To prove or improve? Examining how paradoxical tensions shape evaluation practices in accreditation contexts.

INTRODUCTION: Although programme evaluation is increasingly routinised across the academic health sciences, there is scant research on the factors that shape the scope and quality of evaluation work in health professions education. Our research addresses this gap, by studying how the context in which evaluation is practised influences the type of evaluation that can be conducted. Focusing on the context of accreditation, we critically examine the types of paradoxical tensions that surface as evaluation-leads consider evaluation ideals or best practices in relation to contextual demands associated with accreditation seeking. METHODS: Our methods were qualitative and situated within a critical realist paradigm. Study participants were 29 individuals with roles requiring responsibility and oversight on evaluation work. They worked across 4 regions, within 26 academic health science institutions. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analysed using framework and matrix analyses. RESULTS: We identified three overarching themes: (i) absence of collective coherence about evaluation practice, (ii) disempowerment of expertise and (iii) tensions as routine practice. Examples of these latter tensions in evaluation work included (i) resourcing accreditation versus resourcing robust evaluation strategy (performing paradox), (ii) evaluation designs to secure accreditation versus design to spur renewal and transformation (performing-learning paradox) and (iii) public dissemination of evaluation findings versus restricted or selective access (publicising paradox). Sub-themes and illustrative data are presented. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates how the high-stakes context of accreditation seeking surfaces tensions that can risk the quality and credibility of evaluation practices. To mitigate these risks, those who commission or execute evaluation work must be able to identify and reconcile these tensions. We propose strategies that may help optimise the quality of evaluation work alongside accreditation-seeking efforts. Critically, our research highlights the limitations of continually positioning evaluation purely as a method versus as a socio-technical practice that is highly vulnerable to contextual influences.

An Immersive Simulation to Build Empathy for Geriatric Patients with Co-Occurring Physical and Mental Illness.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to explore the effectiveness of an immersive simulation experience using an aging simulation suit for fostering empathy towards geriatric patients with advanced mental illness. METHOD: Psychiatry residents were recruited during their clinical rotations at a Canadian mental health hospital. The participants took on the first-person perspective of a geriatric patient with mental illness initially through written reflection, and then physically inhabited this role by wearing an aging simulation suit to perform the task of meeting with a pharmacist to review current medications and prepare a dosette. Concurrently, an audio file was played through headphones to simulate auditory hallucinations. A pre- and post-Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), reflective writing exercise, debrief transcription, and evaluation questionnaire were used to evaluate the intervention. Interviews conducted 3 month post-intervention explored its impact on their clinical practice. RESULTS: Fifteen psychiatry residents completed the study. There was a significant increase in JSE scores pre (M = 115.5, SD = 13.2) to post (M = 119.2, SD = 12.7) intervention, t(14) = 2.65, p = .02. The qualitative findings of the study demonstrated participants' improved understanding and awareness of the patient perspective and the ability to communicate this understanding and show intentions to help through practice change. CONCLUSION: An aging suit simulation with debriefing may be an effective educational intervention to incorporate into the medical curriculum to foster empathy for this stigmatized population.

Lessons Learned: Implementing UK-Developed Interprofessional Simulation Training Courses in a Canadian Setting.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the need for practitioners to improve their skills in integrating mental and physical healthcare, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) (Canada) invited education specialists from Maudsley Simulation (UK) to pilot two of their existing interprofessional simulation courses on the mental-physical interface in Toronto. Participants' experiences as well as the courses' educational impact were evaluated. METHODS: Participants completed pre-and post-course questionnaires, a 2-week follow-up questionnaire, and individual interviews 6 months after course completion. RESULTS: Participants (n = 23) found the courses to be relevant and applicable to their practice. Over half of the participants interviewed (8/15) reported changing their practice as a result of the course. However, concerns regarding the sociological fidelity of these courses within the Canadian context were noted. CONCLUSION: The findings support the transferability of interprofessional simulation courses developed in other countries. It is important, however, to contextualize course material to fit local healthcare systems and to ensure sociological fidelity where professional roles may vary.

Collaborating with Families: Exploring Family Member and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Engaging Families Within Medical Education.

OBJECTIVE: With 40 to 65% of mental health patients being cared for by family members, nearly 500,000 Canadians are serving as caregivers. Yet family members are often excluded from daily clinical interactions and the development of mental health continuing medical education (CME). This qualitative study aimed to understand how best to involve families in mental health CME and how to advance their meaningful and equitable engagement in such initiatives. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two samples: mental health care providers (n = 8) and family members of individuals diagnosed with a co-occurring addiction and mental health problems (n = 12) to explore barriers, facilitators, and strategies for family engagement. RESULTS: Several themes related to the perception of expertise emerged from the interviews, including the tension between the validity of knowledge based on education/credentials and knowledge based on lived experience, as well as expressions of "voice." Participants also identified barriers to, and ethical considerations related to, family engagement, including stigma and confidentiality, and recommended strategies and supports to meaningfully include the family perspective within mental health CME. CONCLUSIONS: Aligning with the movement to improve collaboration between mental health professionals and service users requires developing relationships with family members. Identifying strategies to involve families in the development of CME is crucial to initiating and maintaining family engagement.

Simulation in Undergraduate Psychiatry: Exploring the Depth of Learner Engagement.

OBJECTIVES: Simulation-based methodologies are increasingly used in undergraduate medical education to expand students' exposure to complex clinical scenarios. Engagement of students in these simulation-based methodologies is a key determinant of their success in learning. Thus, the authors conducted a systematic review to (1) identify simulation methods in use within the undergraduate psychiatry curriculum and (2) assess learner engagement using these methods. METHODS: Following a PRISMA methodology, the authors searched MEDLINE, ERIC, and PsychINFO databases from 1977 to 2015. Studies applying simulation in undergraduate psychiatric education were reviewed. The depth of learner engagement was assessed using Kolb's four-stage learning cycle. RESULTS: Of 371 publications identified, 63 met all the inclusion criteria: 48 used standardized patients and 16 used online or virtual learning case modules. Only one study used high fidelity mannequins. Three studies satisfied multiple stages in Kolb's Learning Cycle, including a single study that addressed all four domains. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the varied uses of simulation across other health disciplines, there were few novel or innovative uses of simulation in undergraduate psychiatric education since the last review in 2008. Expanding on the use of simulation to improve communication, build empathy, and decrease stigma in psychiatry is essential given the relevance to all facets of medical practice. Given the complexity of psychiatry, simulation interventions should extend beyond communication scenarios. Medical students need more opportunities to reflect and debrief on simulation experiences and integrate learning into new contexts. Faculty development should focus on these novel approaches to simulation to deeply engage learners and enhance outcomes.

Moving towards deep equity, diversity, inclusivity and accessibility in simulation: a call to explore the promises and perils.

Principles and issues of equity, diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility (EDIA) are being explored currently in simulation designs and trainings but with limited depth, often raising more questions than answers. This editorial invites the broader healthcare simulation community to move beyond the superficial to explore more expansively and deeply these issues of EDIA within simulation. Simulation is the very environment and context from which we may confront how existing (power) structures can be dismantled and re-envisioned for more optimal redistribution of participation, power, and benefits. We can use simulation to experiment with variations of these realities, and start exploring consequences of such alternatives to benefit our broader health systems and societies. Simulation uniquely combines opportunities for experience, reflection, application and active experimentation, enabling a ripe ground for this study. In fact, it is the responsibility of simulation educators to take up this challenge, and to engage in meaningful scholarship to understand more about the impact of simulation in exploring EDIA topics. This editorial invites contributions of empirical and theoretical works that advance our collective understanding of EDIA, while also cautioning against complacency. The simulation community is urged to look inwards and also examine its own practices critically, in spite of the uncertainty, vulnerability and risks that this presents.

Initiating communities of practice for teaching and education scholarship in hospital settings: a multi-site case study.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background and Rationale: Numerous calls have been made for faculty development programming to better address faculty members' ongoing needs, to situate training strategies within the workplace and to utilize social learning perspectives, communities of practice in particular. Reviews have pointed to a paucity of published qualitative research on faculty development communities of practice and, more generally, on the processes of change and the organizational contexts in which interventions are implemented. Intervention: An initiative was started to instigate education scholarship communities of practice in three highly distinct academic health care settings, to address faculty members' ongoing needs for community and, ultimately, to serve as a source of support for the application of new knowledge to routine education activities. A research project was launched jointly to describe the process and progress of attempting to develop communities of practice at the three sites and to identify common and unique influences on sites' progress. Data Collection: Phone interviews were conducted with group facilitators from each site following group meetings, for the duration of the initiative. Analysis: Multiple case study methodology was employed to describe and compare the processes and progress of attempting to initiate communities of practice at the three sites and to identify obstacles related to organizational context. Findings: All three sites made limited progress in developing a shared domain of interest and a shared history of regular interaction (i.e. regular meetings). Participants identified different professional backgrounds and different education practices as challenges to establishing shared interest. More prominently, they identified busy schedules, geographic barriers, and absence of protected time as obstacles to regular and consistent meetings. Discussion: Difficulty establishing shared interest and shared history are considered in light of the unclear meaning of "education scholarship", cognitive and ethical boundaries between professions, and time constraints within modern, highly complex academic healthcare settings. Conclusions: While CoPs may appeal as self-sustaining, low-cost alternatives to formal programming, limited progress is possible without institutional investment and allowance commensurate with the implied scope and challenges.