The views of U.S. medical school deans toward academic primary care

What scholarly practice means to respiratory therapists: An interpretive description study

RATIONALE

Engagement in scholarly practice has been associated with professional empowerment, role satisfaction and improvements in care delivery and patient outcomes across many healthcare professions. However, in evolving professions like respiratory therapy, scholarly practice is excluded from competency frameworks, resulting in a gap in education and subsequent application of this competency in practice. An exploration of scholarly practice in respiratory therapy may provide insights into evolving professions that face tensions between meeting competency requirements as outlined in frameworks and providing quality healthcare to the populations they serve.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to explore what scholarly practice means, and how it manifests in practice from respiratory therapists' (RTs) perspectives.

METHODS

We used interpretive description methodology. We purposively sampled participants to obtain varied perspectives of scholarly practice in respiratory therapy. We conducted 26 semistructured interviews with RTs in different roles (clinicians, educators, researchers, leaders and managers) across Canada and analysed the data using inductive analysis. Data collection and analysis proceeded concurrently.

RESULTS

We developed five main themes: (i) the identity of a scholarly practitioner in RTs; (ii) factors influencing scholarly practice; (iii) one's impression of their professional self-image; (iv) scholarly practice as a vehicle for changing practice and (v) the complex interconnections between knowledges and practices.

CONCLUSION

Scholarly practice appears to be a multifaceted phenomenon encompassing a wide range of activities and skills including conducting research, reflective practice, application of research to practice, and contributing to the advancement of the profession and healthcare. Scholarly practice is influenced by organisational context and culture, available resources, intrinsic motivation and external political context. We identified similarities between professional identity and the description of the scholarly practitioner, suggesting that these two phenomena may be interconnected. Furthermore, participants believed that scholarly practice could enhance the image, credibility, legitimacy and professionalisation of the profession.

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.

Lower Rates of Promotion of Generalists in Academic Medicine: A Follow-up to the National Faculty Survey

BACKGROUND

Prior cross-sectional research has found that generalists have lower rates of academic advancement than specialists and basic science faculty.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to examine generalists relative to other medical faculty in advancement and academic productivity.

DESIGN

In 2012, we conducted a follow-up survey (n = 607) of 1214 participants in the 1995 National Faculty Survey cohort and supplemented survey responses with publicly available data.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were randomly selected faculty from 24 US medical schools, oversampling for generalists, underrepresented minorities, and senior women.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcomes were (1) promotion to full professor and (2) productivity, as indicated by mean number of peer-reviewed publications, and federal grant support in the prior 2 years. When comparing generalists with medical specialists, surgical specialists, and basic scientists on these outcomes, we adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, effort distribution, parental and marital status, retention in academic career, and years in academia. When modeling promotion to full professor, we also adjusted for publications.

KEY RESULTS

In the intervening 17 years, generalists were least likely to have become full professors (53%) compared with medical specialists (67%), surgeons (66%), and basic scientists (78%, p < 0.0001). Generalists had a lower number of publications (mean = 44) than other faculty [medical specialists (56), surgeons (57), and basic scientists (83), p < 0.0001]. In the prior 2 years, generalists were as likely to receive federal grant funding (26%) as medical (21%) and surgical specialists (21%), but less likely than basic scientists (51%, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, generalists were less likely to be promoted to full professor; however, there were no differences in promotion between groups when including publications as a covariate.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1995 and 2012, generalists were less likely to be promoted than other academic faculty; this difference in advancement appears to be related to their lower rate of publication.

Learning from history: the legacy of Title VII in academic family medicine

The current renaissance of interest in primary care could benefit from reviewing the history of federal investment in academic family medicine. The authors review 30 years of experience with the Title VII, Section 747 Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (Title VII) grant program, addressing three questions: (1) What Title VII grant programs were available to family medicine, and what were their goals? (2) How did Title VII change the discipline? and (3) What impact did Title VII family medicine programs have outside the discipline?Title VII grant programs evolved from broad support for the new discipline of family medicine to a sharper focus on specific national workforce objectives such as improving care for underserved and vulnerable populations and increasing diversity in the health professions. Grant programs were instrumental in establishing family medicine in nearly all medical schools and in supporting the educational underpinnings of the field. Title VII grants helped enhance the social capital of the discipline. Outside family medicine, Title VII fostered the development of innovative ambulatory education, institutional initiatives focusing on underserved and vulnerable populations, and primary care research capacity. Adverse effects include relative inattention to clinical and research missions in family medicine academic units and, institutionally, the development of medical education initiatives without core institutional support, which has put innovation and extension of education to communities at risk as grant funding has decreased. Reinvestment in academic family medicine can yield substantial benefits for family medicine and help reorient academic health centers. This article is part of a theme issue of Academic Medicine on the Title VII health professions training programs.

Education of trainees in the intensive care unit

The focus on improving education in critical care medicine must begin early in medical school training and further be promoted during residency if there is to be an increase in intensivists in the hospital workforce. This is "critical" to healthcare reform movements that are endorsing full-time critical care coverage in U.S. urban intensive care units. There is, therefore, a need for more novel approaches in educating trainees in critical care medicine to better prepare future physicians to manage acutely ill patients and improve patient safety. This article will review methods to improve educational designs in teaching critical care medicine to medical students, residents, and fellows, including the use of simulation technology to enhance cognition and procedural skills.

Shaping the future of academic health centers: the potential contributions of departments of family medicine

Academic health centers (AHCs) must change dramatically to meet the changing needs of patients and society, but how to do this remains unclear. The purpose of this supplement is to describe ways in which departments of family medicine can play leadership roles in helping AHCs evolve. This overview provides background for case studies and commentaries about the contribution of departments of family medicine in 5 areas: (1) ambulatory and primary care, (2) indigent care, (3) education in community and international settings, (4) workforce policy and practice, and (5) translational research. The common theme is a revitalization of the relationship between AHCs and the communities they serve across all missions. Family medicine leadership can provide dramatic organizational improvement in primary and ambulatory care networks and foster opportunities for leadership by AHCs in improving the health of the population. Departments of family medicine can also play a leading role in developing new partnerships with community-based organizations, managing the care of the indigent, and developing new curricula in community and international settings. Finally, family medicine departments and their faculty have a central role in helping AHCs respond to workforce needs and in developing translational research that emphasizes the health of the population and effectiveness of care. AHCs are a public good that must now evolve substantially to meet the needs of patients and society. By pushing for substantial change, by helping to reinvigorate the relationship between AHCs and the communities they serve, and by emphasizing fundamental innovation in clinical care, teaching, and research, family medicine can help lead the renewal of the AHC.