|
|
GEA Mini-Workshop Session Overviews
Mini-Workshops are peer-reviewed sessions that have been selected
to provide extended, focused, interactive and skill-oriented learning
experiences. The sessions are intended for different audiences with some
practice or application with evaluation feedback. Where the emphasis is
on program implementation rather than specific skills, time will be spent
discussing applications to specific work settings of the participants.
Each mini-workshop requires pre-registration and a $30 registration fee.
Most GEA sessions attract the interest of the GSA constituents,
and some branch into other AAMC professional development groups.
Register
early online — workshops tend to fill up fast.
Following are detailed descriptions of each mini-workshop
and the faculty involved.
No paper copies of mini-workshop sessions will be available
to constituents.
All GEA Sessions occur in the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center
unless otherwise noted.
Saturday, November 1
|
|
8:00a - 5:00p
|
Fundamental of Assessment in Medical Education (FAME)
$ - Day One
The Fundamentals of Assessment in Medical Education
(FAME) course is offered by the National Board of Medical Examiners
(NBME) and the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical
Education and Research (FAIMER), Philadelphia, USA, in collaboration
with the GEA. The course faculty are internationally-recognized
experts drawn from the sponsoring organizations and from around
the world. FAME is directed at those with responsibility for assessing
undergraduate medical students, graduate trainees, and practicing
doctors. Instruction will concentrate on the application of assessment
principles to specific assessment problems.
Course Design
FAME is designed around four assessment themes and four
assessment frames:
Themes: All Themes will be discussed during the 2008
program
Test Material Development is addressed
in two segments. The first concentrates on establishing the purpose(s)
of the assessment and defining the content that should be included
in the evaluation. The second segment addresses assessment formats
including multiple choice items, constructed responses and simulation
based methods. Matching methods to assessment needs is emphasized
in these segments.
Scoring, Analysis and Reporting addresses
the processes used to summarize and disseminate assessment data.
Methods for generating individual test scores, aggregating performance
data, equating scores, and providing meaningful feedback to examinees
will be highlighted.
Standard Setting describes the processes
used to establish cut-scores for an assessment. Both test-centered
and examinee-centered approaches will be discussed. For norm referenced
evaluations, techniques for identifying poorly performing individuals
will be identified.
Test Score Validation highlights
the activities that can be undertaken to provide evidence that the
test scores and associated interpretations are justifiable and fair.
Techniques that can be used to discover potential threats to the
validity of assessment scores will be identified.
Frames: The 2008 program will highlight
two assessment frames: assessment of skills and workplace performance.
Assessment of Knowledge and Reasoning
usually involves classroom testing of student learning. Often, these
assessments are associated with assigning marks or course grades.
Paper and computer-based testing are the method of convenience,
with heavy reliance on multiple choice questions (MCQ) formats.
Assessment of Skills concerns selected
aspects of clinical performance, some of which may be related to
physical examination maneuvers, therapeutic procedures, or interpersonal
skills. Usually these assessments require higher-fidelity simulations
associated with Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE), standardized
patients (SP), computer-based simulation, or mechanical devices
and mannequins. Oral examinations with short or long cases may also
be considered to fall within this frame as well. Checklists and
ratings scales are almost always required, and administration of
these assessments often occurs in special settings.
Assessment of Workplace Performance
is more often invoked for issues involving graduate doctors and
practitioners where naturalistic observation may be needed. Assessment
instruments will more likely relate to collecting observational
data, but this may be augmented with systematic data-gathering from
indirect measures, such as, chart audits. It is likely that multiple
assessments may be more frequent in this frame.
Assessment of Programs occurs most
commonly when curriculum changes of any dimension are contemplated,
or have been implemented, and there is a need to document the outcomes.
The scale of the assessment is conceivably very large, involving
multiple measures of different facets of the institutional environment,
possibly undertaken over an extended period of time.
Participants of the 2008 course will be
asked to select either Assessment of Skills or Workplace
Performance as an area for more in-depth discussion. For more
information on the 2008 Course content please visit the FAME website
www.famecourse.org/index.html
|
Grand Hyatt - Travis A and B
|
Sunday, November 2
|
|
7:30 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
MERC: Introduction to Qualitative Data Collection Methods
Faculty:
Ilene B. Harris, PhD
Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
University of Illinois College of Medicine
Linda C. Perkowski, PhD
Associate Dean for Education and Curriculum Development
University of Minnesota Medical School
This workshop is intended for physicians and generalists in medical
education, as well as faculty and staff involved in student affairs,
who wish to develop perspectives and skills for collecting qualitative
data, such as data from focus group discussions, interviews, observation
field notes, and responses to open-ended questions - used in admissions
processes, program development, curriculum evaluation, needs assessments,
performance evaluation, and various scholarship and research applications.
At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to:
- Demonstrate applied knowledge of the appropriate selection,
use, and standards for rigor of some common methods for collection
of qualitative data;
- Generate research questions appropriate for qualitative studies
and choose appropriate data collection methods;
- Demonstrate applied knowledge of approaches to achieve rigor
in the design of qualitative studies and collection of qualitative
data;
- Demonstrate essential skills required for conducting focus groups.
|
209 A
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop
Improving Raters' Assessments of Learners: Using the NBME's Assessment
of Professional Behaviors (APB) Survey Instrument and APB Rater
Training Workshop as a Model to Explore Issues in Rater Training
Organizer:
Peter J. Katsufrakis, M.D., M.B.A
Associate Vice President, Post-Graduate & Developmental Programs
National Board of Medical Examiners
Faculty:
Richard E. Hawkins, M.D.
Vice-President, Assessment Programs
National Board of Medical Examiners
Eric S. Holmboe, M.D.
Senior Vice President for Evaluation Research
American Board of Internal Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: The purpose of this workshop
is twofold: 1) enhance the ability of participants to rate others'
effectively on behaviors selected from a pilot NBME assessment program,
and 2) develop an appreciation of issues to be considered when developing
a program to train raters. Although some considerations and elements
of a rater training program do not depend on the rating to be performed,
the detailed content of a rater training program should be aligned
with the actual rating instrument. For this workshop, the National
Board of Medical Examiners' Assessment of Professional Behaviors
Program evaluation tool will be used as a model to demonstrate principles
associated with rater training. Training approaches for alternate
formats, such as global ratings, will be demonstrated to illustrate
how rater training should be tailored to what is being evaluated.
Workshop participants will be trained to increase their
accuracy when rating professional behaviors of residents. Participants
will also analyze the elements of the training program presented,
thus increasing their ability to develop a rater training program
appropriate to their specific program needs.
Specific Objectives: At the conclusion of this
workshop, participants will be able to: " Describe 3 different types
of rater training: Rater Error Training (RET), Frame of Reference
Training (FOR), and Behavioral Observation Training (BOT) " Identify
strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate uses of each type of training,
including the influence of intended use and rating scales upon type
of training " Employ principles presented in the workshop to rate
selected professional behaviors from the NBME's Assessment of Professional
Behaviors Program " Outline elements of a rater training program
Intended Audience: This workshop is intended for faculty who evaluate
residents and medical students. It will also benefit faculty in
other health professions. The discussion of how to develop a program
to train raters will also benefit course/program directors who rely
on others to assess learners' performance. Familiarity with physician
professional behavior expectations and issues that arise in residency
education will enhance participants' appreciation of the context
for material presented.
Intended Audience: This workshop is intended
for faculty who evaluate residents and medical students. It will
also benefit faculty in other health professions. The discussion
of how to develop a program to train raters will also benefit course/program
directors who rely on others to assess learners' performance. Familiarity
with physician professional behavior expectations and issues that
arise in residency education will enhance participants' appreciation
of the context for material presented.
|
210 A
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Using SNAPPS to Facilitate the Expression of Clinical Reasoning
and Uncertainties during Case Presentations to Preceptors
Organizer:
Terry Wolpaw, M.D., M.H.P.E.
Associate Dean for Curricular Affairs
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Georges Bordage, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor
University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
Robin Deterding, M.D.
Associate Dean
University of Colorado School of Medicine
James Nixon, MD
Vice Chair for Medical Education
University of Minnesota School of Medicine
Daniel Wolpaw, M.D.
Chair, Clinical Curriculum Council
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: The main goals of clinical
teaching include assessing students' clinical reasoning skills,
facilitating and strengthening the development of these skills,
and providing opportunities for practice and feedback. These goals
have important implications because the quality of the clinical
reasoning strategies used by medical students influences diagnostic
success. In order to facilitate the development of clinical reasoning
skills, the preceptor first needs access to the student's clinical
thinking. Studies of traditional case presentations to preceptors
have shown that students focus mainly on factual information and
seldom on the expression of their clinical reasoning or case-based
uncertainties. Thus, there is a need for the development of time
efficient teaching methods in the clinical setting that provide
insights into the students' clinical reasoning strategies and uncertainties
while the preceptor remains fully engaged in the priorities of patient
care.
SNAPPS is a learner-centered case presentation technique
that depends mostly on the students for its successful implementation.
The six-step mnemonic outlines a collaborative case presentation
led by the student and facilitated by the preceptor. A concise summary
of the facts is followed by five steps that facilitate the expression
of diagnostic reasoning and case-related uncertainties.
The learner will:
SUMMARIZE briefly the history and findings
NARROW the differential to two or three relevant possibilities
ANALYZE the differential by comparing and contrasting the
possibilities
PROBE the preceptor by asking questions about uncertainties,
difficulties, or alternative approaches
PLAN management for the patient's medical issues
SELECT a case-related issue for self-directed learning
In a randomized posttest-only comparison group trial
conducted in 2004-2005 with 3 intervention groups SNAPPS, comparison
(controlling for attention), and usual-and-customary instruction,
the expression of clinical diagnostic reasoning during case presentations
to ambulatory preceptors was greatly facilitated by using the SNAPPS
technique. Thus, students can conduct case presentations using a
technique that makes each step explicit and gives learners rather
than teachers responsibility for ensuring that each step is completed.
The overall goal for this workshop is to conduct a hands-on
session focusing on SNAPPS as a case presentation technique that
increases the expression of clinical reasoning during learners'
case presentations.
Specific Objectives: After observing video demonstrations
of SNAPPS, role playing case presentations, and discussing the importance
of the expression of clinical diagnostic reasoning and uncertainties,
participants in this workshop will:
Demonstrate the SNAPPS case presentation technique to
learners
Reframe their views of faculty development to consider students
and faculty as companion pieces to the successful implementation
of a learner-driven educational technique.
Explore the importance of expressing 1) clinical diagnostic reasoning
and 2) uncertainties without blame, in the development of clinical
expertise Consider the use of SNAPPS in 3 educational settings:
Problem based learning groups, the outpatient office, and the inpatient
rotation.
Intended Audience: Any teachers who listen to
learner case presentations. This may include 1st and 2nd year course
directors, clerkship directors, inpatient attending faculty, outpatient
preceptors, residents, residency directors, students.
|
210 B
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Preparing Future Leaders for Undergraduate Medical Education:
Core Competencies for the Next Generation
Organizer:
William A. Anderson, Ph.D.
Professor
Michigan State University College of Human Medicine
Faculty:
Martha S. Grayson, M.D.
Vice Dean of Medical Education
Professor of Clinical Medicine
New York Medical College
Maurice A. Hitchcock, Ed.D.
Professor
University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine
Dale A. Newton, M.D.
Professor
East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: The purpose of this mini-workshop
is to identify the competencies necessary for future undergraduate
medical education leaders and strategies to acquire them. Specifically,
participants will not only brainstorm the competencies required
of future "mid-level" educational leaders (such as pre-clinical,
course and clerkship directors, assistant deans, and other undergraduate
medical education leaders), but they will also discuss the most
effective and efficient strategies for achieving the various competencies.
This workshop will contribute to the participants' understanding
of the competencies necessary for future undergraduate medical education
leaders by having them apply findings from the literature to specific
"mid-level" educational leaders, and by having them develop a specific
"prescription" for one or more future undergraduate medical education
leader(s) at their home institution. Finally, participants will
discuss issues and problems in implementing the "prescriptions."
This workshop will use brief presentations, competency development
exercises, career development "prescription" writing exercises,
and small group discussions.
Specific Objectives: At the end of the mini-workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Explain findings from the medical education literature
on important challenges facing the educational leaders of tomorrow
and the new skills required to meet those challenges.
2. Identify the essential competencies for future educational leaders
in the domains of education and evaluation, leadership and management,
educational scholarship, instructional and informational technology,
career development, and external drivers of the undergraduate medical
education curriculum.
3. Explain different national and local strategies for achieving
these core competencies.
4. Develop a career development "prescription" for preparing one
(or more) future undergraduate medical education leader(s) at their
home institution.
5. Discuss issues and challenges in implementing their "prescriptions"
at their home institutions.
Intended Audience: Deans, Associate Deans, Chairs,
Division Chiefs, Medical Educators and other academic administrators
interested in and responsible for developing new educational leaders
within a medical school.
|
216 A
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Consumers Report: Conducting Resident Surveys to Assess the State
of the Programs in the Institution
Organizer:
William P. Metheny, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean for Graduate Medical Education
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Faculty:
Lois L. Bready, M.D.
Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School
of Medicine
Cortni K. Haralson, M.P.H. I.T.
Systems Analyst
University of Tennessee Knoxville Medical Center
Eddie S. Moore, M.D.
Associate Dean and DIO of Graduate Medical Education
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Robert J. Nolan, Jr., M.D.
Assistant Dean for Graduate Medical Education
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School
of Medicine
Jennifer L. Peel, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School
of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: We must periodically
take inventory to determine the educational state of our programs
and the effects of institutional changes we may have implemented
in resident education. The electronic questionnaire offers an efficient
method for collecting residents' opinions; however, surveys may
be misleading unless carefully conceptualized, written, executed,
and appropriately interpreted. This workshop will teach participants
methods to address each of these areas and then have participants
apply these techniques in developing a questionnaire to use in their
own institutions.
Specific Objectives: At the end of the workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Describe the discrete steps for constructing a resident
survey
2. Specify the process for identifying the conceptual content of
a questionnaire
3. Describe techniques for writing good questions
4. In small groups, write, critique, and select best questions
5. Describe methods to ensure resident engagement in the process
6. Identify strategies to provide feedback to the residents, including
targeted areas for program and institutional improvements.
Intended Audience: This workshop is intended
for DIOs, directors of graduate medical education, residency program
directors, and other faculty and support staff responsible for the
oversight, education and well-being of residents. It is a critical
that such officials know how to successfully develop, write and
implement a resident questionnaire for these purposes.
|
212 A
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Can Competencies Be Applied to Academic Faculty? Establishing
a Framework for Professional Development
Organizer:
Luanne E. Thorndyke, M.D.
Associate Dean for Professional Development
Professor of Medicine
Penn State College of Medicine
Faculty:
Larry D. Gruppen, Ph.D.
Josiah Macy, Jr. Professor of Medical Education
Director, Office of Medical Education Research
Director, Medical Education Scholars Program
Chair, Department of Medical Education
University of Michigan Medical School
Maryellen E. Gusic, M.D.
Associate Dean for Clinical Education
Co-Director, Junior Faculty Development Program
Penn State College of Medicine
R. Kevin Grigsby, D.S.W.
Vice Dean for Faculty and Administrative Affairs
Penn State College of Medicine
Robert J. Milner, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Postdoctoral Affairs
Co-Director, Junior Faculty Development Program
Co-Director, Inter-college Graduate Program in Neuroscience
Penn State College of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Competency-based approaches
are being incorporated across the continuum of education, but as
yet, have not been standardized and systematically applied to faculty.
In this workshop, we will explore the application of competencies
for faculty across all missions of an academic health center. We
will propose a competency-based framework for professional development
initiatives and the use of measurable behaviors for assessment of
faculty performance. We will start by discussing criteria for defining
and characterizing a competency. Participants will then use these
criteria to propose and evaluate competencies for faculty in an
academic health center. We will explore the practical application
of competency-based education to faculty development and the design
of faculty development initiatives/programs. Lastly, we will consider
the application of competencies to the traditional assessments of
faculty: the annual performance review, and the promotion and tenure
process. The goal of the workshop is to provide participants with
a new framework for designing and supporting faculty development.
Specific Objectives: Upon completion of this
workshop, participants will be able to:
1. Describe the definition and characteristics of a
competency.
2. Identify competency domains and associated measurable behaviors
for academic faculty.
3. Utilize the conceptual model of competencies to design competency-based
professional development programs for faculty.
4. Integrate the conceptual model of competencies with traditional
faculty assessments of the annual performance review and the promotion
and tenure process.
Intended Audience: The workshop is designed
for basic science and clinical faculty and administrators in medical
education, faculty development/faculty affairs, and continuing medical
education.
|
212 B
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Physicians and Pharma and the Hidden Curriculum
Organizer:
Jennifer Koestler, M.D.
Associate Dean for Medical Education
New York Medical College
Faculty:
Matthew Fitz, M.D.
Director for Undergraduate Educational Programs
Loyola University Medical Center, Stritch School of Medicine
Deborah Korenstein, M.D.
Associate Program Director, Department of Medicine
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Bonnie Miller, M.D.
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Medical Education
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: The Millennium Conference
on the Clinical Education of Medical Students (2001) defined the
state of undergraduate medical education. Participants discussed
the changing face of medical education and how curriculum reform
was necessary to best prepare students to integrate contemporary
medical topics into their eventual clinical practice. One theme
in particular, the pharmaceutical industry, has received a great
deal of attention and is the focus of this workshop.
This workshop will help institutions create educational
programs to better prepare medical students, residents and faculty
in their role with the Pharmaceutical Industry. We will discuss
the rationale for teaching this topic; discuss the experiences from
two institutions that have unique curricular programs to teach about
the Pharmaceutical Industry, and help participants define learning
objectives to implement similar programs at their own institutions.
Breakout sessions will allow participants to identify the barriers,
tools and resources they will need to implement similar curriculum
at their own institutions.
Specific Objectives: After attending this workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Define the rationale for teaching about the pharmaceutical
industry in undergraduate and graduate medical education
2. Identify barriers to the implementation of novel topics, like
the pharmaceutical industry, in existing medical curricula
3. Develop learning objectives and strategies to integrate curricular
content about the pharmaceutical industry
4. Determine the best teaching methodologies for each learning objective
Intended Audience: Medical educators who are
responsible for implementing curriculum at all levels of medical
education.
|
213 A
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GIR Mini-Workshop Session
Enhancing Curriculum with Effective Web-based Learning Modules
Organizer:
Lynn Y. Kosowicz, M.D.
Director of Clinical Medicine Course
Medical Director of Clinical Skills Assessment Program
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Faculty:
Timberley Barber, M.S.
Instructional Design Specialist
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Yanko F. Michea M.D., Ph.D.
Director Faculty Instructional Technology Services
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Carol A. Pfeiffer, Ph.D.
Director, Clinical Skills Assessment Program
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: To provide participants
with the necessary tools to identify objectives that might be better
achieved with web-based interventions and to selectively apply innovative
technology to curriculum development.
Web-based learning is a potentially powerful instructional
tool. Successful implementation of an online curriculum does not
come as a direct result of the interaction with the technology,
but as the outcome of careful educational planning of meaningful
and engaging learning experiences. Advantages of multimedia educational
programs include control by learners over content, time, place and
pace; interaction requiring thought about material before proceeding;
data collection for evaluation, feedback and assessment; decreased
instructor, classroom, and patient time requirements; and customized
feedback allowing tailored instruction to strengths/weaknesses of
individual students. However, there are many potential limitations
including evolution of technology; usability issues; system incompatibilities;
lack of realism/fidelity; potential for tangential searches, multimedia
distractions and information overload; limited access to technical/instructional
design expertise; initial time investment for development; learner
isolation with limited interaction with instructors, peers and patients;
maintenance and updating. In order to optimize the effect on learning,
sound pedagogy must be employed before engaging the technology.
Specific Objectives: At the end of the activity
participants will be able to identify the main components of a learning-centered
design process:
1. Needs Assessment: The participant will be able, given
a simple scenario, to conduct a needs analysis and to recognize
the major tools and strategies for this process.
2. Project Analysis: Given a case scenario, the participant will
be able to identify learning audience, environment (technology and
situation), objectives and tasks, delivery alternatives, and available
resources.
3. Project Design: The participant will be able to produce a simple
storyboard and flow diagram for the learning activity, as well as
major design themes.
4. Development: The participant will be able to recognize the major
development components, such as web development, data management,
and media development.
5 . Implementation: The participant will be able to identify the
major areas of expertise, resources and timeline/milestones for
the project
6. Evaluation: The participant will be able to outline an evaluation
strategy, and to recognize its diverse components (process and outcomes).
7. Maintenance: At the end of this workshop, given a case scenario
the participant will be able to outline a maintenance plan.
By the end of the workshop the participants will have
a working knowledge of two examples of web based modules: one with
a focus on communication skills and one with a focus on cardiac
auscultation skills. By the end of the workshop, participants will
have applied the previously mentioned framework to complete a template
educational design worksheet.
Intended Audience: Medical educators, faculty
and administrators interested in curriculum development and/or educational
technology.
|
213 B
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
What's Going on with John Smith?: Assessing Cultural Competency
Using an OSCE
Organizer:
Donna Elliott, M.D., Ed.D.
Associate Dean for Student Affairs
University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine
Faculty:
ChaChi Fung, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Dean's Office/Educational Development and Research
University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine
Win May, M.D., Ph.D.
Director, Standardized Patient Program
University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine
Sarah Peyre, Ed.D.
Director of Education Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine
Michael Prislin, M.D.
Dean of Students
University of California Irvine School of Medicine
Denise Souder, R.N., M.S.Ed.
Standardized Patient Program Specialist
University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine
LuAnn Wilkerson, Ed.D.
Senior Associate Dean for Medical Education
University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Health care professionals
today are challenged with providing care for patients of diverse
socio-cultural backgrounds. These patients have different languages,
levels of acculturation, socioeconomic status, and health beliefs.
Communication and the relationship between the patient and provider
are closely related to patient satisfaction and compliance to treatment
plans. In an effort to help students learn and develop skills needed
to care for an increasingly diverse population and improve outcomes,
the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), Accreditation
Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and the United States
Medical Licensure Examination (USMLE) have all identified this need
and include communication skills as a competency that needs to be
taught and assessed.
Betancourt (2003) stated that the Objective Structured
Clinical Exam (OSCE) is able to assess the learners' cross-cultural
attitudes, knowledge and skills. However, to be a valid assessment,
an OSCE requires specific cases where cultural issues exist. Clinical
skills examinations have been used with preliminary success in some
medical schools for the assessment of student's knowledge, skills
or attitudes related to cultural competence.
Cultural competency is a fundamental professional skill
set for all physicians to master and demonstrate. Although cultural
competence has become a shared value in medical education, assessment
of this skill set is often difficult and sometimes overlooked by
medical schools and training programs.
The goal of this workshop is to enable participants
to experience and consider the use of OSCEs for assessing learner
cultural competence.
Specific Objectives: By the end of the workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Discuss the importance of assessing cultural competence
in medical education.
2. Utilize checklists to measure learner cultural competency performance
during an OSCE.
3. Identify habits to integrate cultural competence items into existing
OSCE cases.
4. Formulate ideas on how to introduce cultural competence assessment
into the curriculum.
Intended Audience: This workshop is appropriate
for anyone leading or involved in cultural competency curriculum
initiatives or training programs. Both junior and senior faculty
are welcome and encouraged to attend.
|
008 A
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Transform Your Course from Content-Centered to Learning-Centered
Organizer:
Dean Parmelee, M.D.
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine
Faculty:
Ruth E. Levine, M.D.
Director, Academy of Master Teachers
The University of Texas Medical Branch
Isaac "Ike" K. Wood, M.D.
Senior Associate Dean of Medical Education and Student Affairs
Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Most of our undergraduate
medical education curricula have been constructed on the age-old
lecture format to cover content. Therefore, many courses are 'designed'
by taking the number of assigned contact hours, plugging topics
into 50-minutes slots, cajoling faculty to teach their favorite
topic, give an exam at the end - whalla! - a pretty typical medical
school course. A long history of research indicates that this form
of educational pedagogy has limited effectiveness in helping students
retain information, developing an ability to transfer knowledge
to novel situations, developing skills in thinking and problem solving,
or achieving motivation for additional learning or a change in attitude.
The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), through Standard
ED-5, has encouraged schools to create opportunities for self-directed
and 'active' learning, and we have thus had the development of model
PBL and case-based curricula at some schools. Interest is increasing
to transform our medical education paradigm from instruction-centered
and content centered to learning centered, beginning with a 1995
proposal for the undergraduate higher education domain. Drawing
on the seminal work of Professor Dee Fink, this workshop will enable
its participants to re-design their courses or curricula using a
paradigm for integrated course design that is empirically-based
for significant learning.
Fink's model of integrated course design for significant
learning is applicable to both undergraduate and graduate medical
education. It is grounded in the systematic consideration of foundational
knowledge, the application of learning, integration, the human dimension
of learning, caring, and learning how to learn. Particularly critical
for medical education is his formulation of the importance of considering
situational factors, goal setting, feedback and assessment, and
learning activities. His model of the "backwards design" of a course
completely shifts the educational paradigm from passive to active,
significant and learner-centered. This workshop will emphasize the
use of the key components of this model for integrated course design
through a set of interactive small and large group exercises that
involve discussion, debate, writing, and sharing.
Specific Objectives: At the end of this workshop,
the participants will be able to:
1. Define goals for significant learning
2. Identify the distinctions between 'audit-ive' and 'educative'
assessment, assessment and feedback
3. Design their units of instruction by following the sequence:
1) evaluate situational factors; 2) set goals for significant learning;
3) determine appropriate feedback and assessment tools; 4) select
meaningful learning activities.
4. Select learning activities that genuinely engage students and
help them become critical thinkers.
Intended Audience: Instructional faculty, either
clinical or basic science, curriculum deans, course and clerkship
directors, residency program director.
|
008 B
|
|
8:00a - Noon
|
Fundamental of Assessment in Medical Education (FAME)
$ - Day Two
The Fundamentals of Assessment in Medical Education
(FAME) course is offered by the National Board of Medical Examiners
(NBME) and the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical
Education and Research (FAIMER), Philadelphia, USA, in collaboration
with the GEA. The course faculty are internationally-recognized
experts drawn from the sponsoring organizations and from around
the world. FAME is directed at those with responsibility for assessing
undergraduate medical students, graduate trainees, and practicing
doctors. Instruction will concentrate on the application of assessment
principles to specific assessment problems.
See FAME Course Design listed on Saturday, November
1
|
Grand Hyatt - Crockett A and B
|
Tuesday, November 4
|
|
1:00 - 3:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Bedside Rounding: Teaching and Learning with Patients and Families
at the Center of the Process
Organizer:
Jo Ann Wood, M.D., M.S.Ed., F.A.A.P., F.A.C.P.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Lead Hospitalist & Medical Director
University of Minnesota Medical Center Fairview
Faculty:
Diane Adler, R.N., B.S.N.
Nurse Manager
University of Minnesota Medical Center Fairview
Karyn Baum, M.D., M.S.Ed.
Special Assistant to the Dean for Educational Project Development
Associate Professor of Medicine
University of Minneapolis Medical School
Andrea Boeckman, M.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Louisville School of Medicine
Kimberly Boland, M.D.
Associate Professor
Director for the Division of Inpatient Medicine
University of Louisville School of Medicine
Gregory Ogrinc, M.D., M.S.
Assistant Professor of Family Medicine
Assistant Director Office of Research and Innovation in Medical
Education
Dartmouth Medical School
Purpose and Rationale: "Medicine is learned by
the bedside and not in the classroom. Let not your conceptions of
disease come from words heard in the lecture room or read in the
book. See, and then reason and compare and control. But see first."
--Sir William Osler.
Before World War II, 75% of teaching was at the bedside.
By 1978, bedside teaching had decreased to 16%. There are a number
of factors that have resulted in such change not the least of which
is managed care and capitation. To further cloud this picture, THE
outcomes of BEDSIDE medical education are largely unknown and results
are limited to resident and student self-reports. However, Adult
learning theory suggests that adults learn best in interactive settings
where they are directly applying the information. Adults need models
of professionalism; they require timely and appropriate feedback
on their work and in order to be appropriately evaluated, medical
students and residents should be directly observed. Concurrently,
experts in modern healthcare, including such bodies as the Institute
of Medicine are calling for education around teamwork, patient-centered
care, improved communication and quality improvement.
Bedside rounding creates a safe means of successfully
addressing these lofty patient goals and for effectively and efficiently
meeting the educational expectations of adult learners while also
providing teachers with an opportunity for direct observation. Despite
the lack of large educational trials, this process has proven to
be a positive one for patients, educators, caregivers and learners
at our institutions. During the course of this workshop, facilitators
will share lessons learned, we will discuss how barriers have been
overcome and will enable participants to develop plans for implementing
patient- and family-centered rounds at their home institutions.
Specific Objectives: Upon completion of this
workshop, participants will be able to:
1. Develop a rationale for implementing patient- and
family-centered bedside rounds.
2. Anticipate the barriers to implementing patient-and family-centered
bedside rounds at their home institution.
3. Develop a strategy to initiate patient- and family-centered bedside
rounds at their home institution that ensures excellent and efficient
teaching of patients, learners and families.
4. Develop a plan for evaluating learner performance resulting from
patient- and family-centered bedside rounds at their home institution.
5. Develop a plan to evaluate and improve teacher performance during
patient and family-centered bedside rounds.
Intended Audience: Clinical Faculty - Service
Line Directors, Chief Residents, Residency Program Directors, and
Clerkship Directors
|
212 B
|
|
1:00 - 3:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Finding the "Write" Words: Documenting Student Professionalism
Organizer:
Cheryl Hug-English, M.D., M.P.H.
Associate Dean for Admissions and Student Affairs
University of Nevada School of Medicine
Faculty:
Peggy Dupey, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
University of Nevada School of Medicine
Marin Gillis, L.Ph., Ph.D.
Director, Medical Humanities and Ethics
University of Nevada School of Medicine
Melissa Piasecki, M.D.
Assistant Dean Faculty Affairs and Development
University of Nevada School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Our national dialogue
on professionalism in medical education creates increased needs
for evaluation and documentation. Student or resident lapses in
professionalism can be subtle but may represent significant problems
in attitudes or behaviors. Medical school faculty sometimes struggle
with addressing problems with student's professionalism. As a result,
important data that could be used for feedback, remediation and
due process is lost. This workshop is a faculty development activity
that engages faculty in writing exercises and discussion based on
video examples of student behaviors. The purpose of this workshop
is to give participants (medical educators and administrators) tools
such as a template and sample materials they can adapt for faculty
development on this topic at their institutions. The methods will
include PowerPoint presentation (minor portion), writing exercises
based on evocative video vignettes and group discussion. The writing
exercise introduces a systematic format for medical educators to
document specific behaviors, identify the deviations from a standard
of professionalism and to describe interventions or suggested interventions.
The discussion will provide opportunity to compare perspectives
of the behaviors observed in the vignettes, explore professionalism
standards and identify ways to adapt this exercise to diverse medical
education environments.
Specific Objectives: By the end of this mini-workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Identify obstacles for timely and accurate documentation
of lapses in trainee professionalism
2. Describe a model for faculty development in evaluation of student
professionalism
3. Introduce a vocabulary for describing professionalism problems
4. Explore strategies that will engage their faculty in evaluating
student professionalism
Intended Audience: Intended Audience: Medical
educators and administrators that work with faculty evaluations
of student behavior.
|
213 B
|
|
1:00 - 3:30p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Sessions
Evaluation of Educator Performance: Using a New Tool to Analyze
the Quality and Impact of Teaching and Scholarship in Educator Portfolios
Organizer:
Maryellen E. Gusic, M.D.
Associate Dean for Clinical Education
Co-Director, Junior Faculty Development Program
Penn State College of Medicine
Faculty:
Latha Chandran, M.D., M.P.H.
Vice Chair, Pediatrics
Associate Dean, Academic and Faculty Affairs
State University of New York Stony Brook School of Medicine
Constance D. Baldwin, Ph.D.
Associate Director, General Pediatrics Fellowship
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
Purpose and Rationale: Educator portfolios (EPs)
are increasingly used in promotion packages for faculty educators,
but no nationally accepted standards exist for constructing EPs
and objectively analyzing them. This workshop will discuss the evaluation
of educator portfolios (EPs) using a novel, practical analysis tool
that evaluates measurable outcomes. The tool has been created in
conjunction with a standardized template for EPs used in the Academic
Pediatric Association's Educational Scholars Program. This EP template
has been peer reviewed and published on MedEdPortal. Participants
will apply the analysis tool to sample EPs and assess its validity
in measuring the quality and impact of the educational activities
documented. Participants will also consider the potential use of
the EP template and the analysis tool for career planning, mentoring,
and promotion efforts at their institutions.
Specific Objectives: At the end of this mini-workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Analyze the quality and impact of faculty members'
educational activities as documented in Educator Portfolios (EPs).
2. Apply a systematic analysis method to the evaluation of promotional
EPs for educators.
3. Differentiate a scholarly approach to education from educational
scholarship in evaluation of EPs.
Intended Audience: Junior and senior faculty
educators, mentors and institutional leaders in educational affairs,
faculty affairs and professional development
|
206 A
|
|
1:00 - 3:30p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Racism, Bias, and Disparities: Designing an Educational Intervention
Organizer:
Stuart Slavin, M.D., M.Ed.
Associate Dean for Curriculum
Saint Louis University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Cheryl Jones, M.B.A.
President
Jones and Associates, Inc.
Leon Sharpe, M.A.
Principal and Founder
The Praxis Group
Purpose and Rationale: Evidence of the existence
of physician bias and its role in contributing to health disparities
continues to mount.. The Institute of Medicine report "Unequal Treatment,"
published in 2003, provided a summary of the literature on health
care provider bias and recommended that curricula be introduced
across the medical education continuum to address the impact of
social cognitive factors, biases, and preferences on clinical decision-making.
Since that time, a number of studies have provided further evidence
of the impact of bias on clinical decisions, yet educational initiatives
addressing this important problem have not been apparent.
The purpose of this workshop is to provide participants
with the opportunity to consider the problem of bias at the provider-patient
level and identify possible educational approaches to effectively
address this important topic.
Specific Objectives: By the end of this workshop,
participants should be able to:
1. Define implicit bias and describe how it is formed
and the role that it has in the health care setting.
2. Identify educational methods to teach about bias/racism and list
potential advantages and disadvantages.
3. Identify barriers and challenges to implementing an educational
intervention addressing bias/ racism.
4. Identify strategies to overcome barriers to curricular implementation.
Intended Audience: Medical educators who are
interested in developing/implementing educational initiatives addressing
bias and racism at the undergraduate, graduate, or continuing medical
education level.
|
211
|
|
1:00 - 3:30p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Promoting the Development of Clinical Reasoning Through the Hypothesis-Driven
Physical Examination
Organizer:
Rachel Yudkowsky, M.D., M.H.P.E.
Director, Allan L. and Mary L. Graham Clinical Performance Center
Department of Medical Education
University at Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
Faculty:
Georges Bordage, M.D., Ph.D.
Department of Medical Education
University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
Janet M. Riddle, M.D.
Department of Medical Education
University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: A common approach to teaching
and assessing the physical exam in many medical schools in the United
States and elsewhere in the world is to have the students first
learn 150 or so maneuvers, from head to toes, and then have the
students demonstrate mastery of the maneuvers during a 60 to 90-minute
exam where a standardized patient or faculty observer records mastery
on a checklist. While there are many advantages to this type of
examination, such as direct verification of each physical exam skill
and immediate feedback to the students, there are also some important
shortcomings, mainly the de-contextualized setting in which the
physical is learned and performed. The students can learn the individual
maneuvers but may not be able to put the pieces together into a
useful structural pattern that they can use to analyze and sort
out a differential diagnosis at the bedside.
We developed a five-step physical exam assessment procedure
designed to promote the student's ability to use a differential
diagnosis to anticipate discriminating physical findings, execute
the maneuvers, appreciate the patients' findings, and interpret
the findings by offering a most likely working diagnosis. The approach
is intended for medical students during an introductory course in
physical diagnosis. We selected 160 physical exam maneuvers that
were grouped according to 19 chief complaints, each with 3 to 4
diagnoses, for a total of 60 distinct diagnoses. The main purpose
is to promote contextualized, integrated, and meaningful learning,
and help provide a more selective approach to physical diagnosis,
focusing on key, discriminating findings as well as an array of
structural patterns that can facilitate transfer when students go
from pre-clinical to clinical settings and from patient to patient.
We will describe the development and validation of the
hypothesis-driven physical examination assessment procedure. Participants
will have the opportunity to discuss the use and implementation
of the procedure for both teaching and assessment purposes.
Specific Objectives: By the end of the workshop,
each participant will be able to:
1. Explain the rationale underlying the hypothesis-driven
physical examination assessment procedure
2. Describe the steps in the hypothesis-driven physical examination
assessment procedure
3. Design opportunities for incorporating the hypothesis-driven
physical examination procedure into existing assessments.
Intended Audience: Medical educators and clinicians
involved in teaching or assessing the physical examination skills
of medical students and residents.
|
212 A
|
|
1:00 - 3:30p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Navigating Successful Mentoring Relationships
Organizer:
Miriam E. Bar-on, M.D.
Associate Dean, Graduate Medical Education
University of Nevada School of Medicine
Faculty:
Maryellen E. Gusic, M.D.
Associate Dean for Clinical Education
Co-Director, Junior Faculty Development Program
Penn State University College of Medicine
Jennifer Kimmel, M.D.
Associate Dean for Medical Education
University of Nevada School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Mentoring and being mentored
are critical in the academic environment. The literature demonstrates
very clearly that successful faculty at all levels has or has had
mentors. Many institutions are now requiring the specific identification
of a mentor as part of the promotion process. The relationship of
a mentor and a mentee involves two individuals, each with expectations
and aspirations. It is critical that the roles be clearly defined.
This workshop will focus on the key components of the mentoring
relationship - identifying and selecting the "right" mentor; defining
the tasks involved in the relationship; strategies of negotiating
a successful relationship; and problem solving potential issues
that may occur.
Specific Objectives: By the end of the workshop,
each participant will be able to:
1. Define mentoring and differentiate from role modeling/teaching/advising
2. Define the tasks and expectations of a mentoring relationship
3. Navigate the relationship by identify the right mentor for you,
developing a "mentoring contract," and solving problems
in the relationship.
Intended Audience: Junior, senior or mid-career
faculty and leaders in faculty affairs/professional development
or other faculty involved in/interested in mentoring.
|
213 A
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
MERC - Searching and Evaluating the Medical Education Literature
Faculty:
Sonia J. S. Crandall, Ph.D.
Professor
Wake Forest University
Lauren A. Maggio, M.S., M.A.
Medical Education Librarian
Lane Medical Library and Knowledge Management Center
Stanford University Medical Center
This workshop is intended for individuals, medical
educators and clinician educators who want to learn how to effectively
search the published medical education literature and to evaluate
the value of those searches. At the end of the workshop participants
will be able to:
- Formulate an effective approach to searching the medical education
literature;
- Conduct a search using relevant MeSH headings;
- Communicate effectively with a research librarian;
- Evaluate the search results using specific review criteria.
|
210 A
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Feedback and Debriefing During and After OSCEs and Other Multiple
Station Exercises
Organizer:
Elizabeth K Kachur, Ph.D.
Medical Educator
Medical Education Development
Faculty:
Lisa Altshuler, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Behavior and Developmental Pediatrics
Child Psychologist
Maimonides Medical Center
Adina Kalet, M.D., M.P.H.
Director of Education, Primary Care Division
New York University School of Medicine
Erik Langenau, D.O.
Pediatrician
Maimonides Medical Center
Sharon Parish, M.D.
Director of Psychosocial Training
Montefiore Medical Center Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Charles Schwartz, M.D.
Director of Primary and Palliative Care
Montefiore Medical Center Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Sondra Zabar, M.D.
Co-Director, Primary Care Residency Training Program
New York University School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: The instructional value
of Objective Structured Clinical Exams (OSCEs) and similar types
of multiple station exams has widely been recognized. Some programs
are designed so that individual participants receive instant performance
feedback, before moving on to the next station. Other programs incorporate
a debriefing session for all trainees that occur as soon as the
OSCE is completed. Sometimes both types of feedback are combined.
This Mini-workshop will explore theoretical and practical issues
as well as provide participants with an opportunity to practice
the relevant skills in a simulated setting.
The power of feedback and the challenges of providing
it effectively have received much attention in the last decade.
Equally there has been more focus on how clinicians can learn from
reflection. OSCEs can provide unique opportunities but also unique
challenges for feedback and debriefing. Typically there are time
limitations and the multitude of cases (and thus feedback) can easily
result in information overload, thus limiting learning. At times
there are multiple feedback providers present (e.g., standardized
patients and faculty observers) which can create its own dynamics.
During a post-OSCE debriefing session learners need to reflect in
a group setting, and one must protect the privacy of individuals
while keeping the discussion at a deep enough level to be meaningful.
In both types of interactions one also has to be mindful of connecting
OSCE cases and performance to past experiences, and helping trainees
generalize what was learned to future medical situations. The increased
use of OSCEs as formative assessment warrants a closer look at the
feedback and debriefing process. Faculty and others involved in
developing, implementing and evaluating such programs need to enhance
their knowledge of and skills in this area to maximize the impact
of their programs.
Specific Objectives: By the end of the workshop
participants will be able to:
1. describe some theoretical feedback and debriefing
models
2. discuss selected findings from feedback and debriefing research
3. identify key characteristics of effective feedback and debriefing
4. plan feedback and debriefing sessions to maximize their effectiveness
during and after OSCEs
5. feel more confident in their own ability to provide feedback
and to debrief
Intended Audience: Administrators, Educators
and Faculty involved in OSCEs and other formative performance assessments.
|
210 B
|
|
3:00 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Teaching Health Policy and Economics: Team-Based Learning Using
Managerial Simulations
Organizer:
Thomas Inui, Sc.M., M.D.
President and CEO, Regenstrief Institute, Inc.
Principal Investigator
The Relationship-Centered Care Initiative
Associate Dean for Health Care Research
Indiana University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Gene Beyt, M.D., M.S.
Director of Leadership Development Academy
Louisiana State University Health Care Services Division
Adjunct Associate Professor
Tulane University School of Public Health
Deb Litzelman, M.D., M.A.
Associate Dean for Medical Education and Curriculum Affairs
Indiana University School of Medicine
Gwendolyn C. Morrison, Ph.D.
Research Scientist, Regenstrief Institute, Inc.
Associate Professor
IUPUI, Department of Economics
Purpose and Rationale: Health policy and economics
is one component of a larger curriculum development effort - the
Indiana University Behavioral and Social Sciences Integrated Curriculum
(BASSIC) - which addresses the following: mind-body interactions
in health and disease; patient behavior; physician role and behavior;
physician-patient interactions; social and cultural issues; and
health policy and economics - all domains of curricular deficiency
in the view of the IOM and the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social
Science Research (OBSSR) This workshop focuses on the introductory
health policy and economics (HP&E) modules at IUSM, which cover
the four key topics that the Institute of Medicine report identified
for inclusion in medical school curricula:
1. The health care system
2. The problem of the uninsured
3. Cost and cost-effectiveness
4. Geographic variation in health care utilization.
Research has not yet identified the best pedagogic method
for teaching social sciences to medical students, however, experience
has suggested that having a guest speaker lecture about health policy
and economics does not strongly engage the interest of students.
This workshop describes an innovative HP&E curriculum that combines
web-based mini-lectures with team-based learning teaching/learning
exercises. Team-based learning (TBL) includes group-based application
exercises conducted in the classroom. Within this educational structure,
managerial simulations are utilized as the application exercises
supporting the student's experiential learning in the content areas
of the health care system, the uninsured, and variation in utilization.
The overall goal of this workshop is to present and share the design,
methods, and materials to interested institutional representatives
for future HP&E curricula consideration, through active participation
in one of the managerial simulation exercises.
Specific Objectives: This session offers participants
the opportunity to participate and share in a case simulation within
a review of a TBL HP&E pilot curriculum. The workshop will review
the overall curriculum implications, contextualization, delivery
logistics, and student response and evaluation as part of the shared
results of the BASSIC project.
At the conclusion of this workshop participants will
be able to:
1. Explain a potential pedagogic method for teaching social sciences
to medical students
2. Describe relationships between health systems managerial flight
simulators and health policy and economics curriculum in medical
schools
3. Design a pilot health policy and economics session utilizing
shared managerial simulation case materials.
Intended Audience:This workshop will specifically
benefit the medical education community interested in improving
the behavioral and social sciences curriculum. In addition, this
session's evaluations, associated teaching materials and findings,
will be shared with other medical schools through content inclusion
in IU's web-based electronic curriculum repository, ANGEL, in hopes
of contributing to the improvement of behavioral and social sciences
teaching generally.
|
212 B
|
|
3:00 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Addressing the AAMC 2007 Recommendations on the Needs of Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Students and Patients
Organizer:
Edward "Ted" Peskin, M.D.
Clerkship Director, OB/GYN
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Faculty:
Emily Ferrara, M.A.
Assistant Professor of Family Medicine
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Jessica Wang, B.A.
Fourth Year Medical Student
2009 Candidate for Doctor of Medicine Degree
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Purpose and Rationale: The GLBT (gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transgender) populations have long faced unique healthcare
concerns and barriers to care, largely associated with societal
stigma. Healthy People 2010 identified the GLBT population as underserved.
Many GLBT healthcare concerns stem from GLBT patients having had
poor interactions with the healthcare system. This is often due
to healthcare professional intolerance of GLBT patients, healthcare
professionals being poorly educated with regard to GLBT healthcare
issues because of lack of representation within the medical curriculum,
and healthcare professionals not being able to establish a clinical
environment in which GLBT patients feel comfortable coming out.
In March of 2007, the AAMC released 'Institutional
Programs and Educational Activities to Address the Needs of GLBT
Students and Patients.' How can healthcare professionals, medical
educators, healthcare advocates and medical students advocate for
and address the AAMC guidelines within their own institutions so
that the next generation of healthcare professionals will be better
able to care for their GLBT patients? This workshop will give participants
a basic introduction to GLBT healthcare issues and the AAMC guidelines
and allow participants to develop a plan for how they can begin
integrating GLBT healthcare topics into their home institution's
curriculum. The majority of the workshop will be spent in small
groups to allow participants to exchange ideas for GLBT healthcare
curriculum integration, identify barriers to curriculum change,
discuss how to overcome such barriers, and develop a plan for their
own institution. QMass, UMass's GLBT and Allies student group, will
be briefly presented as a model of GLBT healthcare curriculum advocacy.
QMass received the 2007 AMSA/GLMA LGBT Health Achievement Award,
in recognition of an array of curriculum and community projects.
UMass's Department of Ob/Gyn will also present an example of how
they have developed a lesbian and transgender 3rd year curriculum
over the last 10 years and how they have continued adapting how
they educate and assess students.
Specific Objectives: These session will enable
participants to:
1. Provide an introduction to the healthcare issues
faced by the GLBT population
2. Review the AAMC guidelines with regard to the needs of GLBT medical
students and patients
3. Give a brief presentation of how QMass has integrated GLBT topics
throughout the first three years of medical education as an example
of how topics can be integrated and provide examples of strategies
that QMass found useful in advocating for change
4. Discuss the various methods the UMass Ob/Gyn Department has used
to educate students on lesbian and bisexual women and transgender
patients and the methods they have used to evaluate students on
their mastery of the topics
5. Allow participants to share how they have integrated topics and
successfully advocated for inclusion of GLBT healthcare topics
6. Allow participants to brainstorm approaches to inclusion of GLBT
topics in their home institution's curriculum
7. Encourage participants to identify barriers to instituting these
changes and how to overcome them
8. Provide participants with resources so that they may further
educate themselves on GLBT topics and connect with their local GLBT
organizations
9. Help participants develop a post-workshop action plan that for
implementation at their home institution. 10. Provide follow-up
in 6 months for participants to help them self-monitor their progress.
Intended Audience: All medical educators, healthcare
professionals, medical students, and healthcare advocates would
benefit from this workshop, which is designed to assist participants
in developing a plan to respond to the AAMC guidelines. The workshop
will provide a forum for active exchange of ideas for advocacy,
and for the formation of connections with other institutions that
may have models for successful curriculum innovation.
|
213 B
|
|
3:00 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Training the Trainers: Educating the Next Generation of Medical
Education Research Trainers
Organizer:
Janet P. Hafler, Ed.D.
Professor
Tufts University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Larry D. Gruppen, Ph.D.
Josiah Macy, Jr. Professor of Medical Education
Director, Office of Medical Education Research
Director, Medical Education Scholars Program
Chair, Department of Medical Education
University of Michigan Medical School
Sarang Kim, M.D.
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Brian Mavis, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Medical Education Research and Development
Michigan State University College of Human Medicine
Linda C. Perkowski, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, Curriculum and Evaluation
University of Minnesota Medical School
Ernie Yoder, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.P.
Vice President, Academic Affairs
St. John Health System
Purpose and Rationale: The work of faculty who
are participating in medical education research is essential to
the academic mission of medical schools. Over the past two decades,
academic institutions have begun to recognize and reward specially
trained faculty for their educational research. As we shall explore,
there is great variation and broad opinion about how to train the
trainers to teach medical education research. Knowing and effectively
using a wide variety of teaching strategies is important to promote
learning. In this workshop, we will use three teaching strategies
that can be applied to teach the AAMC Medical Education Research
Certificate (MERC) program workshops: the lecture, brainstorming
and using questions effectively to promote discussion.
The Medical Education Research Certificate (MERC) program
is intended to provide the knowledge necessary to understand the
purposes and processes of medical education research, to become
informed consumers of the medical education research literature,
and to be effective collaborators in medical education research.
By itself, the MERC is not intended to produce independent medical
education researchers. The program is open to all who are interested
in improving their educational research skills and is targeted for
those with a background in medical education but relatively less
experience in conducting educational research. The courses are targeted
for clinicians and other educators who desire to learn research
skills that will enable collaborative participation in medical education
research projects.
The curriculum of the program consists of a set of
workshops, each of which focuses on a key skill or area in educational
research. Workshops are typically three hours in length and are
facilitated by an experienced medical education researcher. Training
facilitators to teach is the focus of this workshop since the workshops
emphasize opportunities for hands-on activities and active participation
so as to maximize the applicability of the workshop principles.
Six workshops of the participant's choosing as well as the individualized
capstone mentored project are required for the certificate. Three
teaching strategies from the MERC workshop entitled "Getting started
in medical education research/formulating research questions and
designing studies" will be used as the curriculum of this workshop
(AAMC, Medical Education Research Certificate Program, http://www.aamc.org/members/gea/merc.htm).
Specific Objectives: Upon completion of the workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Sign up to teach one of the MERC workshops
2. Explore three teaching strategies that can be applied to their
own teaching
3. Explore how to teach both content and pedagogy related to the
MERC workshop
Intended Audience: Our focus is those faculty
members who might be interested in teaching one of the AAMC MERC
workshops but any medical school faculty member who is interested
in developing and implementing Train-the-Trainer programs in medical
education research are encouraged to attend.
|
215
|
|
3:30 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Assessment of Clinical Skill Performance: Designing a Remediation
Strategy that Works
Organizer:
Maryellen E. Gusic, M.D.
Associate Dean for Clinical Education
Co-Director, Junior Faculty Development Program
Penn State College of Medicine.
Faculty:
Eugene "Gene" C. Corbett, Jr., M.D.
Professor of Medicine and Nursing
University of Virginia Health Science Center
Carol A. Terregino, M.D.
Associate Dean for Admissions
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Purpose and Rationale: In 2004, the National
Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) implemented a Clinical Skills
exam component to Step II of the United States Medical Licensing
Exam (USMLE). In 2003, the Association of American Medical Colleges
created a task force of educators and representatives of clerkship
organizations, the Alliance of Clinical Education and the American
Academy on Physician and Patient and charged the group with developing
a national consensus monograph that outlined an approach to clinical
skills teaching. Currently, additional task forces are working to
develop documents outlining essential elements of skills education
during the preclinical years and the key components of developing
educators to facilitate skills learning for students. A vital component
of education is evaluation. Many medical schools use Objective Structured
Clinical Exams (OSCEs) for summative evaluation at the end of the
third year. These exams use benchmarks that must be achieved to
demonstrate competence in skill performance. Some students struggle
and are unable to achieve these standards. Educators must design
remediation strategies using a framework that allows for: diagnosis
and identification of specific learning needs, provision of effective
feedback to the clinical learner, learner self-directed practice
and experience, enhanced opportunity for direct observation by the
teacher, re-examination/formal assessment, and explicit standards
for determining graduation eligibility. This workshop is intended
to apply and explore this framework for remediation and measurement
of clinical skill performance.
Specific Objectives: To delineate the domains
assessed in clinical skills performance evaluations that may require
remediation; to demonstrate and apply a framework for the development
of remediation plans for clinical learners; to identify strategies
to prepare students for successful completion of institutional and
national clinical skills performance evaluations.
Intended Audience: Our focus is those faculty
members who might be interested in teaching one of the AAMC MERC
workshops but any medical school faculty member who is interested
in developing and implementing Train-the-Trainer programs in medical
education research are encouraged to attend.
|
213 A
|
|
3:30 - 6:30p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
MERC: Data Management and Preparing for Statistical Consultation
Faculty:
Ann W. Frye, PhD
Associate Director, Office of Educational Development
University of Texas Medical Branch
This workshop helps participants prepare their data
for analysis and be able to answer questions about their data that
a statistician will likely ask when providing consultation. At the
end of the workshop the participants will be able to:
- Develop a codebook;
- Determine the best approach for data entry;
- Determine how to "clean" data prior to analysis;
- Analyze participants to determine if they are representative
or differ from the non- respondents;
- Distinguish between Type I and Type II error and the researcher's
responsibility in setting those levels;
- Identify the usefulness of effect size calculations.
|
TBD
|
|
4:00 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Inter-Professional Teaching and Learning: Applying What We Know
to Advance the Work
Organizer:
Susan J. Pasquale, Ph.D.
Director of Curriculum and Faculty Development
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Faculty:
Benjamin "Jim" Blatt, M.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Medical Director, CLASS Clinical Skills Center
Office of Interdisciplinary Medical Education
The George Washington University Medical Center
Benjamin L. Cohen, D.O.
Provost and Chief Operating Officer
Western University of Health Sciences
Karen Harrington, M.S.W.
Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Alan L. Humphrey, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean for Medical Student Research
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Susan LeLacheur, Dr.PH., PA-C
Assistant Professor of Health Care Sciences
Physician Assistant Program
The George Washington University Medical Center
Michele P. Pugnaire, M.D.
Senior Associate Dean for Educational Affairs
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Norma Saks, Ed.D.
Assistant Dean for Educational Programs
Director, Cognitive Skills Program
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Purpose and Rationale: The purpose of this workshop
is to respond to this need for a more collaborative approach among
health professionals by furthering the development and implementation
of inter-professional teaching and learning models (IPTL) across
disciplines, schools and levels of training. It will provide a formal
and structured forum in which to continue work initiated at the
2007 Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) annual meeting
and advanced at the 2008 Northeast Group on Educational Affairs
(NEGEA) annual meeting. Models of inter-professional teaching and
learning curricula from six medical schools: University of Massachusetts
Medical School, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, University
of Connecticut School of Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical
School, the George Washington University Medical Center, and Western
University of Health Sciences will be presented.
Participants will be provided with a collection of practical
and beneficial information on inter-professional initiatives assembled
during the past year from 12 medical, nursing and osteopathic schools
at a session facilitated by this same group of presenters at the
2007 AAMC meeting, and from additional medical schools at the 2008
NEGEA annual meeting. During the workshop, participants will apply
this information to IPTL efforts on their own campuses. Participants
will have the opportunity to become part of a growing national group
of interested medical education professionals working in this area.
Participants and presenters will consider the next steps for moving
forward with IPTL as a special interest group.
Specific Objectives: By the end of this workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Describe elements, strategies and models of successful IPTL training
programs
2. Apply the information to advance the design, implementation and
evaluation of their IPTL initiatives and endeavors
3. Examine next steps for moving forward with IPTL programs as a
special interest group.
Intended Audience: Since this workshop will illustrate
the significance of IPTL, it will benefit a broad audience, including
curriculum and faculty development deans, basic science and clinical
faculty, allied health faculty, administrators, medical students,
and medical educators.
|
216 A
|
|
4:00 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GIR Mini-Workshop Session
Audience Response Systems: Leveraging Interactive Technology
to Enhance Student Learning
Organizer:
Larry Hurtubise, M.A.
Center for Knowledge Management
Ohio State University College of Medicine
Faculty:
Laura Dast, B.S.
Curriculum Development Liaison
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Kelly Noll, B.S.
Curriculum Support Director
Washington University School of Medicine
Stephen Weiler, M.D.
Professor of Medicine
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Judith Westman, M.D.
Associate Dean of Educational Technology
The Ohio State University College of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Understanding of the value
of Audience Response Systems (ARS), or "clickers", is intuitive
to many medical educators. Research supports the efficacy of ARSs.
They promote immediate feedback, focus learner attention, help identify
gaps in knowledge, and enhance learner involvement. This CGEA-SIG-sponsored
workshop highlights the experiences of three different universities
to implement ARS technology and to leverage it strategically in
the curriculum and provides for hands on practice developing and
delivering ARS questions.
An ARS was implemented at The Ohio State University
in 2003. The ARS is used to facilitate Team Based Learning (TBL)
techniques in a high-enrollment (160 students) undergraduate medical
education course. Clickers are used to gather team responses, record
them, and tailor the discussion to meet student needs. Support for
faculty learning to use ARS software, MS PowerPoint and other partnering
technologies includes demonstrations, hands on training, and one
on one consultations.
At University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public
Health an ARS is used to help standardize small group discussion
sessions with different instructors. In the first year "Introduction
to Psychopathology" required course, an ARS is used to track student
responses to cases across eight sessions of the course. The ARS
results are used to give feedback to the small group instructors
(12 instructors participate as group leaders) while the course is
running. Collecting data using an ARS provides an anonymous, low-risk
way for every student in the small group (15-16 students per group)
to record responses to case-based questions and tracking the aggregated
answers each session allows the course director to give feedback
to instructors in a timely way about the percentage of students
answering case questions correctly and how that correlates with
results for other sets of students covering the same topics.
Washington University School of Medicine has used an
Audience Response System for over three years. They have used ARS
in a Team Based Learning environment, in Histology Laboratory sessions,
Anatomy Lab, Test Prep groups, as interactive Game Show/Study sessions,
in extracurricular student group events, and in lunchtime presentations
to residents. The interest of using ARS has grown substantially
in the past year and has become an important way for learners to
be involved in active learning. There have been several innovative
and successful uses of ARS during the 07-08 academic year including
at the Department of Medicine's mock debate session.
Specific Objectives: The participants will learn
how to improve teaching and learning by leveraging interactive technologies
and about some of the problems that can be solved by implementing
an ARS.
At the end of the session, participants will be able
to:
1. Participants will be able to identify components
of active didactic learning that may be augmented by interactive
technology
2. Participants will be able to demonstrate the steps for building
interactive slides within their PowerPoint presentations
3. Participants will be able to describe the best practices for
implementing ARS
4. Participants will be able to describe strategies that leverage
interactive technology to enhance medical education
5. What are the initial outcomes and potential areas of research
related to efficacy of audience response system-based learning?
Intended Audience: This workshop will benefit
faculty at all levels of medical education who make presentations
to students. Not only will participants will learn the skills needed
to take advantage of an ARS but they will also hear innovative techniques
and strategic ways to leverage an ARS.
|
210 B
|
|
4:00 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
From Formative Assessment to Certifying Competence: Designing
Multi-Modal Assessment Systems
Organizer:
Anne C. Nofziger, M.D.
Director, Medical Student Comprehensive Assessment
Director, Faculty Medicine Pre-Doctoral Programs
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
Faculty:
Lindsey Henson, M.D., Ph.D.
Vice Dean for Education
University of Minnesota Medical School
David R. Lambert, M.D.
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Medical Education
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
Denham Ward, M.D., Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Medical Education and Faculty Development
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
Purpose and Rationale: Assessment is an essential
part of educating students in medicine and has not kept pace with
the trend toward a focus on outcomes and competency. Through well-constructed
assessments, students can get more than a score reflecting their
knowledge acquisition on the day of the exam. Ideally, assessment
can also allow students to demonstrate their ability to perform
in situations of uncertainty, integrating knowledge and skills from
multiple domains, and applying them in new situations to solve novel,
meaningful problems. Most importantly, assessment must prompt reflection:
having reviewed credible, high-quality data and recognized areas
of relative strength and weakness, the student can prioritize learning
needs and plan ways to improve future performance.
Many factors can facilitate or hinder this type of assessment
and reflection, among them class size, availability of resources,
availability of mentoring, and curriculum structure.
The purpose of this session will be to provide tools
and information that can help participants improve medical student
assessment in their own settings.
Specific Objectives: Workshop participants will:
1. Share common assessment challenges (obtained by pre-conference
on-line survey)
2. Understand the rationale for formative, multi-modal assessment,
and recognize major features of one model
3. Develop new approaches to assessment that can become solutions
to problems faced in their own setting.
Intended Audience: Faculty who are involved in
medical student assessment. Some prior knowledge of standard assessment
modalities is assumed.
|
211
|
|
4:00 - 6:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
How to Communicate with Patients by E-Mail and Telephone: A Comprehensive
Training Program Informed by National Guidelines - Innovative Teaching
Modules, Self and Faculty Assessments, OSCE, and Program Evaluation
Organizer::
Ruth Stashefsky Margalit M.D.
Health Promotion, Social & Behavioral Health Sciences
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Faculty:
Jenenne Geske, Ph.D.
Educational Project Analyst
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Jim Medder, M.D., M.P.H.
Vice Chair of Pre-Doctoral Committee in Family Medicine
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Mary Ann Manners, M.S.P.H.
Director, Standardized Patients Program
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Paul Paulman, M.D.
Assistant Dean for Clinical Skills and Quality
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Purpose and Rationale: While telephone medicine
has long been an important component of patient care, and email
medicine has grown rapidly within recent years as the technology
has spread, little formal instruction in these areas has been developed,
implemented, or evaluated by medical educators. In response to the
USMLE Clinical Skills 2 Examination, some programs have added a
telephone communication stations to their current OSCEs. Yet many
students have been left to learn informally by watching residents,
faculty and preceptors interact with their patients using these
modalities. Formal training is also often lacking during residency
training and faculty and preceptors may have learned by trail and
error, not always adhering to current guidelines or standards. As
a result, students may not be receiving adequate or sufficient instruction
to master these additional skills. With the use of these technologies
sure to increase in the future, it is essential that medical education
offers well thought relevant training.
Specific Objectives: The goal of this session
is to share methods and tools used to teach students effective,
ethical, and patient-centered communication when communicating by
telephone and e-mail.
Following this session participants will be able to:
1. Describe the rationale and importance of instruction
in these areas
2. Identify the risks and benefits in using email and telephone
3. List and explain guidelines or standards of care for telephone
and e-mail communication
4. Apply these guidelines to a clinical email and telephone encounter
5. Discuss formal evaluation methods used to assess the instructional
modalities.
Intended Audience: Undergraduate and graduate
medical educators, program directors, pre-doctoral directors and
committee members, residency directors, SP program directors, communication
skills experts.
|
212 A
|
Wednesday, November 5
|
|
8:00 - 10:30a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Implementing Curriculum in Chronic Illness Into an Already Packed
Curriculum
Organizer:
Jennifer Koestler, M.D.
Associate Dean for Medical Education
New York Medical College
Faculty:
Erica Friedman, M.D.
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Medical Education
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Martha Grayson, M.D.
Vice Dean of Medical Education
Professor of Clinical Medicine
New York Medical College
Helen Loeser, M.D., M.Sc.
Associate Dean for Curricular Affairs
University of California San Francisco School of Medicine
Maria Wamsley, M.D.
Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine
Co-Director of Longitudinal Experience (LCE)
University of California San Francisco School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Medical educators are
well aware of the need to continue to reform curriculum in order
to integrate contemporary topics into existing undergraduate and
graduate medical education. Chronic Illness is a particularly important
topic given that there are over one million people in the United
States alone with at least one chronic condition. To foster curriculum
reform, the AAMC and Josiah Macy Foundation have funded Enhancing
Chronic Illness Education Grants to over twenty institutions.
This workshop will share the experiences of three schools
that have developed educational programs to teach medical students
and residents about the care of chronically ill patients, and integrated
these successfully into existing curriculum. Workshop presenters
will first provide the audience with a rationale for chronic care
education, discuss the experiences from three institutions that
have unique curricular programs to teach about chronic illness,
and help participants define learning objectives to implement similar
programs at their own institutions. Breakout sessions will familiarize
participants with a specific instrument to help identify the barriers,
tools and resources they will need to implement curricular themes
at their own institutions.
Specific Objectives: After attending this workshop,
participants will be able to:
1. Define the rationale for teaching chronic illness care in undergraduate
and graduate medical education
2. Identify barriers to the implementation of novel topics, like
chronic illness, in existing medical school curricula
3. Develop learning objectives and strategies to integrate chronic
illness into medical school curricula
4. Determine the best teaching methodologies for each learning objective
5. Use a curriculum template to integrate learning objectives into
medical school curriculum.
Intended Audience: Medical Educators who are
responsible for implementing curriculum at all levels of medical
education.
|
006 A
|
|
8:00 - 11:00a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
MERC: Measuring Educational Outcomes with Reliability and Validity
Faculty:
Judy A. Shea, PhD
Associate Professor of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
This workshop introduces participants to the principles
of score reliability and validity, using a combination of didactics
and review of medical education research projects. The workshop
is divided into two parts with group exercises designed to reinforce
understanding of the main principles. At the end of the workshop
participants will be able to:
- Identify three types of reliability (inter-rater, test-retest,
and internal consistency);
- Match types of reliability with appropriate statistical measures;
- Describe the relationship between reliability and validity;
- Describe multiple forms of evidence for validity;
- Select an approach to reliability and validity assessment for
a particular study.
|
214 D
|
|
8:00 - 11:00a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Teaching and Assessing Teaching Competencies Using OSTEs
Organizer:
Janet P. Hafler, Ed.D.
Professor
Tufts University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Jenny Skolfield, M.S.
Director of Medical Education
Director of Standardized Patient Program
Maine Medical Center
Laura K. Snydman, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Tufts University School of Medicine
Robert Trowbridge, M.D.
Director of Faculty Development Associate
Director of Medical Student Programs
Maine Medical Center
Bob Bing-You, M.D.
Associate Vice President for Medical Education
Maine Medical Center
The importance of effective teaching is becoming increasingly
recognized, as evidenced by the renewed emphasis on teaching and
learning in undergraduate medical education throughout the country
and by the rise in faculty development programs geared to help faculty
become effective educators. But how do we ensure a high level of
teaching competence? As public scrutiny continues to be increasingly
focused on the medical professions, medical educators will be asked
to be more accountable for their involvement in training programs
and for the teaching skills they possess. Similarly, over the past
decade we have seen increased emphasis on resident competencies
as advocated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
Core competencies are advocated at both the medical student and
residency level, which emphasizes the point that the faculty who
are teaching both residents and medical students should be held
accountable for their teaching. With residents and students learning
medicine across a wide variety of institutions, how we assure a
level of teaching competence is critical. At Tufts University School
of Medicine we are piloting a new and innovative faculty development
program with the expectation that teaching faculty possess a minimum
level of teaching competency across our affiliated institutions.
We are suggesting that principle-based core teaching competencies
are applicable to any discipline, any setting, and any format (i.e.
bedside to the lecture hall). We are moving to principle-based teaching
and have outlined 7 core-teaching competencies that are fundamental
to the structure of our faculty development program.
Specific Objectives: The participants will:
1. Begin to develop skills in using Objective Structured
Teaching Evaluations (OSTEs) to teach and assess teaching competencies
for all faculty
2. Explore an innovative OSTE-based faculty development model
3. Explore suggestions for institutional support and organization
of OSTEs at their home institutions
Intended Audience: Educators and faculty who
are involved in teaching will benefit from participation because
each station will focus on a separate and distinct teaching competency.
|
006 B
|
|
8:00 - 11:00a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Developing the Scientific Writing Skills of Fellows and Faculty:
What Really Works
Organizer:
Constance D. Baldwin, Ph.D.
Associate Director, General Pediatrics Fellowship Program
University of Rochester Medical Center
Faculty:
Shine Change, Ph.D.
Director of Cancer Prevention Educational Programs
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Purpose and Rationale: Good writing skills are
essential for the professional survival of faculty in academic health
care centers. Only competent writers can function optimally as teachers,
mentors, investigators or administrators. Yet health professional
education typically devotes little or no attention to developing
these skills. Scientific writing instruction, if available, usually
focuses on general writing strategies or on the content and format
of articles and proposals, rather than on the mechanics of scientific
writing.1-3 Receiving skilled guidance in scientific writing from
a veteran mentor is often part of the training of a research doctoral
student, but such instruction varies in quality and consistency,
and clinically trained professionals rarely have the opportunity
for such mentoring. While most of these highly trained professionals
write without major grammar and syntax violations, many still face
the challenges of writing for academic advancement with a powerful
sense of inadequacy. The need for faculty development in scientific
writing is widely recognized, though often unfulfilled.
This workshop, taught by two seasoned writing mentors
and instructors, will share several approaches to teaching scientific
writing to fellows and faculty-didactic, mentored, experiential,
and combinations of these-in formal writing programs. The goal of
the workshop is to help educators select methods and organize writing
programs that are effective and efficient in helping present and
future faculty attain the critical skills needed for productivity
in the publications arena.
Specific Objectives:
1. Describe the goals and principles of effective writing
instruction for advanced learners
2. Analyze methods of writing instruction that efficiently teach
large groups and effectively mentor individual learners
3. Evaluate the common challenges of teaching scientific writing,
and select teaching methods for one's own setting that suit the
level and type of learner, learners' specific needs, and available
teaching resources.
Intended Audience: Senior faculty and educators
who propose to help fellows and faculty develop the critical writing
skills needed for academic productivity.
|
006 C
|
|
8:00 - 11:00a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Creating a Teaching Skills Program for Medical Students
Organizer:
Rainier P. Soriano, M.D.
Director of Medical Student Geriatric Education
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Faculty:
Benjamin "Jim" Blatt, M.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Medical Director, CLASS Clinical Skills Center
Office of Interdisciplinary Medical Education
The George Washington University Medical Center
Eileen Cichoskikelly, Ph.D.
Director of Educational Instruction and Research
University of Vermont College of Medicine
Lynn Kosowicz, M.D.
Director of Clinical Medicine Course Medical
Director of Clinical Skills Assessment Program
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Linnie Newman, M.S., A.N.P.
Co-theme Director of Learning to Teach
Albany Medical College
Susan J. Pasquale, Ph.D.
Director of Curriculum and Faculty Development
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Richard Pretorius, M.D., M.P.H.
Associate Professor of Clinical Family Medicine
State University of New York at Buffalo
Norma S. Saks, Ed.D.
Assistant Dean for Educational Programs
Director of Cognitive Skills Program
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Purpose and Rationale: To provide workshop participants
with the necessary tools to initiate a teaching skills program for
medical students in their home institutions, including different
program models, implementation strategies, programmatic evaluation
techniques as well as challenges and opportunities.
Medical students instantly become medical teachers once
they graduate but are rarely given any formal preparation for teaching,
and graduate students are often preparing for academic careers with
significant teaching responsibilities. They serve as peer tutors
and teaching assistants in the pre-clinical years. In the clinical
years they are routinely expected to assume the role of group facilitator
and content expert. Perhaps most importantly, all medical students
will soon become residents charged with the important task of teaching
medical students. Because students are often presented with opportunities
to teach during graduate and medical school and will require these
skills as residents and as educators, students must be provided
the opportunity to learn teaching skills during graduate and medical
school. Creating programs that help medical students develop their
teaching skills is a necessary response to these current and future
roles. A recent literature review of such programs revealed that
there has been some interest in medical schools developing curricula
on teaching students how to teach. Overall, these programs were
well received by both the students learning to teach and those peers
being taught. The rationale that support formal undergraduate medical
training in education principles: (1) medical students are future
residents and faculty members and will have teaching roles; (2)
medical students may become more effective communicators as a result
of such training, as teaching is an essential aspect of physician-patient
interaction; and (3) medical students with a better understanding
of teaching and learning principles may become better learners.
Specific Objectives: By the end of this workshop,
participants will:
1. Describe various institutional plans in initiating
a medical student teaching skills program
2. Appraise curricular content and skills domains for a medical
student teaching skills program
3. Assess the different methods used by various institutions and
by other workshop participants
4. Examine potential evaluation methods to determine the success
of a medical student teaching skills program
5. Describe the opportunities and challenges of incorporating a
medical student teaching skills program into their own home institutions.
6. Discuss the results of a national survey on medical student teaching
skills amongst US medical schools.
Intended Audience: Deans for Medical Education
or Curriculum (or similar roles), Course Directors, Medical School
Educators, and Interested Faculty.
|
006 D
|
|
8:00 - 11:00a
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Accept, Revise, Reject: Reviewing Qualitative Educational Research
Manuscripts
Organizer:
Sonia J. Crandall, Ph.D., M.S.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Steven J. Durning, M.D., F.A.C.P.
Associate Professor of Medicine and Pathology
Director, Introduction to Clinical Reasoning Course
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Ann W. Frye, Ph.D.
Director, Office of Educational Development
Assistant Dean for Educational Development
Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine
University of Texas Medical Branch
Paul A. Hemmer, Col., U.S.A.F., M.D.
Professor of Medicine
Vice Chair for Educational Programs
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Oma Morey, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Senior Medical Educator
Office of Educational Development
Purpose and Rationale: Learning the skills needed
to be a reviewer of educational research manuscripts will enhance
the ability of the session participant to serve as a reviewer for
many venues (journals, conferences) and help the participants to
better prepare their own manuscripts and proposals for submission.
Qualitative research methods are gaining popularity
among medical education researchers. However, many faculty members
who may be asked to review this type of manuscript may be unfamiliar
with and unprepared to review these types of studies. This workshop
will focus on reviewing a qualitative research manuscript with the
intent of providing the participants with a basic understanding
of the differences between quantitative and qualitative studies
and basic expertise to help them review a qualitative study.
Specific Objectives: The objective of this workshop
is to develop participants' skills as reviewers of educational research
manuscripts for journals and conferences such as RIME using the
Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts (published in the September
2001 issue of Academic Medicine). Previous versions of this workshop
have been highly successful at other meetings, and it is expected
that participants will develop their skills in reviewing research
abstracts and manuscripts, with specific focus on qualitative research.
Intended Audience: This workshop is designed
for individuals who are interested in learning the skills of reviewing
manuscripts in medical education research and development. A familiarity
with the processes of learning and teaching in medicine and the
general types of research in this field will be helpful, but is
not required. All faculty members are welcome.
|
007 A
|
|
1:00 - 3:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Communication and Full Disclosure of Adverse Events and Medical
Error
Organizer:
Anne Gunderson, Ed.Dc., G.N.P.
Director, MS Patient Safety Leadership
University of Chicago College of Medicine
Faculty:
David Mayer, M.D.
Associate Dean for Curriculum
Director Cardiovascular Anesthesiology
University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
Ara Tekian, Ph.D., M.H.P.E.
Director, International Affairs Foundation for Advancement of International
Medical Education and Research (FAIMER)
Associate Professor of Medical Education
University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Full disclosure of a medical
error can be described as communication between a health care provider
and a patient, family members, or the patient's proxy that acknowledges
the occurrence of an error, discusses what happened, and describes
the link between the error and outcomes in a manner that is meaningful
to the patient. Disclosure is seen as a professional responsibility
that is desired by patients, endorsed by ethicists and professional
organizations, and increasingly required by regulatory and government
bodies. Besides being an important part of professional medical
behavior and humanistic patient care, disclosure has been shown
to benefit patients, healthcare care providers, and the system in
which care is provided. Reports in the literature and actuarial
data suggest that aggressive full disclosure programs can produce
greater patient trust and satisfaction, and result in fewer numbers
of malpractice lawsuits. It is also seen as a means to safer patient
care through implementation of system and process improvements that
are discovered during the disclosure process. Providers also agree
that errors causing significant harm should be disclosed to patients;
however, research demonstrates that disclosure only occurs in about
1 in 4 errors.
Physician-patient communication encompasses the verbal
and nonverbal interactions that form the basis for the doctor-patient
relationship. Disclosing medical errors is a complex process, requiring
skills such as effective communication, empathy and compassion,
and honesty. Additionally, there are several critical components
required for effective disclosure that ensure the divergent needs
of the patient and health care provider are met.
Specific Objectives: By the end of the mini-workshop,
participants will improve their ability to:
1. List important characteristics of effective communication
of a medical error
2. Understand current educational methodologies used for disclosure
training
3. Select appropriate instruments for assessment
Intended Audience: Health science educators,
health science leaders, clinical faculty.
|
212 A
|
|
1:00 - 3:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
NO! Not Another Boring Lecture!: Using Educational Theory as
a Basis for Alternative Methods of Teaching
Organizer:
Sally A. Santen, M.D.
Assistant Professor, Emergency Medicine
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Waldon Garriss, III, M.D.
Associate Chair of Ambulatory Education
Associate Program Director, Med-Peds Residency Program
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Robin R. Hemphill, M.D., M.P.H.
Associate Professor, Health Care Solutions Group
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Emil Petrusa, Ph.D.
Professor of Medical Education
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: Bransford wrote that effective
learning should be centered in 4 spheres: learner, knowledge, assessment,
and community. Lectures usually focus on transmitting the knowledge
component with less consideration of the other frames, at times,
blunting the effectiveness for adult learners. However, use of the
other spheres may allow for unique and dynamic opportunities for
the teacher to engage the learner. Developing less passive teaching
methods may provide opportunities to that can be more effective
than the standard lecture. This interactive session will incorporate
the Bransford model of how people learn and other cognitive theories
as a basis for the introduction to alternative and innovative methods
of teaching. During the session participants will participate in
experiences or demonstrations using other methods of teaching including
team learning, problem-based learning, jig-saw small groups, role
plays, dyad reflection, assessment centered learning, and "Jeopardy-"based
assessment. At the completion of the session, participants will
be able to select and employ new tools specific to their teaching
environment as well as gain an understanding of some of the foundations
of cognitive adult learning theory.
Specific Objectives: The participants will:
1. Understand and apply educational frameworks to teaching/
learning experiences
2. Share innovative teaching methods
3. Take home some new ideas for learning experiences
Intended Audience: Medical educators from all
disciplines across the continuum will benefit from this workshop.
|
216 A
|
|
1:00 - 3:30p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Peer Evaluation Pickles: The Challenge of Peer Evaluation in
the Context of Team Based Learning
Organizer:
Ruth E. Levine, M.D.
Director, Academy of Master Teachers
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
Faculty:
Paul Haidet, M.D., M.P.H.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Baylor College of Medicine
Kathryn K. McMahon, Ph.D.
Professor of Pharmacology
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso
Nagaswami Vasan, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Medicine
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
Purpose and Rationale: Peer evaluation can be
a valuable tool to enhance learners' performance. Using peer evaluation
to assess interpersonal and professional behaviors is becoming increasingly
important in medicine. While limited data about peer evaluation
in medical education settings exist, proponents highlight its potential
to foster insight, reinforce other evaluations, and predict future
performance. Studies of peer evaluation demonstrate positive correlations
with faculty evaluations and written exam performance, however,
the literature to date paints a complex picture. In some settings,
learners believed that they benefited from peer evaluation; in others
they resisted the process. 8-16 Learners who accepted the method
believed that the quality of their work improved based on the feedback
given. In other studies, learners who disliked peer evaluation believed
that it interfered with their relationships with fellow learners.
As educators who have used a particular format of instruction known
as "team based learning" which relies on peer evaluation to ensure
that students are held accountable to their teammates, we have struggled
with a variety of issues inherent in the practical application of
peer evaluations in medical student education. In this workshop,
we will share a variety of peer evaluation methods that we have
used, and give workshop attendees the opportunity to grapple with
the issues inherent in peer evaluation.
Specific Objectives: By the end of this workshop,
the learner will:
1. List an advantage and disadvantage of each of four
different methods of peer evaluation
2. Define the concept of "gaming" the system in the context of peer
evaluation
3. Appreciate the importance of preparation when introducing the
concept of peer evaluation into a learner's environment " Analyze
how learner culture affects use of peer evaluation
4. Cite the advantages of quantitative vs. qualitative evaluations
5. Appreciate the power of a "midpoint" formative peer evaluation
in influencing quantitative and qualitative feedback.
Intended Audience: Clerkship directors, course
directors, residency training directors, undergraduate and graduate
medical educators.
|
210 B
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
MERC: Formulating Research Questions and Designing Studies
Faculty:
Carol S. Hodgson, PhD
Associate Professor
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
In this workshop, participants will brainstorm research
ideas, write, and refine a measurable research question. They will
discuss when IRB approval is required for their study. The basics
of research design will be discussed and applied to their selected
research question. Participants will be able to:
- Write a FINER (feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant)
educational research question;
- Specify an educational research area of interest;
- Evaluate whether they need IRB approval for their study;
- Select the correct design for their research question.
|
211
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
From Objectives to Evaluation: The Foundation of Curriculum Planning
Organizers and Faculty:
Sharon K. Krackov, Ed.D.
Director, Faculty and Program Development
Albany Medical College
Henry Pohl, M.D.
Vice Dean for Academic Administration
Albany Medical College
Purpose and Rationale: A systematic strategy
for curriculum development begins with well-written outcome objectives.
These objectives then frame the development of content, teaching
and assessment of the learner. Equally important is the use of outcome
objectives as the foundation for creating a course or curriculum
blueprint, and as the basis for comprehensive evaluation of course
or curriculum outcomes.
Participation in this workshop will provide a framework
for faculty educators to use a continuum of systematic curriculum
planning, "from objectives to evaluation".
Specific Objectives: At the end of this workshop,
participants should be able to construct a rationale for a continuum
of planning---from objectives to program evaluation by:
1. Writing competency-based outcome objectives
2. Developing a curriculum blueprint for content and teaching methods
3. Creating the foundation of a comprehensive course or program
evaluation
Intended Audience: The following will find this
workshop useful: Teaching faculty, course directors, clerkship directors,
graduate medical education program directors and continuing professional
education directors who plan educational programs.
|
212 B
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p
|
GEA/GIR Mini-Workshop Session
From Theory to Practice: The Pedagogy of Creating Virtual Patients
Faculty:
Susan Albright
Director, Tufts University Health Sciences Knowledgebase
Tufts University
Rachael Ellaway, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean
Associate Professor, Education Informatics
Northern Ontario School of Medicine
J.B. McGee, M.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Director, Laboratory for Educational Technology
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Nancy Posel, N., M.Ed.
Assistant Director, McGill Molson Medical Informatics
McGill University
Purpose and Rationale: Virtual patients offer
"compelling instructional capabilities" utilizing proven educational
methodologies such as simulation, adaptive hypermedia, case-based
learning and game-informed learning. They can be used to promote
critical thinking and decision-making, encourage complex medical
problem analysis and solving, and facilitate assessment. However,
authoring effective virtual patients can be daunting and requires:
(a) an understanding of the medium globally and the specific functionality
that the technology affords; (b) an awareness of the relevant pedagogies
and instructional design criteria, from the perspective of both
the teacher and the learner, (c) a recognition of the significance
of the role of cognitive science with reference to the development
of educational narratives, and (d) an appreciation of the instructional
utility of multimedia. The availability of increasingly intuitive
virtual patient applications does permit more intuitive authoring
by faculty but do not mitigate the requirements for guidelines to
assist in this process. This workshop will provide educators charged
with virtual patient creation a framework to facilitate case authoring
and to further inform case design.
Specific Objectives: During this workshop the
participants will:
1. Explore the pedagogical, cognitive and technical
requirements currently used for virtual patient authoring
2. Examine several existing virtual patients from the perspective
of these guidelines
3. Apply the guidelines in the development of a virtual patient.
Upon completion of the workshop participants will have:
1. Gained practical experience in the utilization of
a framework that can be applied to virtual patient development
2. Analyzed existing examples of virtual patients from a pedagogical,
cognitive and technical perspective
3. Applied these principles in the development of a virtual patient
Intended Audience: This workshop is intended
for educators who are interested in, or charged with, the authoring
of virtual patients for teaching and assessment.
|
213 A
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Curriculum Management through CurrMIT (Entering and Editing CurrMIT
Data)
Organizer:
Hameed Ahmed, M.S.
Assistant Director, CurrMIT
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
Faculty:
Terri Cameron, M.A.
CurrMIT Consultant
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
Debra S. Lafferty, B.A.
Instructional Resources Coordinator
Mayo Medical College
Jason Cantow, M.S., M.B.A.
Data Research Analyst
Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
Frank Schimpfhauser, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean and Associate Professor
State University Buffalo School of Medicine
Purpose and Rationale: CurrMIT is a web-based
database containing curriculum information from medical schools
throughout the U.S. and Canada. Use of CurrMIT allows each medical
school to better understand and administer its own curriculum, as
well as learn from curricula at other institutions. The information
in CurrMIT can be used for managing the curriculum, communicating
with faculty and students, responding to surveys, and preparing
for accreditation visits. CurrMIT can facilitate many activities
that institutions handle using multiple systems or processes.
CurrMIT is an extremely flexible tool that can accommodate
virtually any medical school curriculum. Whether the curriculum
is a traditional 2+2, incorporates problem-based learning, or features
other curricular structures or innovations, CurrMIT's database is
flexible enough to record and manage its key features. CurrMIT can
also be customized to support initiatives and inquiries unique to
an institution.
While there are online tools to help administrators,
faculty and staff work with CurrMIT, hands-on training with CurrMIT
staff provides a broader range of possibilities and provides a visualization
of the process that makes the process of gathering, entering, and
maintaining data less overwhelming. AAMC has provided training in
Washington DC for the past five years, and has been asked by schools
to offer the training at annual and regional meetings to facilitate
attendance by a broader range of faculty and staff. This workshop
is was developed to meet that request.
Specific Objectives: At the completion of this
session, participants will be able to:
1. Enter and edit records in CurrMIT related to institutional
information, people ("users"), courses, sessions, sections, details
of instruction ("elements")
2. Develop implementation and roll-out strategies for CurrMIT
3. Develop a plan a action for using CurrMIT to support curriculum
committee and curriculum administration efforts to review and manage
the curriculum.
Intended Audience: Deans, Associate Deans, Curriculum
Committee Chairs and members, course directors, faculty, and curriculum
staff, and others who have been assigned institutional responsibility
for CurrMIT or wish to learn how CurrMIT is structured and may be
of use for curriculum management and tracking.
|
213 B
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Assessing Learning in Culturally Sensitive Care
Co-Organizers:
Janet P. Hafler, Ed.D.
Professor
Tufts University School of Medicine
Carmi Z. Margolis, M.D., M.A.
Founding Dean, Medical School for International Health
Chair, Center for Medical Education
Ben Gurion University
Faculty:
Jeffrey Borkan, M.D., Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Family Medicine
Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School
Alicia D. Monroe, M.D.
Vice Dean, Educational Affairs
University of South Florida College of Medicine
Shmuel Reis, M.D., M.H.P.E.
Visiting Professor
Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School
Helen M. Shields, M.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Hedy Wald, Ph.D.
Psychologist
Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School
Jean Wu, Ed.D.
Program and Education Director
Tufts University School of Arts and Sciences
Purpose and Rationale: Few academic clinicians
receive any formal training in providing culturally sensitive care,
yet they are expected to be educators and caregivers in classroom
settings, in teaching hospitals, and in clinics. The goal of this
workshop is to explore how to effectively assess cultural sensitivity
and to share different assessment strategies used at the four institutions:
Tufts University School of Medicine; Medical School for International
Health at Ben Gurion University in cooperation with Columbia University
Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel; the Warren Alpert Medical School
of Brown University; and Harvard Medical School. While the search
for the most effective teaching strategies in this area is on-going,
some methods have been tried with good success. Participants will
have the opportunity to rotate through three of the four stations
where different strategies are used to assess cultural sensitivity.
Participants will be able to identify and discuss best practices
currently in use at the four institutions. .
Specific Objectives: The participants will:
1. Begin to develop skills to assess cultural sensitivity in medical
students
2. Explore a variety of effective assessment strategies that can
be applied to culturally sensitive care.
Intended Audience: Educators and faculty who
are involved in teaching and assessing or who have expressed an
interest in culturally sensitive care will benefit from participation
because each station will focus on one assessment strategy.
|
215
|
|
3:00 - 5:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Qualitative Analysis in Program Evaluation: Addressing LCME and
RRC Requirements
Organizer:
Janice L. Hanson, Ph.D., Ed.S.
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Faculty:
Richard Frankel, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist, Regenstrief Institute
Professor of Medicine and Geriatrics
Indiana University School of Medicine
William F. Kelly, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P.
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Associate Clerkship Director
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Lynn M. Manfred, M.D., Ed.D.
Associate Dean for Curriculum and Evaluation
Medical University of South Carolina
Beth Lown, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Rechell G. Rodriguez, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency Program
Associate Clerkship Director
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Purpose and Rationale: Qualitative data analysis
provides a way to move beyond general impressions to systematic
identification of themes that can inform clerkship and residency
evaluation and contribute to scholarship. Clerkship and residency
evaluation forms, student and resident evaluation forms, and parent
or patient questionnaires in clinical settings often include open-ended
questions and opportunities for comments that generate descriptions
of clerkship or residency activities, students' or residents' reflections
or descriptions of students' or residents' performance. These descriptions
are suitable for qualitative analysis. Systematically gathering
and analyzing these data can assist with program evaluations that
address LCME and RRC requirements such as evaluation of the learning
environment, evaluation of students' or residents' perspectives
on professionalism, and 360 degree evaluations of residents' performance.
Specific Objectives: Workshop participants will:
1. Identify sources of qualitative data that can help them evaluate
the clerkship or residency learning environment, gain insight into
what students or residents learn, or better understand parents'
or patients' responses to learners in clinical settings
2. Practice qualitative data analysis using data provided by the
presenters
3. Outline applications of qualitative data analysis to clerkship
or residency evaluation and educational scholarship.
Intended Audience: Medical school faculty and
administrators, medical education researchers.
|
212 A
|
|
3:00 - 5:00p
|
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session
Teaching the Teachers How to Teach: Creating or Enhancing a "Residents
as Teachers" Workshop at Your Institution
Organizer:
Michael A. Barone, M.D., M.P.H.
Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Faculty:
Jose L. Gonzalez, M.D., J.D., M.S.Ed.
Vice Chair of Medical Education
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
Angela P. Mihalic, M.D.
Associate Dean for Student Affairs
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Children's Medical
Center of Dallas
Purpose and Rationale: Student surveys such as
the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire show that > 80% of students feel
resident teaching offers educational value to their core clerkships.
Most residents have little background in educational
methods yet they are routinely asked to teach medical students fundamental
skills, technical procedures, and to provide their learners with
timely and useful feedback. Workshops which cultivate residents
as teachers help to distribute teaching resources, increase resident
skills and self-confidence, improve student learning, and create
the next generation of educators. The LCME and ACGME have explicit
standards stating that residents must be trained in methods of teaching
and evaluation.
Busy residents benefit from interactive learning relevant
to their immediate needs. In this workshop, we will focus on three
skills that, when taught to residents, enable them to be more effective
teachers. These skills are:
1. How to give feedback
2. How to teach a procedure
3. How to more effectively conduct bedside rounds.
Innovative techniques will be used to allow residents
to reflect on the various components of these skills.
Specific Objectives: At the completion of this
workshop, participants will:
1. Describe the value, importance, and effectiveness
of developing/enhancing a residents-as-teachers workshop at their
institution
2. Understand principles of adult learning theory as they relate
to a residents as teachers workshop
3. Know strategies for preparing, teaching, and managing an effective
residents-as-teachers workshop at their institution
4. Know interactive approaches to create a residents-as-teachers
workshop that is memorable, fun, and empowering.
Intended Audience: Clinician Educators, Clerkship
Directors, Residency Program Directors, Medical Students, Residents.
|
216 A
|
|
