Program directors' reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of national policy change impact all levels of the organizational hierarchy. The medical education literature is sparse on how reflections from program directors (PDs) on past large-scale policy changes can inform future policy initiatives. To fill this gap, we conducted a national survey on PDs' perceptions of, and reflections on, decision-making in medical education, accreditation procedures, and the CanMEDS framework implementation. METHODS: The survey was distributed to former Canadian specialty medicine PDs (N = 684). Descriptive analysis was performed on quantitative data, thematic analysis was performed on qualitative comments, and comparisons between the quantitative and qualitative findings were performed to identify areas of convergence and/or divergence. RESULTS: A total of 265 (38.7%) former PDs participated. Quantitative analysis revealed that 52.8% of respondents did not feel involved in decision-making regarding policy changes, 45.1% of respondents did not feel prepared to assess the CanMEDS Roles, and PDs were divided on the reasonableness of accreditation documentation. Qualitative analysis produced four themes: communication, resources, expectations of outcomes, and buy-in. Nine sub-themes were also identified. A high level of convergence was identified across the content, with only four areas of divergence identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have the potential to inform future policy and/or accreditation changes. Without the lens of those charged with overseeing the implementation, policy evaluation and quality improvement will remain uninformed. PDs, therefore, bring unique insights into our understanding of national policy changes, and without the voices of these frontline implementers, the true success of policy change implementation will be hindered.

CONTEXTE: Les effets des changements apportés aux politiques nationales se font sentir à tous les niveaux de la hiérarchie organisationnelle. La littérature traite peu du fait que l'opinion des directeurs de programme (DP) concernant les réformes d'envergure intervenues dans les politiques sur l'éducation médicale par le passé peut servir à éclairer les révisions de politiques futures. Afin de combler cette lacune, nous avons mené une enquête nationale pour sonder les DP sur leurs perceptions et réflexions quant à la prise de décision dans l'éducation médicale, aux procédures d'agrément et à la mise en œuvre du cadre CanMEDS. MÉTHODES: Le sondage a été distribué aux anciens DP en médecine spécialisée du Canada (N = 684). Les données quantitatives ont fait l'objet d'une analyse descriptive, les commentaires qualitatifs d'une analyse thématique, et une comparaison entre les résultats quantitatifs et qualitatifs a été effectuée pour repérer les domaines de convergence et de divergence. RÉSULTATS: Un total de 265 (38.7%) anciens DP ont participé au sondage. L'analyse quantitative a révélé que 52.8% des répondants ne se sentaient pas inclus dans la prise de décision en matière de changements de politiques, que 45.1% des répondants ne se sentaient pas en mesure d'évaluer les rôles CanMEDS, et qu'ils étaient partagés sur la question du caractère raisonnable des documents d'agrément. L'analyse qualitative a permis de dégager quatre thèmes: la communication, les ressources, les attentes en matière de résultats et l'adhésion. Neuf sous-thèmes ont également été définis. Nous avons constaté un niveau élevé de convergence sur l'ensemble du contenu, des divergences n'apparaissant que dans quatre domaines. CONCLUSIONS: Nos conclusions peuvent servir à orienter les changements futurs en matière de politiques et d'agrément. Sans le regard de ceux qui sont chargés de superviser leur mise en œuvre, l'évaluation des politiques et l'amélioration de la qualité demeureront mal fondées. La perspective unique des DP est essentielle à notre compréhension des révisions des politiques, et sans la contribution de ces responsables de première ligne de leur application, les réformes ne pourront être mises en œuvre de façon optimale.

One Room Schoolhouse: A Novel Intervention for Inspired Academic Half-Day Learning in Distributed Campus Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Some studies on academic half days (AHDs) suggest that learning in this context is associated with a lack of educational engagement. This challenge may be amplified in distributed campus settings, where geographical disadvantages demand reliance on videoconferencing or considerable time spent travelling to in-person learning events. Concerns about the educational effectiveness of AHDs by learners within our distributed campus setting led to the development and evaluation of the One Room Schoolhouse (ORS), a unique, evidence-informed, community-based curriculum that partially replaced the AHD sessions delivered at the main campus. It was hypothesized that creating an AHD experience that was clinically reflective of the community in which residents practiced and where residents were given the autonomy to implement novel pedagogical elements would result in better test scores and improved learner satisfaction among ORS learners. METHODS: The ORS was implemented at McMaster University's Waterloo Regional Campus in 2017. Residents across training cohorts (N = 9) engaged in co-learning based on scenarios co-developed from clinical experiences within the region. The learning approach relied on multiple, evidence-informed pedagogical strategies. A multi-method approach was used to evaluate the ORS curriculum. Between-subject analyses of variance were used to compare scores on practice exams (COPE and PRITE), in-training assessment reports (ITARs), and objective structured clinical exams (OSCEs) between learners who took part in the ORS and learners at the main campus. A semi-structured focus group probing residents' experiences with the ORS was analyzed using interpretive description. RESULTS: ORS learners significantly outperformed learners at the main campus on the November OSCE (p = .02), but not on the COPE, PRITE, ITARs, or September OSCE (p's < .05). Qualitative themes suggested advantages of the ORS in inspiring learning, engaging learners, and improving self-confidence in knowledge acquisition. These findings are aligned with the broader literature on learner agency, social development, and communities of practice. CONCLUSION: While the quantitative data only showed a significant difference between the 2 curricula on 1 measure (ie, the November OSCE), the qualitative findings offered an opportunity for educators to reimagine what medical education might consist of beyond the confines of a "traditional" AHD. Creating opportunities to enhance personal agency when acquiring knowledge, inspiring engagement about patient-related problems, and incorporating interdisciplinary learning through community engagement were critical pedagogical elements that were attributed to the success of the ORS.