Specialty Training's Organizational Readiness for curriculum Change (STORC): development of a questionnaire in a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: In postgraduate medical education (PGME), programs have been restructured according to competency-based frameworks. The scale and implications of these adjustments justify a comprehensive implementation plan. Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) is seen as a critical precursor for a successful implementation of change initiatives. Though, ORC in health care settings is mostly assessed in small scale settings and in relation to new policies and practices rather than educational change. Therefore our aim with this work was to develop an instrument to asses Specialty Training's Organizational Readiness for curriculum Change (STORC). METHODS: A Delphi procedure was conducted to examine the applicability of a preliminary questionnaire in PGME, which was based on existing instruments designed for business and health care organizations. The 41 panellists (19 trainees and 22 supervisors from 6 specialties) from four different countries who were confronted with an apparent curriculum change, or would be in the near future, were asked to rate the relevance of a 89-item web-based questionnaire with regard to changes in specialty training on a 5-point Likert scale. Furthermore, they were invited to make qualitative comments on the items. RESULTS: In two rounds the 89-item preliminary questionnaire was reduced to 44 items. Items were either removed, kept, adapted or added based on individual item scores and qualitative comments. In the absence of a gold standard, this Delphi procedure was considered complete when the overall questionnaire rating exceeded 4.0 (scale 0-5). The overall item score reached 4.1 in the second round, meeting our criteria for completion of this Delphi procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study describes the initial validating step in the development of an instrument to asses Specialty Training's Organisational Readiness for curriculum Change (STORC). Since ORC is measured on various subscales and presented as such, its strength lies in analysing these subscales. The latter makes it possible for educational leaders to identify and anticipate on hurdles in the implementation process and subsequently optimize efforts for successful curriculum change.

Living in a World of Change: Bridging the Gap From Competency-Based Medical Education Theory to Practice in Canada.

Within graduate medical education, many educators are experiencing a climate of significant change. One transformation, competency-based medical education (CBME), is occurring simultaneously across much of the world, and implementation will require navigating numerous tensions and paradoxes. Successful transformation requires many types of power and is most likely to happen when the medical education community of professionals is engaged in designing, experimenting, acting, and sensemaking together.In this complex climate, the craft of change facilitators and community leaders is needed more than ever. National top-down policies and structures, while important, are not sufficient. The operationalization of new advances is best done when local leaders are afforded room to shape their local context. An evidence-based approach to thinking about the transformative change associated with CBME needs to be adopted. In this age of entrustment, 3 priorities are paramount: (1) engage, entrust, and empower professionals with increasing shared ownership of the innovation; (2) better prepare education professionals in leadership and transformational change techniques in the complex system of medical education; and (3) leverage the wider community of practice to maximize local CBME customization. These recommendations, although based largely on the Canadian experience, are intended to inform CBME transformation in any context.

How To Get Your Clinical Teaching Team Ready For Curriculum Change: A Practical Guide.

Our health care system is constantly adapting to change at an increasingly rapid pace. Unavoidably, this also applies to the field of medical education. As a result, clinical teaching teams face the challenging task of successfully implementing the proposed changes in daily practice. It goes without saying that implementing change takes time and that you need to be patient. However, a successful change process needs more than that. Change models or strategies could offer a helping hand. The questionnaire Specialty training's Organizational Readiness for curriculum Change (STORC) is a tool aiming to do just that. With a focus on readiness for change, this questionnaire tries to support implementation efforts in PGME. Additionally, since change is a team effort, it focusses on clinical teaching teams particularly. In this paper, we offer a practical guide for clinical teaching teams on how to deal with any concerns or hurdles detected in any of the core elements of readiness for change, in order to smoothen and support the educational change processes these teams are confronted with.

Specialty Training's Organizational Readiness for curriculum Change (STORC): validation of a questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The field of postgraduate medical education (PGME) is continuously evolving as a result of social demands and advancing educational insights. Change experts contend that organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a critical precursor for successful implementation of change initiatives. However, in PGME, assessing change readiness is rarely considered while it could be of great value for managing educational change such as curriculum change. Therefore, in a previous Delphi study the authors developed an instrument for assessing ORC in PGME: Specialty Training's Organizational Readiness for curriculum Change (STORC). In this study, the psychometric properties of this questionnaire were further explored. METHODS: In 2015, STORC was distributed among clinical teaching teams in the Netherlands. The authors conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the internal factor structure of STORC. The reliability of the measurements was estimated by calculating Cronbach's alpha for all sub-scales. Additionally, a behavioral support-for-change measure was distributed as well to assess correlations with change-related behavior. RESULTS: In total, the STORC questionnaire was completed by 856 clinical teaching team members from 39 specialties. Factor analysis led to the removal of 1 item but supported the expected factor structure with very good fit for the other 43 items. Supportive behavior was positively correlated to a higher level of ORC. DISCUSSION: In this study, additional steps to collect validity evidence for the STORC questionnaire were taken successfully. The final subscales of STORC represent the core components of ORC in the literature. By breaking down this concept into multiple measurable aspects, STORC could help to enable educational leaders to diagnose possible hurdles in implementation processes and to perform specifically targeted interventions when needed.

Are they ready? Organizational readiness for change among clinical teaching teams.

INTRODUCTION: Curriculum change and innovation are inevitable parts of progress in postgraduate medical education (PGME). Although implementing change is known to be challenging, change management principles are rarely looked at for support. Change experts contend that organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a critical precursor for the successful implementation of change initiatives. Therefore, this study explores whether assessing ORC in clinical teaching teams could help to understand how curriculum change takes place in PGME. METHODS: Clinical teaching teams in hospitals in the Netherlands were requested to complete the Specialty Training's Organizational Readiness for curriculum Change, a questionnaire to measure ORC in clinical teaching teams. In addition, change-related behavior was measured by using the "behavioral support-for-change" measure. A two-way analysis of variance was performed for all response variables of interest. RESULTS: In total, 836 clinical teaching team members were included in this study: 288 (34.4%) trainees, 307 (36.7%) clinical staff members, and 241 (28.8%) program directors. Overall, items regarding whether the program director has the authority to lead scored higher compared with the other items. At the other end, the subscales "management support and leadership," "project resources," and "implementation plan" had the lowest scores in all groups. DISCUSSION: The study brought to light that program directors are clearly in the lead when it comes to the implementation of educational innovation. Clinical teaching teams tend to work together as a team, sharing responsibilities in the implementation process. However, the results also reinforce the need for change management support in change processes in PGME.