mentor/sponsor relationships, and overcoming unconscious bias) identified through the initial surveys. Compiled data were then disseminated to participants and University leaders to enhance awareness of available programs and prompt action in critical areas lacking support. Overall, the approach indicated that securing support from leaders and the academic community alike are pertinent to emphasize actions needed to overcome issues affecting women in academic medicine. Moreover, bringing leaders and faculty together for an informational session and brainstorming appears to energize the conversation. Such efforts can ultimately instill change and establish an inclusive environment where all members of the academic medicine community can thrive.

The rise of academic clinical education programs underlines the growing influence of faculty development on how health care is taught and therefore practiced. Research to date has outlined the rapid rise of these postgraduate qualifications and their impact on their graduates' professional identities. Given the scale and nature of the change, it is worth considering these programs from a broader perspective. "Axes of difference" are invoked to chart the tensions and intersections between various social identities that form distinctive features of clinical education. Six axes are described: patients-clinicians, trainees-trainers, classrooms-clinics, uniprofessional-interprofessional, local-global, and teachers-clinicians. These reveal a range of complexities about faculty development, which can inform both practice and scholarship agendas.

Introduction: Local faculty development programs may not suffice for physicians to learn about global standards in clinical teaching. This report describes the evaluation of a 1-week international faculty development program in Canada, incorporating on-site observations of clinical teaching with guided reflection, for Japanese clinical teachers. Participants' perceptions of learning processes and outcomes are described., Methods: Twenty-nine Japanese clinical teachers from 9 different teaching hospitals located in the Gifu province participated in this program from 2014 to 2017. The program evaluation consisted of end-of-program reflection reports and semistructured interviews conducted 3 months after the visit, which were thematically analyzed., Results: Three themes related to learning processes emerged: the benefits of observing clinical teaching in a familiar specialty but unfamiliar context; the value of reflection in linking previous experiences with observations; and the role of group interaction and verbalization in creating a sense of community. Three additional themes related to learning outcomes emerged: enhanced knowledge about teaching, with a renewed emphasis on the value of learner respect and trust; increased confidence in teaching competence; and a sense of frustration related to difficulty in changing the status quo., Discussion: An international faculty development program incorporating on-site observational learning in hospital settings with guided reflections can be effective in learning about clinical teaching; follow-up activities in the home country are also recommended. The key elements of this program, including international experiences, on-site observational learning, and guided reflections, should be considered more frequently in faculty development programs in medicine.

Introduction: The aims of this study were to (1) describe the quantity and quality of mentoring faculty in US academic health centers (AHCs), (2) measure associations between mentoring and 12 dimensions that reflect the culture of AHCs, and (3) assess whether mentoring predicts seriously contemplating leaving one's institution., Methods: During 2007-2009, our National Initiative on Gender, Culture and Leadership in Medicine (C - Change) conducted a cross-sectional study of faculty from 26 representative AHCs in the United States using the 74-item C - Change Faculty Survey to assess relationships of faculty characteristics and various aspects of the institutional culture (52% response rate). Among the 2178 eligible respondents (assistant, associate, and full professors), we classified their mentoring experience as either inadequate, neutral, or positive., Results: In this national sample, 43% of the 2178 respondents had inadequate mentoring; only 30% had a positive assessment of mentoring. There was no statistical difference by sex, minority status, or rank. Inadequate mentoring was most strongly associated with less institutional support, lower self-efficacy in career advancement, and lower scores on the trust/relationship/inclusion scale. The percent of faculty who had seriously considered leaving their institution was highest among those who had inadequate mentoring (58%), compared to those who were neutral (28%) or had positive mentoring (14%) (all paired comparisons, p < .001)., Discussion: In a national survey of faculty of US AHCs, mentoring was frequently inadequate and this was associated with faculty contemplating leaving their institutions. Positive mentoring, although less prevalent, was associated with many other positive dimensions of AHCs., (© 2015 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education, and the Council on Continuing Medical Education, Association for Hospital Medical Education.)