Re-envisioning paradigms of education: towards awareness, alignment, and pluralism.

In this article we introduce a synthesis of education "paradigms," adapted from a multi-disciplinary body of literature and tailored to health professions education (HPE). Each paradigm involves a particular perspective on the purpose of education, the nature of knowledge, what knowledge is valued and included in the curriculum, what it means to learn and how learning is assessed, and the roles of teachers and learners in the learning process. We aim to foster awareness of how these different paradigms look in practice and to illustrate the importance of alignment between teaching, learning and assessment practices with paradigmatic values and assumptions. Finally, we advocate for a pluralistic approach that purposefully and meaningfully integrates paradigms of education, enhancing our ability to drive quality in HPE.

Reducing Pediatric Tracheostomy Wound Complications: An Evidence-Based Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss prevention strategies that can mitigate the frequency of tracheostomy-related wound complications. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature review of PubMed between 2010 and 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Full-text articles written in English language and studying human participants younger than 18 years. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was the rate of tracheostomy-related skin complications after implementation of a given intervention. Secondary outcomes included rates of accidental decannulation or other complications. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 348 studies were identified and 6 met inclusion criteria. There were 1,607 children included with interventions designed to reduce peristomal and cervical wound complications in 1,174 (73.1%). Strategies considered safe and effective included protective skin barriers, reducing prolonged pressure, and early wound identification protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Wound complications after pediatric tracheostomy can be reduced using a multifaceted approach by providers committed to making skin care a priority.

Approaching Impact Meaningfully in Medical Education Research.

Medical education research faces increasing pressure to demonstrate impact and utility. These pressures arise amidst a climate of accountability and within a culture of outcome measurement. Conventional metrics for assessing research impact such as citation analysis have been adopted in medical education, despite researchers' assertion that these quantitative measures insufficiently reflect the value of their work. Every knowledge community has its own definitions of what counts as knowledge, how that knowledge should be produced, and how the quality of that knowledge production should be evaluated. Definitions of impact and knowledge shape and constrain researchers' foci and endeavors. Therefore, metrics that meaningfully evaluate the knowledge outputs of researchers need to be defined within each field. It is time for medical education research, as a field, to examine how to measure research impact and carefully consider the broader implications these measures may have. The authors discuss developments in research metrics more broadly, then critically examine impact metrics currently used in the medical education field and propose alternatives to more meaningfully track and represent impact in medical education research. Grey metrics and narrative impact stories to more fully capture the richness and nuanced nature of impact in medical education research are introduced. The authors advocate for a continual examination of how impact is defined, eschewing unquestioned use of conventional metrics. A new conversation is needed, as well as a research agenda to help medical education conceptualize and study metrics more appropriate for the field.

Compassionate Care in the Age of Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Discourse Analysis in the Context of Chronic Pain Care.

PURPOSE: Health professions education and practice have seen renewed calls to restore compassion to care. However, because of the ways evidence-based practice (EBP) has been implemented in health care, wherein research-based knowledge is privileged, the dominance of EBP may silence clinician and patient experience-based knowledge needed for compassionate care. This study explored what happens when the discourses of compassionate care and EBP interact in practice. METHOD: Chronic pain management in Canada was selected as the context for the study. Data collection involved compiling an archive of 458 chronic pain texts, including gray literature from 2009-2015 (non-peer-reviewed sources, e.g., guidelines), patient blog posts from 2013-2015, and transcripts of study interviews with 9 clinicians and postgraduate trainees from local pain clinics from 2015-2016. The archive was analyzed using an interpretive qualitative approach informed by critical discourse analysis. RESULTS: Four manifestations of the discourse of compassionate care were identified: curing the pain itself, returning to function, alleviating suffering, and validating the patient experience. These discourses produced particular subject positions, activities, practices, and privileged forms of knowledge. They operated in response, partnership, apology, and resistance, respectively, to the dominant discourse of EBP. These relationships were mediated by other prevalent discourses in the system: patient safety, patient-centered care, professional liability, interprofessional collaboration, and efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Medical education efforts to foster compassion in health professionals and systems need to acknowledge the complex web of discourses-which carry with them their own expectations, material effects, and roles-and support people in navigating this web.

Re-positioning faculty development as knowledge mobilization for health professions education.

Faculty development as knowledge mobilization offers a particularly fruitful and novel avenue for exploring the research-practice interface in health professions education. We use this 'eye opener' to build off this assertion to envision faculty development as an enterprise that provides a formal, recognized space for the sharing of research and practical knowledge among health professions educators. Faculty development's knowledge mobilizing strategies and outcomes, which draw upon varied sources of knowledge, make it a potentially effective knowledge mobilization vehicle.First, we explain our choice of the term knowledge mobilization over translation, in an attempt to resist the false dichotomy of 'knowledge user' and 'knowledge creator'. Second, we leverage the documented strengths of faculty development against the documented critiques of knowledge mobilization in the hopes of avoiding some of the pitfalls that have befallen previous attempts at closing knowing-doing gaps.Through faculty development, faculty are indeed educated, in the traditional sense, to acquire new knowledge and skill, but they are also socialized to go on to form the systems and structures of their workplaces, as leaders and workers. Therefore, faculty development can not only mobilize knowledge, but also create knowledge mobilizers. Achieving this vision of faculty development as knowledge mobilization requires an acceptance of multiple sources of knowledge, including practice-based knowledge, and of multiple purposes for education and faculty development, including professional socialization.

A mandala of faculty development: using theory-based evaluation to explore contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.

Demonstrating the impact of faculty development, is an increasingly mandated and ever elusive goal. Questions have been raised about the adequacy of current approaches. Here, we integrate realist and theory-driven evaluation approaches, to evaluate an intensive longitudinal program. Our aim is to elucidate how faculty development can work to support a range of outcomes among individuals and sub-systems in the academic health sciences. We conducted retrospective framework analysis of qualitative focus group data gathered from 79 program participants (5 cohorts) over a 10-year period. Additionally, we conducted follow-up interviews with 15 alumni. We represent the interactive relationships among contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes as a "mandala" of faculty development. The mandala illustrates the relationship between the immediate program context, and the broader institutional context of academic health sciences, and identifies relevant change mechanisms. Four primary mechanisms were collaborative-reflection, self-reflection and self-regulation, relationship building, and pedagogical knowledge acquisition. Individual outcomes, including changed teaching practices, are described. Perhaps most interestingly, secondary mechanisms-psychological and structural empowerment-contributed to institutional outcomes through participants' engagement in change leadership in their local contexts. Our theoretically informed evaluation approach models how faculty development, situated in appropriate institutional contexts, can trigger mechanisms that yield a range of benefits for faculty and their institutions. The adopted methods hold potential as a way to demonstrate the often difficult-to-measure outcomes of educational programs, and allow for critical examination as to how and whether faculty development programs can accomplish their espoused goals.