Strategic Approaches for the Health Science Educator: Understanding Strategic Planning, Strategic Thinking, and Continuous Process Improvement and Their Impact.

ABSTRACT: With continued demand for health science institutions to find solutions to deliver on heightened student expectations despite smaller budgets and fewer resources, the utilization of organizational improvement techniques is pervasive. Academic health care leaders are seeking effective modalities to overcome obstacles, modernize, and become more efficient. Three of the commonly used approaches for improvement are strategic planning, strategic thinking, and continuous process improvement (CPI), and these concepts have been used in a variety of forms throughout industry, higher education, and health care. However, their definitions are often not well understood, and their processes are misconstrued in practice. With the increased expectation of health care institutions with undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education to consider strategic processes in organizational improvement, it is important for leadership to understand the differences in these three approaches. In this article, we explain the concepts of strategic planning, strategic thinking, and CPI through an overview of their history, definitions, and the benefits and pitfalls as observed by researchers. Furthermore, we reduce the noise in the existing literature into three concise definitions for each approach. And finally, for those seeking where to begin, we explain one tool in each category recommended for the novice strategist: the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis for strategic planning, the Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Tactics (GOST) framework for strategic thinking, and the Pareto Chart for CPI.

Twelve tips for developing, implementing, and sustaining medical education fellowship programs: Building on new trends and solid foundations.

Medical education fellowship programs (MEFPs) are a form of faculty development contributing to an organization's educational mission and participants' career development. Building an MEFP requires a systematic design, implementation, and evaluation approach which aligns institutional and individual faculty goals. Implementing an MEFP requires a team of committed individuals who provide expertise, guidance, and mentoring. Qualified MEFP directors should utilize instructional methods that promote individual and institutional short and long term growth. Directors must balance the use of traditional design, implementation, and evaluation methodologies with advancing trends that may support or threaten the acceptability and sustainability of the program. Drawing on the expertise of 28 MEFP directors, we provide twelve tips as a guide to those implementing, sustaining, and/or growing a successful MEFP whose value is demonstrated by its impacts on participants, learners, patients, teaching faculty, institutions, the greater medical education community, and the population's health.

Combining Expertise: Reflecting on a Team Approach to Curriculum Development and Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: This article discussed curriculum development and implementation using a unique collaboration of basic scientists and clinicians functioning as course co-directors. It explores the pros, cons, and unintended consequences of this integrated approach through reflections of the faculty involved. METHODS: Ten faculty participated in semi-structured phone interviews to reflect on their experiences. RESULTS: Analysis of interview transcripts revealed four key themes: (1) the value of the basic scientist and clinician partnership, (2) strategies for coordination, (3) balancing responsibilities, and (4) hierarchy and power. DISCUSSION: This study identified that both basic scientists and clinicians experienced benefits from using a course co-director collaborative approach to curriculum development and implementation. While challenges are also noted, the benefits of the collaboration were evident in course organization, course evaluation reports, student feedback, and USMLE Step I pass rate.

The design and utility of institutional teaching awards: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Institutional teaching awards have been used widely in higher education since the 1970s. Nevertheless, a comprehensive review of the literature on such awards has not been published since 1997. AIM: We conducted a literature review to learn as much as possible about the design (e.g., formats, selection processes) and utility (e.g., impact on individuals and institutions) of teaching awards in order to provide information for use in designing, implementing, or evaluating award programs. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for English-language publications on awards for exemplary teaching. Targeted publications included descriptions and/or investigations of award programs, their impact, and theoretical or conceptual models for awards programs. Screening was conducted by dual review; a third reviewer was assigned for disagreements. Data were analyzed qualitatively. Results were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 1302 publications for initial relevancy screening by title and abstract. We identified an additional 23 publications in a follow-up search. The full text of 126 publications was reviewed for further relevance. A total of 62 publications were identified as relevant, and of these 43 met our criteria for inclusion. Of the 43, 19 described the design features of 24 awards; 20 reports discussed award utility. Nomination and selection processes and benefits (e.g., plaques) varied as did perceived impact on individuals and institutions. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence exists regarding design and utility of teaching awards. Awards are perceived as having potential for positive impact, including promotions, but may also have unintended negative consequences. Future research should investigate the impact of awards on personal and professional development, and how promotion and tenure committees perceive awards.

Perspective: Guidelines for reporting team-based learning activities in the medical and health sciences education literature.

Medical and health sciences educators are increasingly employing team-based learning (TBL) in their teaching activities. TBL is a comprehensive strategy for developing and using self-managed learning teams that has created a fertile area for medical education scholarship. However, because this method can be implemented in a variety of ways, published reports about TBL may be difficult to understand, critique, replicate, or compare unless authors fully describe their interventions.The authors of this article offer a conceptual model and propose a set of guidelines for standardizing the way that the results of TBL implementations are reported and critiqued. They identify and articulate the seven core design elements that underlie the TBL method and relate them to educational principles that maximize student engagement and learning within teams. The guidelines underscore important principles relevant to many forms of small-group learning. The authors suggest that following these guidelines when writing articles about TBL implementations should help standardize descriptive information in the medical and health sciences education literature about the essential aspects of TBL activities and allow authors and reviewers to successfully replicate TBL implementations and draw meaningful conclusions about observed outcomes.

The educational attributes and responsibilities of effective medical educators.

Of the many roles that the academic-educator may fulfill, that of teacher is particularly challenging. Building on prior recommendations from the literature, this article identifies the skill set of teachers across the medical education continuum-characteristics of attitude and attributes, knowledge, and pedagogic skills that permit effective teaching to be linked with effective learning and understanding. This examination which characterizes teachers' attitudes, knowledge, and skills serves to reemphasize the centrality of teaching within medical education, provides direction for faculty and institutions alike in the discharge of academic responsibilities, and makes educational accountability clear. This listing of teacher attitudes and responsibilities was vetted in 2009 by medical education leaders from across North America during a national conference on faculty development.A set of recommendations concerning faculty development issues for medical teachers is offered. The recommendations are intended to establish an academic culture in medical education that values and rewards-academically and fiscally-those centrally committed to the role of teacher. The challenges of defining skills, developing and funding programs, and ongoing evaluation must be faced to achieve success in teaching throughout medical education, now and in the future. Faculty members, fellow learners, and patients deserve no less.

Supporting medical education research quality: the Association of American Medical Colleges' Medical Education Research Certificate program.

The quality of the medical education research (MER) reported in the literature has been frequently criticized. Numerous reasons have been provided for these shortcomings, including the level of research training and experience of many medical school faculty. The faculty development required to improve MER can take various forms. This article describes the Medical Education Research Certificate (MERC) program, a national faculty development program that focuses exclusively on MER. Sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and led by a committee of established medical education researchers from across the United States, the MERC program is built on a set of 11 interactive workshops offered at various times and places across the United States. MERC participants can customize the program by selecting six workshops from this set to fulfill requirements for certification. This article describes the history, operations, current organization, and evaluation of the program. Key elements of the program's success include alignment of program content and focus with needs identified by prospective users, flexibility in program organization and logistics to fit participant schedules, an emphasis on practical application of MER principles in the context of the participants' activities and interests, consistency in program content and format to ensure standards of quality, and a sustainable financial model. The relationship between the national MERC program and local faculty development initiatives is also described. The success of the MERC program suggests that it may be a possible model for nationally disseminated faculty development programs in other domains.

Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature: review and recommendations.

CONTEXT: In order to assess or replicate the research findings of published reports, authors must provide adequate and transparent descriptions of their methods. We conducted 2 consecutive studies, the first to define reporting standards relating to the use of standardised patients (SPs) in research, and the second to evaluate the current literature according to these standards. METHODS: Standards for reporting SPs in research were established by representatives of the Grants and Research Committee of the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE). An extensive literature search yielded 177 relevant English-language articles published between 1993 and 2005. Search terms included: 'standardised patient(s)'; 'simulated patient(s)'; 'objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)', and 'clinical skills assessment'. Articles were limited to those reporting the use of SPs as an outcome measure and published in 1 of 5 prominent health sciences education journals. Data regarding the SP encounter, SP characteristics, training and behavioural measure(s) were gathered. RESULTS: A random selection of 121 articles was evaluated according to 29 standards. Reviewers judged that few authors provided sufficient details regarding the encounter (21%, n = 25), SPs (16%, n = 19), training (15%, n = 15), and behavioural measures (38%, n = 44). Authors rarely reported SP gender (27%, n = 33) and age range (22%, n = 26), whether training was provided for the SPs (39%, n = 47) or other raters (24%, n = 29), and psychometric evidence to support the behavioural measure (23%, n = 25). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there is a need for increased rigor in reporting research involving SPs. In order to support the validity of research findings, journal editors, reviewers and authors are encouraged to provide adequate detail when describing SP methodology.

Factors influencing implementation of team-based learning in health sciences education.

BACKGROUND: Limited studies have looked at factors that lead to successful implementation of team-based learning (TBL). The purpose of this study was to identify contextual factors associated with implementation of TBL with a larger pool of individuals. METHOD: The authors administered a questionnaire who had implemented TBL via the Web to participants who attended TBL workshops; 297 of 594 responded. We used the constant comparative method to analyze responses. RESULTS: Analysis revealed five factors important to successful implementation of TBL: buy-in, expertise, resources, time, and course characteristics, with 60%, 38%, 37%, 36%, and 16% of respondents identifying each factor, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When health science faculty and administrators implement TBL or other educational innovations, they must have buy-in, ensure adequate time and resources, develop needed expertise, and determine best fit within a course. Although these results are specific to TBL, they are consistent with models of dissemination and have implications for other educational innovations.

Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later.

PURPOSE: In 2003, we described initial use of team-based learning (TBL) at 10 medical schools. The purpose of the present study was to review progress and understand factors affecting the use of TBL at these schools during the subsequent 2 years. METHODS: Representatives from 10 schools evaluated in 2003 were again evaluated in 2005. They were interviewed by members of the Team Based Learning Collaborative using a semistructured interview process. Data were analysed by 2 researchers using the constant comparative method and were triangulated through sharing results with other interviewers at regular intervals to verify conclusions and form consensus. RESULTS: TBL continued to be used in all but 1 school. At the 9 remaining schools, TBL was added to 18 courses, continued to be used in 19 and was discontinued in 13 courses. At some schools, it was discontinued in single courses in lieu of new, longitudinal integration courses in which TBL was a main instructional strategy. Faculty, student, course and institutional factors were associated with changes in TBL use. CONCLUSION: Faculty, administration/curriculum, students and characteristics of specific courses influence ongoing utilisation of TBL. Those who desire to implement TBL would do well to take these factors into account as they plan implementation efforts at their schools.

Why invest in an educational fellowship program?

Expanding and refining the repertoire of medical school teaching faculty is required by the many current and changing demands of medical education. To meet this challenge academic medical institutions have begun to establish programs--including educational fellowship programs--to improve the teaching toolboxes of faculty and to empower them to assume leadership roles within both institutional and educational arenas. In this article, the authors (1) provide historical background on educational fellowship programs; (2) describe the prevalence and focus of these programs in North American medical schools, based on data from a recent (2005) survey; and (3) give a brief overview of the nine fellowship programs that are discussed fully in other articles in this issue of Academic Medicine. These articles describe very different types of educational fellowships that, nevertheless, share common features: a cohort of faculty members who are selected to participate in a longitudinal set of faculty development activities to improve participants' teaching skills and to build a cadre of educational leaders for the institution. Evaluation of educational fellowships remains a challenging issue, but the authors contend that one way to evaluate the programs' effectiveness is to look at the educational improvements that have been instigated by program graduates. The authors hope that the various program descriptions will help readers to improve their existing programs and/or to initiate new programs.

Making it work: the evolution of a medical educational fellowship program.

Longitudinal programs to enhance the educational skills of medical school faculty are present in many medical schools and academic health centers. Multiinstitutional programs are less common. Three health professions schools, Baylor College of Medicine, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, and The University of Texas Dental Branch have jointly sponsored the Educational Scholars Fellowship Program (ESFP) since 2003. The evolution of this program, from one that addressed the faculty educator development needs of one medical school in the mid-1990s to a more flexible model that includes faculty and fellows from three institutions, reflects the changing needs of faculty as well as those of other health professions schools. The ESFP's strengths lie in the effective use of resources across three schools; the opportunity for an interinstitutional and interdisciplinary collaborative network; the flexibility of the curriculum offerings; and the positive impact on fellows' knowledge, skills and leadership in medical and dental education. The evolution of this program represents a cost-effective and educationally sound response to the changing needs of faculty educators.