Clinical teaching as part of continuing professional development: Does teaching enhance clinical performance?

INTRODUCTION: Physicians identify teaching as a factor that enhances performance, although existing data to support this relationship is limited. PURPOSE: To determine whether there were differences in clinical performance scores as assessed through multisource feedback (MSF) data based on clinical teaching. METHODS: MSF data for 1831 family physicians, 1510 medical specialists, and 542 surgeons were collected from physicians' medical colleagues, co-workers (e.g., nurses and pharmacists), and patients and examined in relation to information about physician teaching activities including percentage of time spent teaching during patient care and academic appointment. Multivariate analysis of variance, partial eta squared effect sizes, and Tukey's HSD post hoc comparisons were used to determine between group differences in total MSF mean and subscale mean performance scores by teaching and academic appointment data. RESULTS: Higher clinical performance scores were associated with holding any academic appointment and generally with any time teaching versus no teaching during patient care. This was most evident for data from medical colleagues, where these differences existed across all specialty groups. CONCLUSION: More involvement in teaching was associated with higher clinical performance ratings from medical colleagues and co-workers. These results may support promoting teaching as a method to enhance and maintain high-quality clinical performance.

Evaluation of an educational program for essential newborn care in resource-limited settings: Essential Care for Every Baby.

BACKGROUND: Essential Care for Every Baby (ECEB) is an evidence-based educational program designed to increase cognitive knowledge and develop skills of health care professionals in essential newborn care in low-resource areas. The course focuses on the immediate care of the newborn after birth and during the first day or until discharge from the health facility. This study assessed the overall design of the course; the ability of facilitators to teach the course; and the knowledge and skills acquired by the learners. METHODS: Testing occurred at 2 global sites. Data from a facilitator evaluation survey, a learner satisfaction survey, a multiple choice question (MCQ) examination, performance on two objective structured clinical evaluations (OSCE), and pre- and post-course confidence assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Pre-post course differences were examined. Comments on the evaluation form and post-course group discussions were analyzed to identify potential program improvements. RESULTS: Using ECEB course material, master trainers taught 12 facilitators in India and 11 in Kenya who subsequently taught 62 providers of newborn care in India and 64 in Kenya. Facilitators and learners were satisfied with their ability to teach and learn from the program. Confidence (3.5 to 5) and MCQ scores (India: pre 19.4, post 24.8; Kenya: pre 20.8, post 25.0) improved (p < 0.001). Most participants demonstrated satisfactory skills on the OSCEs. Qualitative data suggested the course was effective, but also identified areas for course improvement. These included additional time for hands-on practice, including practice in a clinical setting, the addition of video learning aids and the adaptation of content to conform to locally recommended practices. CONCLUSION: ECEB program was highly acceptable, demonstrated improved confidence, improved knowledge and developed skills. ECEB may improve newborn care in low resource settings if it is part of an overall implementation plan that addresses local needs and serves to further strengthen health systems.

Multiple mini-interviews versus traditional interviews: stakeholder acceptability comparison.

CONTEXT: The McGill University Faculty of Medicine undertook a pilot, simulation-based multiple mini-interview (MMI) for medical school applicant selection, which ran simultaneously with traditional unstructured interviews (all applicants underwent both processes). This paper examines major stakeholder (applicants and evaluators) opinions towards the MMI compared with traditional interviews, including perceptions about the feasibility and utility of the MMI. METHODS: A total of 100 candidates applying to McGill University Medical School were enrolled in the pilot comparison of the MMI with the traditional, unstructured interview. Applicants' opinions were obtained by questionnaire shortly after the process (for all applicants) and approximately 6 months after the interviews (for non-accepted applicants). Evaluators' perceptions were also surveyed. Questionnaires contained both quantitative items and space for qualitative impressions. Descriptive statistics, repeated measures analysis of variance (manova) and analysis of the topics raised in written comments were conducted. RESULTS: Univariate analyses of response scores revealed statistically significant differences, with the MMI rated more highly than the traditional interview on fairness, imposition of stress and effectiveness as a measurement tool. Compared with the traditional interview, applicants also felt the MMI: (i) allowed them to be competitive; (ii) was enjoyable, and (iii) was often a favourite part of their interview experience. It should be noted that applicants were aware that their MMI score would be included in their overall interview rating. Written comments were positive with regard to, for example, fairness, the provision of opportunities to show one's strengths, and appreciation of the fidelity of the simulations. Evaluators' responses were in agreement with applicants' responses, albeit that overall they expressed more caution about the MMI. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the MMI is a promising selection tool from the point of view of both applicants and evaluators. Both groups expressed concerns, but overall the response was favourable for the MMI in comparison with traditional interviews, and the MMI has been adopted by McGill University's medical school.

Ego identity development in physicians: a cross-cultural comparison using a mixed method approach.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the career decision-making process of International Medical Graduates (IMGs). There are two main types of IMGs who apply for licensure in Canada. Canadian International Medical Graduates (CIMGs) were Canadian citizens before leaving to study medicine in a foreign country, in comparison to those non-CIMGs who had studied medicine in a foreign country before immigrating to Canada. Given that their motivations for becoming a doctor in Canada may differ, it is important to examine how they decided to become a doctor for each group separately. METHODS: A total of 46 IMGs participated in a semi-structured interview - 20 were CIMGs and 26 were non-CIMGs. RESULTS: An iterative process of content analysis was conducted to categorize responses from five open-ended questions according to the Ego Identity Statuses theory of career decision-making. Event contingency analysis identified a significant difference between CIMGs and non-CIMGs, Fisher's exact test (1) = 18.79, p < .0001. A total of 55% of CIMGs were categorized as identity achieved and 45% as foreclosed; 100% of non-CIMGs were classified as identity foreclosed. CONCLUSION: About half of the Canadian citizens who had studied medicine in a foreign country had explored different careers before making a commitment to medicine, and half had not. No IMGs, however, who studied medicine in another country before immigrating to Canada, had explored various career opportunities before selecting medicine.

Developing an interprofessional care plan for an older adult woman with breast cancer: from multiple voices to a shared vision.

Interprofessional collaboration is central to quality patient care; however, little is known about developing interprofessional care plans, particularly in oncology. This article describes the development of an interprofessional care plan for an older adult woman with breast cancer. Two collaborative expert workshops were used; 15 clinical experts reviewed an online patient case and were asked to prepare a uniprofessional care plan. In workshop 1, participants worked from a draft interprofessional care plan, synthesized from the uniprofessional care plans by research associates, to arrive at consensus on an ideal interprofessional care plan. Using qualitative inductive content analysis of workshop transcripts, specific changes and overall key principles were identified and used to revise the draft plan. Based on these findings, a generalized interprofessional care plan/oncology model was developed. Revisions and proposed model were validated through consensus by participants during workshop 2. Participants highlighted the iterative, cyclical, and multilayered nature of patient care experiences; the importance of central patient profiles, which are contributed to and validated by all healthcare professionals; and the importance of assessing patient understanding. Participation of a patient representative provided an invaluable contribution. The process and model provide a unique framework for interprofessional care plan development in other settings and patient populations.