Viewing faculty development through an organizational lens: Sharing lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: Faculty Development (FD) plays a key role in supporting education, especially during times of change. The effectiveness of FD often depends upon organizational factors, indicating a need for a deeper appreciation of the role of institutional context. How do organizational factors constrain or enhance the capacity of faculty developers to fulfil their mandates? METHODS: Using survey research methodology, data from a survey of FD leaders at Canadian medical schools were analyzed using Bolman and Deal's four frames: Symbolic, Political, Structural, and Human Resource (HR). RESULTS: In the Symbolic frame, FD leaders reported lack of identity as a FD unit, which was seen as a constraining factor. Within the Political frame, developing visibility was seen as an enhancing factor, though it did not always ensure being valued. In the Structural frame, expanding scope of practice was seen as an enhancing factor, though it could also be a constraining factor if not accompanied by increased resources. In the HR frame, a sense of instability due to changing leadership and uncertainty about human resources was seen as a constraining factor. CONCLUSION: While broadening the mandate of FD can generally be considered as positive, it is imperative that it is appropriately resourced and accompanied by recognition of FD as a valued contributor to the educational mission.

Evaluating transformative health leadership education for Indigenous health: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to improve structural competency and anti-racism education across health systems. Many leaders in health systems have the ability and responsibility to play a significant role in policy change and transforming healthcare delivery to address health inequities and injustices. The aim of this project was to evaluate a new health leadership Indigenous health course: PLUS4I. METHODS: A mixed methods design grounded in a pragmatic paradigm was used. Attendees to the first four cohorts (n=75) were sent an invitation to complete a survey evaluating their learning immediately after the completion of PLUS4I. We retrospectively collected self-efficacy ratings from participants who were also invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their experience in PLUS4I. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted for the quantitative assessment of the survey data. A qualitative descriptive approach to thematic analysis was used for the qualitative interview data. RESULTS: A total of 45 completed quantitative evaluations (n=45) were completed across all four cohorts. Paired t-tests were used to show pre-changes and post-changes in self-reported confidence on a 6-point Likert scale across four categories of activities. Improvements were seen in the ratings across all categories of activities, and all were statistically significant (p<0.001). Two overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: breaking down previous knowledge and critical applications; building new knowledge and change-making competencies. The qualitative interviews (n=25) averaged 32:23 min, with 18 female (72%) and 7 male (28%) interview participants. CONCLUSION: Future work will support expansion of the PLUS4I course into other work environments and faculties, where the learning environment, structure and relevant Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action may be different. This work responds to the urgent need to create systems-level change to address structural racism and implement high-quality Indigenous health and anti-racism education.