Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis.
Ahmed, Samar A; Hegazy, Nagwa N; Kumar, Archana Prabu; Abouzeid, Enjy; Wasfy, Nourhan F; Atta, Komal; Wael, Doaa; Hamdy, Hossam.
Afiliação
  • Ahmed SA; Forensic Medicine Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. SAMAR@med.asu.edu.eg.
  • Hegazy NN; Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University (MU), Menoufia, Egypt.
  • Kumar AP; Medical Education Unit, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain.
  • Abouzeid E; Department of Physiology, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, SRIHER, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
  • Wasfy NF; Medical Education Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
  • Atta K; Medical Education Department, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
  • Wael D; The University of Faisalabad Pakistan, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
  • Hamdy H; Forensic Medicine Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
BMC Med Educ ; 22(1): 150, 2022 Mar 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35248032
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

This is a practice guide for the evaluation tool specifically created to objectively evaluate longitudinal faculty development programs (FDP) using the "5×2 -D backward planning faculty development model". It was necessary to create this tool as existing evaluation methods are designed to evaluate linear faculty development models with a specific endpoint. This backward planning approach is a cyclical model without an endpoint, consisting of 5 dynamic steps that are flexible and interchangeable, therefore can be a base for an evaluation tool that is objective and takes into account all the domains of the FDP in contrast to the existing, traditional, linear evaluation tools which focus on individual aspects of the program. The developed tool will target evaluation of longitudinal faculty development programs regardless of how they were planned.

METHODOLOGY:

Deductive qualitative grounded theory approach was used. Evaluation questions were generated and tailored based on the 5 × 2-D model followed by 2 Delphi rounds to finalize them. Based on the finalized evaluation questions from the results of the Delphi rounds, two online focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to deduce the indicators, data sources and data collection method.

RESULTS:

Based on the suggested additions, the authors added 1 new question to domains B, with a total of 42 modifications, such as wording changes or discarding or merging questions. Some domains received no comments, therefore, were not included in round 2. For each evaluation question, authors generated indicators, data sources and data collection methods during the FGD.

CONCLUSION:

The methodology used to develop this tool takes into account expert opinions. Comprehensiveness of this tool makes it an ideal evaluation tool during self-evaluation or external quality assurance for longitudinal FDP. After its validation and testing, this practice guide can be used worldwide, along with the provided indicators which can be quantified and used to suit the local context.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Docentes / Ocupações em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Educ Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Docentes / Ocupações em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Qualitative_research Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Med Educ Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article