Reimagining Faculty Development Deployment: A Multipronged, Pragmatic Approach to Improve Engagement.

PROBLEM: Faculty at academic health centers have many competing demands on their time, leading to high work stress, burnout, and limited capacity to meaningfully improve their teaching, evaluation, feedback, and other education-related skills. Faculty development provides a useful mechanism to assist faculty in enhancing their knowledge and skills in these areas, but engaging faculty can be a challenge. APPROACH: To promote engagement, the authors developed a multipronged, pragmatic approach to faculty development. They created: (1) brief videos leveraging micro-learning strategies; (2) prepackaged workshops for use during existing faculty meetings; (3) a newsletter to raise awareness of faculty development opportunities; (4) a searchable, web-based catalog to facilitate rapid retrieval of faculty development content; and (5) an academy to acknowledge engagement of individual faculty members, provide certificates, and promote a culture that prioritizes our education mission. OUTCOMES: Since they launched the new approach in 2017, they have developed 41 microlearning videos, 15 prepackaged workshops, and 24 issues of the newsletter. Between January 2017 and May 2021, the videos generated more than 150,055 views; the workshops were downloaded 2,850 times; and the issues of the newsletter, emailed bimonthly to 3,500 members of the faculty, had an open rate that increased from 30% in 2017 to 70% in 2021. The Academy of Educational Excellence, which was launched in 2018, grew to more than 490 members. Preliminary feedback suggests faculty and education leaders are highly satisfied with the faculty development resources and approaches to engagement. NEXT STEPS: Next steps include obtaining more user satisfaction data and evaluating whether education-related knowledge and skills have improved among faculty participants.

Working Toward Consensus on Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma Care: A Modified Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: To address variance in clinical care surrounding sporadic vestibular schwannoma, a modified Delphi study was performed to establish a general framework to approach vestibular schwannoma care. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was established with deliberate representation from key stakeholder societies. External validity of the final statements was assessed through an online survey of registered attendees of the 8th Quadrennial International Conference on Vestibular Schwannoma. STUDY DESIGN: Modified Delphi method. METHODS: The panel consisted of 16 vestibular schwannoma experts (8 neurotology and 8 neurosurgery) and included delegates representing the AAOHNSF, AANS/CNS tumor section, ISRS, and NASBS. The modified Delphi method encompassed a four-step process, comprised of one prevoting round to establish a list of focus areas and three subsequent voting rounds to successively refine individual statements and establish levels of consensus. Thresholds for achieving moderate consensus, at ≥67% agreement, and strong consensus, at ≥80% agreement, were determined a priori. All voting was performed anonymously via the Qualtrics online survey tool and full participation from all panel members was required before procession to the next voting round. RESULTS: Through the Delphi process, 103 items were developed encompassing hearing preservation (N = 49), tumor control and imaging surveillance (N = 20), preferred treatment (N = 24), operative considerations (N = 4), and complications (N = 6). As a result of item refinement, moderate (4%) or strong (96%) consensus was achieved in all 103 final statements. Seventy-nine conference registrants participated in the online survey to assess external validity. Among these survey respondents, moderate (N = 21, 20%) or strong (N = 73, 71%) consensus was achieved in 94 of 103 (91%) statements, and no consensus was reached in 9 (9%). Of the four items with moderate consensus by the expert panel, one had moderate consensus by the conference participants and three had no consensus. CONCLUSION: This modified Delphi study on sporadic vestibular schwannoma codifies 100% consensus within a multidisciplinary expert panel and is further supported by 91% consensus among an external group of clinicians who regularly provide care for patients with vestibular schwannoma. These final 103 statements address clinically pragmatic items that have direct application to everyday patient care. This document is not intended to define standard of care or drive insurance reimbursement, but rather to provide a general framework to approach vestibular schwannoma care for providers and patients.

Impact of Doximity Residency Navigator on Graduate Medical Education Recruitment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess residency applicants' use and perceptions of Doximity Residency Navigator (DRN) and to analyze the impact of Doximity reputation rankings on application, interview acceptance, and match list ranking decisions. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We developed and distributed a survey seeking feedback from residency applicants to describe their use of DRN during the 2017 residency recruitment and match process. The dates of the study were March 1, 2017, through May 8, 2017. RESULTS: We received responses from 2152 of 12,617 applicants (17%) across 24 graduate medical education programs. Sixty-two percent of respondents (n=1339) used DRN during the residency application, interview, and match list process. Doximity reputation rankings were noted to be valuable or very valuable to 78% of respondents (958 of 1233). Overall, 79% of respondents (977 of 1241) reported that Doximity reputation rankings influenced their application, interview acceptance, or match list ranking decisions. When asked about the accuracy of Doximity reputation rankings, 56% of respondents (699 of 1240) believed that rankings were slightly accurate or not accurate. The most commonly used resources to research potential residency programs were residency program websites, American Medical Association resources, and DRN. CONCLUSION: Most survey respondents used DRN during the application, interview, and match ranking process. Doximity reputation rankings were found to be the most valuable resource in DRN, although more than 50% of responders had doubts about the accuracy of reputation rankings.