Advancing the science of health professions education through a shared understanding of terminology: a content analysis of terms for "faculty"

Physician educators' perceptions of experiences contributing to teaching

INTRODUCTION

Physician educators are essential in training the next generation of physicians. However, physician educators' perspectives about what experiences they find beneficial to their teaching and the prevalence of these experiences remain unknown. Guided by social cognitive career theory (SCCT) and communities of practice (CoP), we explored what experiences physician educators perceive as beneficial in preparing them to teach.

METHODS

In 2019, the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine in the United States surveyed its physician alumni to understand their education experiences during medical school, their current career path and what has contributed to their teaching role. Content analysis was applied to extract themes across the text response. Chi-square analysis was applied to examine if perceived contributing factors vary based on physician educators' gender, specialty and academic ranks.

RESULTS

The five most prevalent contributing factors participants (n = 781) identified are (1) experiences gained during residency and fellowship (29.8%), (2) teaching as faculty member (28.9%) and (3) class experiences and peer interaction during medical school (26%). We organised three themes that reflected major avenues of how physician educators acquire teaching skills: reflection about quality teaching, journey as learners and learning by doing. Gender and clinical specialty were differentially associated with contributing factors such as faculty development and meta-reflection.

CONCLUSION

The results are in line with theories of SCCT and CoP, in which we identified self-directed learning and regulation in shaping physician educators' teaching. The findings also revealed gaps and potential contexts for more formalised teaching practices to develop physician educators.

Clinical educator expertise: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Allied health clinicians supervising healthcare students in workplace learning play a key role in a learner's progression to autonomous practice, yet expert educator practice is not well understood. How expert clinical educators in allied health professions are defined, enact their role, develop educational expertise and bring value to workplace learning is unclear.

METHODS

A scoping methodology was chosen to understand what is known about clinical educator expertise in allied health, focusing on definitions, characteristics, impacts and development. Searching seven databases, the authors used an iterative, systematic approach to the selection, collation and analysis of peer-reviewed and grey literature.

RESULTS

Within 21 included papers, diverse terms and definitions were used to describe expert clinical educators across 9 allied health professions and 5 countries. Expert educator characteristics included advanced skills in facilitating learning, the ability to build positive relationships with learners and a proactive attitude to developing personal supervision skills through reflection. Impacts were identified for learners and educators, and the few sources examining educator development found that expert practice grows in a dynamic, multi-mode, non-linear fashion.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive picture of the expert clinical educator in allied health is not yet conceptualised, despite some characteristics being associated with expertise. The differences between expert and less proficient educators are unclear with little examination of the impacts, value or development of expert educator capabilities. We offer a framework for future research and advocate for focused studies that examine clinical educator expertise, to enhance approaches to professional development and recognition of excellence in clinical educator practice.

Taxonomy of teaching methods and their use in health professions education: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Applying the lens of social constructivist theory, teaching methods facilitate the process of learning and may be used differently across settings to align learning goals. Teaching methods are used across disciplines, occupations and learning settings, yet terminology, descriptions and application for use vary widely. This scoping review will identify eligible literature of reported teaching methods with documented descriptions across disciplines with a focus of how teaching methods are applied to health professions education. A literary description of a teaching method was used as a basis from which to select eligible articles based on two criteria, a specified method and delivery of that teaching by a teacher figure.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using the extension of the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology aligned to Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, this scoping review will systematically search ERIC, Embase, Web of Science and PubMed databases. The search strategy was supported by an information specialist. Eligible studies will be identified in a two-stage screening process with four researchers. To complement eligible peer-reviewed literature, we will also search out relevant grey literature including University Websites, Conference Programmes and handsearched reference lists. Data extraction will be performed using a developed data extraction tool. A narrative summary will accompany charted results and describe the results aligned to the study objectives.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As no intervention or patient recruitment is required for this research, ethics board approval is not required. Results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and where feasible reaching out to those organisations and universities with published glossaries of terms for teaching.

Trainees' perceptions of being allowed to fail in clinical training: A sense-making model

INTRODUCTION

Clinical supervisors allow trainees to fail during clinical situations when trainee learning outweighs concerns for patient safety. Trainees perceive failure as both educationally valuable and emotionally draining; however, the nuance of supervised failures has not been researched from the trainee perspective. This study explored trainees' awareness and their experience of failure and allowed failure to understand those events in-depth.

METHODS

We interviewed 15 postgraduate trainees from nine teaching sites in Europe and Canada. Participants were a purposive sample, representing 1-10 years of clinical training in various specialties. Consistent with constructivist grounded theory, data collection and analysis were iterative, supporting theoretical sampling to explore themes.

RESULTS

Trainees reported that failure was a common, valuable, and emotional experience. They perceived that supervisors allowed failure, but they reported never having it explicitly confirmed or discussed. Therefore, trainees tried to make sense of these events on their own. If they interpreted a failure as allowed by the supervisor, trainees sought to ascertain supervisory intentions. They described situations where they judged supervisor's intentions to be constructive or destructive.

DISCUSSION

Our results confirm that trainees perceive their failures as valuable learning opportunities. In the absence of explicit conversations with supervisors, trainees tried to make sense of failures themselves. When trainees judge that they have been allowed to fail, their interpretation of the event is coloured by their attribution of supervisor intentions. Perceived intentions might impact the educational benefit of the experience. In order to support trainees' sense-making, we suggest that supervisory conversations during and after failure events should use more explicit language to discuss failures and explain supervisory intentions.

Scholarly practice in healthcare professions: findings from a scoping review

Scholarly practitioners are broadly defined as healthcare professionals that address critical practice problems using theory, scientific evidence, and practice-based knowledge. Though scholarly practice is included in most competency frameworks, it is unclear what scholarly practice is, how it develops and how it is operationalized in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to determine what is known about scholarly practice in healthcare professionals. We conducted a scoping review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from inception to May 2020. We included papers that explored, described, or defined scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in healthcare professionals. We included a total of 90 papers. Thirty percent of papers contained an explicit definition of scholarly practice. Conceptualizations of scholarly practice were organized into three themes: the interdependent relationship between scholarship and practice; advancing the profession's field; and core to being a healthcare practitioner. Attributes of scholarly practitioners clustered around five themes: commitment to excellence in practice; collaborative nature; presence of virtuous characteristics; effective communication skills; and adaptive change ethos. No single unified definition of scholarly practice exists within the literature. The variability in terms used to describe scholarly practice suggests that it is an overarching concept rather than a definable entity. There are similarities between scholarly practitioners and knowledge brokers regarding attributes and how scholarly practice is operationalized. Individuals engaged in the teaching, research and/or assessment of scholarly practice should make explicit their definitions and expectations for healthcare professionals.

Joining the meta-research movement: A bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education

PURPOSE

To conduct a bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education (PME) to provide insights into the journal's inner workings and to "take stock" of where PME is today, where it has been, and where it might go.

METHODS

Data, including bibliographic metadata, reviewer and author details, and downloads, were collected for manuscripts submitted to and published in PME from the journal's Editorial Manager and Web of Science. Gender of authors and reviewers was predicted using Genderize.io. To visualize and analyze collaboration patterns, citation relationships and term co-occurrence social network analyses (SNA) were conducted. VOSviewer was used to visualize the social network maps.

RESULTS

Between 2012-2019 PME received, on average, 260 manuscripts annually (range = 73-402). Submissions were received from authors in 81 countries with the majority in the United States (US), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. PME published 518 manuscripts with authors based in 31 countries, the majority being in the Netherlands, US, and Canada. PME articles were downloaded 717,613 times (mean per document: 1388). In total 1201 (55% women) unique peer reviewers were invited and 649 (57% women) completed reviews; 1227 (49% women) unique authors published in PME. SNA revealed that PME authors were quite collaborative, with most authoring articles with others and only a minority (n = 57) acting as single authors.

DISCUSSION

This case study provides a glimpse into PME and offers evidence for PME's next steps. In the future, PME is committed to growing the journal thoughtfully; diversifying and educating editorial teams, authors, and reviewers, and liberating and sharing journal data.

An Exploratory Study on the Validation of THUNDERS: A Process to Achieve Shared Understanding in Problem-Solving Activities

The complexity in collaborative work is mainly related to the difficulty in social interaction, which generates low levels of understanding among participants about what they should do and about the problem to be solved, resulting in problems in the motivation to generate true collaboration. Therefore, in the search to improve collaborative work and encourage this collaboration, it is necessary to implement strategies that promote the construction of shared understanding and obtain better group results. However, building it becomes a challenge due to the factors that influence it and how little is known about its construction. In this sense, to improve collaborative work, as a result of a research process, the THUNDERS process is proposed, which provides a set of elements to build shared understanding in problem-solving activities and with heterogeneous group formation. Specifically, this paper presents the results of the statistical validation of THUNDERS through the Student’s t-test, which was used in an exploratory study in the educational field in two Colombian universities, where learning styles were considered for the formation of groups; having groups that used the process and other control groups that did not use it, the collaborative activity consisted of determining the scope of a process line simulating a software development company. According to the results obtained in the context of this study, it can be considered that THUNDERS encourages and improves shared understanding when people in a group work collaboratively to solve a problem. In addition, elements for improvement were identified that should be incorporated in further stages of this research so that the process allows for an easy and guided construction of shared understanding in any application context.