|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Regions: |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Sections: |
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Membership Directory (AAMC Login required) |
|||||||||||||||
|
2004 Annual Meeting Program
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Overviews
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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, timne will be spent discussing applications to specific work settings of the participants. Each mini-workshop requires pre-registration and a $30.00 registration fee. Register early—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.
Sunday, November 7 |
||
|
8:00 - 10:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizers: Jeffrey Stearns, MD Faculty: Sheila Chauvin, PhD Robby Reynolds, MPA Purpose and Rationale: Educators continuously create and revise their PowerPoint lectures, course syllabi, rating forms to assess resident performance consistent with the ACGME competencies, CD's or web-based curriculum, and faculty development materials. The challenge facing these educators is to make these endurable educational products count as forms of scholarship during annual performance reviews, and for academic promotion.. Lee Shulman, president of the Carnegie Foundation, argues that scholarly products meet three criteria: it must be public, not private; it must be available for peer review and critique according to accepted standards in one's academic community; and it must be available in a form that others can build on to advance knowledge - the penultimate role of scholars. While sharing and exchanging endurable educational products usually occurs on an informal basis between colleagues (e.g., PowerPoint slides for a core curriculum lecture, standardized patient cases, a CD ROM) we need to make these products available broadly so that each educator does not expend energy "reinventing the wheel" but rather advances education by building on our colleagues' work. Recognizing the opportunity to enhance the quality of our educational programs by making peer reviewed endurable educational products available to educators engaged in the continuum of medical education (UGME-CME), the Group on Educational Affairs, and the AAMC has created a web-based repository for peer reviewed educational materials. This workshop will orient participants to the AAMC web-based repository and then focus on the key elements associated with quality educational materials that meet the criteria for scholarship and literature derived key attributes of quality educational materials. Specific Objectives:
Intended Audience: Educators involved in an array of roles including teachers, course directors, residency program directors, curriculum/GMEC/CME committee members as well as members of P&T committees and associated administrators. |
108 Hynes Convention Center |
|
8:00 - 10:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Purpose and Rationale: Medical schools are under pressure to effectively teach communication skills to their students. Communication is one of the six required competencies identified by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education, and in 2004, the National Board of Medical Examiners will require oral examinations to assess competence in communication. Unfortunately, many of today's medical teachers were not exposed to an organized, skill based communication curriculum during their own training and may be unfamiliar with the models, structure, and language used in teaching specific communication skills. This workshop presents the experience at the University of Washington on 1) how communication benchmarks for second year medical students were developed, 2) how clinically oriented medical teachers were trained in teaching communications to students and 3) how a unique video teaching tool was developed and used to train both students and teachers. The presenters will share how, for the first time, they used principles identified in the Essential Elements of Medical Communication: the Kalamazoo Consensus Statement and other sources to develop benchmarks aimed at the specific communication needs of second-year medical students learning to do inpatient history and physical examinations. Tools and techniques used to train medical teachers from a wide variety of medical specialties in how to teach the communication benchmarks to second-year medical students will be presented. Participants will learn how low-cost videotaped vignettes can be used to effectively train students in good communication techniques during the inpatient history and physical examination. The video technique is unique in how it contrasts sometimes subtle differences in common interview behaviors with "better behaviors" related to the benchmarks. Already collected data showing acceptance of the techniques by both students and teachers will be presented. The data showed that the overwhelming majority of students felt the videotaped scenarios helped stimulate group discussion about communication issues and helped them to feel more comfortable with interviewing patients. Essentially all the teachers found the teaching design either somewhat or extremely useful, and the vast majority of the teachers felt the benchmarks and tapes helped in their own understanding of communication concepts. The presenters will discuss how these techniques may be transferred and used at other institutions. Specific Objectives: Participants will learn:
Intended Audience:
|
109 Hynes Convention Center |
|
8:00 - 10:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: David Rosenman, MD Purpose and Rationale: The role of physicians in the highly complex medical environment confers upon them a moral and ethical responsibility to continuously improve the systems that render care to patients. The milieu, in which today's medical school graduates will be practicing, is changing rapidly. A curriculum focused on disease and the management of disease is no longer adequate for the training of physicians who are expected to practice in an environment where medical errors, system shortcomings, and physician/ practice scorecards are the norm. Mayo Medical School is one of seven schools that have formed a national collaborative with the Institute of Healthcare Improvement to introduce quality improvement (QI) to undergraduate medical education in the US. Specific Objectives: Upon completion of the workshop, participants will gain understanding on:
Intended Audience: Educators and leaders in the medical undergraduate and graduate schools as well as allied health science schools who are working on quality improvement curricula and or innovative curricula will benefit from this workshop that will focus on both the introduction a new QI curriculum, and the design of innovative educational methodologies to introduce the same. |
110 Hynes Convention Center |
|
8:00 - 10:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Purpose and Rationale: The purpose of the workshop is to provide participants with the information and materials necessary to implement at their own schools a peer-led stress management program for first-year medical students. Medical education is a stressful experience for medical students, who may experience depression, anxiety, and other negative psychosocial outcomes (Wolf, 1994). A recent literature review identified over 600 publications that discussed the importance of reducing stress during medical education (Shapiro, Shapiro, and Schwartz, 2000). However, only 24 of these publications presented descriptions of intervention programs designed to help medical trainees manage stress. Most of the intervention programs were small, involving fewer than 30 participants, and used mental health professionals or physician faculty to deliver the program to students. The Stress Management Program at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences is a seven-week voluntary program offered annually to first-year medical students. During the last 16 years, 1282 first-year students have completed the program (mean class participation = 93%). Evaluation ratings have been strongly positive. A novel aspect of the program, and one which we believe is key to its success, is that it is delivered by pairs of trained second-year medical students who co-lead small groups of first-year students. Two faculty coordinators provide organizational structure and train the group leaders. Specific Objectives: At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to:
Intended Audience: This workshop will benefit medical educators and student affairs staff who are interested in reducing the stress of their trainees. |
111 Hynes Convention Center |
|
8:00 - 10:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Vineet Arora, MD, MA Purpose and Rationale: The relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and medical housestaff remains a poorly understood topic. The pharmaceutical industry's marketing to physicians in training is debated by program directors, physician organizations, residents, and the industry itself. The literature on this topic documents that:
Specific Objectives:
Intended Audience: Clinical clerkship directors (all specialties); Residency program directors of all specialties |
Marriott Copley Place - Regis |
|
8:00 - 10:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Purpose and Rationale: At the start of the 21st Century, medical education faces a troubling irony: In the midst of major curricular reforms there is a crisis in faculty time for teaching. This crisis has, among other things, weakened the reforms such as PBL, which require an increased number of trained faculty simultaneously involved with a single class of students. A few years ago, we "discovered" a well-defined instructional strategy developed by Dr. Larry Michaelsen and used in business and science courses with the potential to address this dilemma. Known as team learning (TL), this strategy brings together theoretically-based and empirically-grounded strategies for ensuring the effectiveness of small groups working independently in classes with high student-faculty ratios (e.g. up to 200:1) without losing the benefits of faculty-led small groups with lower ratios (e.g., 7:1). Team learning is a teacher-directed method of fostering effective application of course content in autonomous small groups in the lecture hall with one faculty member present. Confident in the potential of TL in medical education, we applied for and received a one-year grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) to pilot and evaluate the method within Baylor College of Medicine. In this demonstration and evaluation project, elements of TL were applied in eleven different settings, along the continuum of medical education and in different content areas.3 Designs included relatively small pilot interventions within a course (i.e., single session of a much longer course),4 full-course implementation,5 and a randomized control trial.6 Results of these studies generally revealed that TL can stimulate effective out-of-class study and advanced preparation, promote high levels of in-class engagement and "teamwork" among students, enhance students' attitudes about learning and working in teams, and facilitate content learning at least as well as is accomplished by more traditional didactic methods. On the strength of these findings, we obtained a three-year FIPSE grant to disseminate TL to other US medical schools and to conduct additional evaluation studies. TL is currently used by ten medical schools in over 40 medical school courses including the basic sciences, core rotations, and residency programs.7 Eighty-five other medical institutions have sent at least one representative to one or more TL workshops sponsored by our TL grant. We also frequently field telephone calls from educators seeking information on the method.
Specific Objectives: The objectives of this workshop are:
Intended Audience: Medical school faculty, faculty and curriculum development specialists who are interested in increasing active learning in medical educational settings. |
Marriott Copley Place - Harvard |
|
8:00 - 10:30a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Purpose and Rationale: Inpatient experiences remain a major part of medical student and resident education. Medical learners lament that the inpatient team spends little time at the bedside versus too much time in the conference room. Also, learners feel that they are not being observed performing critical bedside skills such as history taking, physical exam, and assessment. Faculty, on the other hand, are increasingly stressed from their multi-tasking, which includes patient care, teaching, note writing, timely discharges, and appropriate billing. Faculty express discomfort with bedside teaching, and may not always set examples as good role models at the bedside regarding what, when or how to teach. Therefore, it is not surprising that bedside teaching in many centers is either moribund or extinct. We suggest that a return to bedside teaching would enhance learning, promote a closer teacher-learner relationship to build trust and assure competency, and improve the overall educational experience of the inpatient unit. In this workshop we will focus on issues such as when to teach at the bedside, what should be taught, how to engage the learners, the art of questioning, how to make teaching learner-centered, time management, and involving patients. Participants will have several opportunities for practice, and be challenged to apply what they have learned to their own educational settings. Specific Objectives: At the conclusion of this workshop, participants will be able to:
Intended Audience: Medical educators including residency program directors, clerkship directors, hospitalists, and those with inpatient teaching responsibilities. |
101 Hynes Convention Center |
|
8:00 - 10:30a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Nancy Oriol, MD B. Price Kerfoot, MD, EdM Purpose and Rationale: The integration of clinical and basic science experiences begins in year one of medical school but when we surveyed our medical students they expressed that the dramatic shift from the classroom to the full immersion clerkship experiences requires preparation and attention. The goal of this workshop is to explore teaching strategies that are effective in helping medical students transition to their clinical rotations. While the search for effective teaching strategies and curricula in this area is on-going some methods have proven to be effective. Participants will have the opportunity to rotate through a selection of four stations where different strategies are used at HMS to prepare and teach students about life and expectations of their role as medical students on the wards. They will discuss and practice selected effective teaching methods currently in use at Harvard Medical School. Specific Objectives: The participants will:
Intended Audience: Educators and faculty involved in teaching or in developing curricula to address the transition to the wards will benefit from this workshop. |
104 Hynes Convention Center |
|
8:00 - 10:30a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Robert M. Anderson, EdD Chris M. O'Neal, PhD Geoffrey D. Barnes (M1 Medical Student) Purpose and Rationale: This workshop will help participants learn about educational and psychological theories related to active learning, and how to apply the theories to specific activities in learning environments. With the knowledge and skills gained from this workshop, participants will be able to develop similar workshops in which they can expose medical students to the skills involved in active learning, and then set expectations for students to use these skills in the classroom. Specific Objectives: Participants will learn:
Intended Audience: This workshop is intended for medical students and medical educators. |
107 Hynes Convention Center |
Tuesday, November 9 |
||
|
1:00 - 3:30p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session (Cancelled) Organizer: Faculty: Purpose and Rationale: There are more patients and less money. Patients are better informed and are vocal about physicians spending the time with them that they need to understand what is happening. Reimbursement is decreasing, making it critical to see more patients in less time. Grant dollars are more competitive, tightening budgets for personnel who could assist with work. Research presents us with wonderful new tools and approaches that need to be understood to incorporate into practice. With fewer resources, faculty are asked to take on new roles with little or no added time and usually for no additional salary. It is not surprising then that levels of burnout and dissatisfaction are increasing. Surveys of health care workers reveal that time pressure, work overload and the feeling of being poorly managed are key components to stress and dissatisfaction. Stress increases as one moves from junior to more senior positions. This workshop will present business-derived strategies for the individual faculty member as s/he addresses personal and system issues. Specific Objectives:
Intended Audience: Individuals from many roles in academic medicine, especially those in their mid- to late career. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon B |
|
1:00 - 3:30p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Tammy Camp, MD Paul Haidet, MD, MPH Nancy Kubiak, MD Purpose and Rationale: At the graduate medical education level we are increasingly challenged to provide the complex preparation required to meet the needs of our specialty; the skills, knowledge and attitudes required of physicians in general (now clearly identified in the ACGME core competencies); and the evaluation and documentation of proficiency in these areas. Team Based Learning is an instructional method that supports a more learner-centered approach to acquiring skills, knowledge and attitudes but also offers a unique opportunity for assessment of several of the core competencies, including that of medical knowledge, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, and professionalism. The potential to incorporate training and evaluation of all of the core competencies exists in this method. In graduate medical education, a required "curriculum" for the residency specialty is almost always delivered through a series of formal didactic lectures. Only rarely are small group activities employed, often due to time and financial restraints. Team Based Learning incorporates the effectiveness of small-group learning into large-group sessions resulting in the promotion of active participation of learners while covering desired content. It also combines out-of-class study with in-class problem solving and application of material while promoting team-working skills. The Team Based Learning approach emphasizes three keys to effective active learning 1) individual and group accountability, 2) need and opportunity for group interaction, 3) motivation to engage in give-and-take discussion. The Team Based Learning method incorporates several methods of participant assessment including readiness assurance tests (short multiple-choice fact-based quizzes), case-based application problems, and peer evaluations. A facilitator also has the opportunity to directly observe team-working skills, communications skills, professionalism and knowledge. There are a growing number of educators around the country who are gaining expertise in Team Based Learning, and there is evidence that it is an effective method for teaching in the medical field. This workshop will introduce participants to key instructional principles integral to the Team Based Learning method. Facilitators will share their experiences with Team Based Learning in a variety of graduate medical training settings. There will be opportunity for reflection and brainstorming about how participants might apply team based learning in their own activities. Specific Objectives: After the workshop, participants will:
Intended Audience: Individuals involved in graduate medical education - educators, program directors, administrators, graduate medical education faculty. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon C |
|
1:00 - 3:30p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Barbara Brandt, PhD Robin Richman, MD Ralph Halpern, MSW Stewart Babbott, MD Purpose and Rationale: Engaging faculty to teach and assess residents in the competencies of Systems-based Practice (SBP) and Practice-based Learning and Improvement (PBLI) is a key intermediate step towards effective integration of these content areas in training. In partnership with the Health Resources and Services Administration, Area Health Education Centers and multiple academic institutions, THCI has delivered several faculty development workshops across the country. Agenda items at these workshops include interactive sessions and cases on defining the competencies, addressing SBP and PBLI within clinical training, designing and implementing new instructional activities, and utilizing appropriate assessment instruments. This workshop will present models for faculty engagement and review evaluative feedback from institutional sponsors and attendees. Participants will learn about conducting such programs, leading case discussions, and implementing small group activities. Participants will share their own successes and obstacles to having faculty integrate principles and practices of SBP and PBLI throughout residency training. Specific Objectives: By the end of the workshop, participants will:
Intended Audience: GME Program Directors, Assistant Program Directors, and faculty; GME Institutional Directors. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon I |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizers: Judy A. Shea, PhD Clair Kuykendall, MLIS Purpose and Rationale: The production of scholarly work in some form is a requirement for all faculty. However, not all faculty members receive sufficient training to conduct research, particularly in the area of medical education. Clinician educators interested in conducting medical education research and evaluation often need additional research training to begin their scholarly activities. This training includes obtaining knowledge of the existing medical education literature, how to write a measurable research question, what is the appropriate research design to answer the research question, and what factors pose a threat to the study. In addition, tips on how to collaborate with medical educators can be useful for clinicians who have little time and few resources to pursue new research interests. In this workshop, we will provide practical exercises to begin the process of conducting medical education research. Individually and in small groups, participants will brainstorm about areas of interest and will practice writing research questions that will help answer the everyday and far-reaching questions that intrigue us. Participants will receive information on "best practices" for efficiently searching the medical education literature. Lastly, participants will leave the session with an understanding of the best research design for their question that take into account practical limitations within their institutional setting and how to make the best out of what they have within and outside their institution. Specific Objectives: Workshop participants will be able to:
Intended Audience: This workshop is intended for individuals, medical educators and clinician educators, who want to learn how to design a medical education research study starting with the development of a measurable research question. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon J |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: John Boothby, MSW Ann W. Frye, PhD Karen E.M. Szauter, MD James A.Clardy, MD 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 participant to better prepare their own manuscripts and proposals for submission. 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. 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 are welcome. |
Marriott Copley Place - Cape Cod/Hyannis |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Paul M. Wallach, MD Purpose and Rationale: Writing good tests is a challenging task. Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) often contain technical flaws providing advantages to "test-wise" examinees, and they sometimes focus on content that is relatively unimportant from clinical and life-long learning perspectives. Reflecting world-wide shifts toward integrative curricula, this workshop focuses on writing MCQ exams for basic science courses that assess application of knowledge to clinical situations, rather than recall of isolated basic science facts. Specific Objectives: At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will be able to:
Intended Audience: Medical school faculty involved in writing exams, including course directors, members of medical education departments, curriculum deans and others interested in achievement testing. |
Marriott Copley Place - Vineyard |
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Debra Litzelman, MD Richard Frankel, PhD Anthony Suchman, MD, MA, FACP Purpose and Rationale: The informal curriculum of a medical school - the social environment - markedly impacts the formation of students' professional identities. All too often, the behaviors that the students see at the bedside, in conferences and in the classroom are not congruent with the values and skills of the formal curriculum, undermining the effectiveness of the latter. While many have called for change, few have offered systematic methods to influence the informal curriculum and effectively change the culture. Specific Objectives: As a result of attending this workshop, learners will be able to: 1. Describe relationship-centered care (RCC) and recognize how
its principles can be expressed in educational and administrative
activities. Intended Audience: Medical Education Deans, Chairs, Faculty,
and Administrators. |
Marriott Copley Place - Vermont |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Joseph Kertesz, MA Purpose and Rationale: Since 2002, ACGME has mandated graduate medical education (GME) programs monitor resident well being and fatigue as part of its common program requirements. It revised its language in February 2004 to reflect
Formal efforts to deal with physician impairment have existed since the late 1950s. There is increasing societal awareness that fatigue and/or various impairments afflict most, if not all, physicians. Sentinel articles such as the Institute of Medicine's "To Err is Human" have drawn a strong correlation between physician fatigue and error. Data suggest at least of all Americans, including physicians, will develop a mental health disorder at some point in their lives. Burnout afflicts 25-76% of physicians and those physicians are more likely to report sub-optimal patient care practices. North Carolina is currently the 8th leading state in the number of residents it trains. Twenty five hundred of approximately 100,000 residents nationwide are in one of our 13 institutions. These sites are representative of those found throughout the United States. They include large academic health centers, military installations, community hospitals and AHEC settings; one program grew out of a physician practice. Anecdotally, the program directors from these programs expressed grave concerns regarding their ability to fulfill the ACGME expectations. In early 2003, Duke and UNC joined to address this issue. They assembled a team which included the North Carolina Physicians Health Program, the North Carolina AHEC and were endorsed by the North Carolina Medical Board and the Southern Medical Association. They committed to develop what was hoped to become a model instructional program to help program directors, faculty and residents, prevent, identify and manage fatigue and impairment. A needs assessment of these NC programs in August 2003 revealed that half of all program directors stated that their residents received no formal education on fatigue and impairment. Two thirds expressed a lack of confidence in their program's ability to either diagnose or successfully manage a resident with impairment and./or fatigue. A third felt the new duty hours would have no effect on resident fatigue. Nearly half predicted an increase in resident stress due to duty hours restrictions. Curricular planning was enhanced by a grant from the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation in November 2003. An advisory board was recruited, regional and national experts solicited and a case based approach adopted. Two CD ROMs, a web site and a series of workshops are planned. All materials will be made available to all programs upon request and at minimal charge. Appropriate venues are sought to reach a national audience at minimal expense on their part. Specific Objectives:
Intended Audience: Physicians and other medical educators, who work with physicians in training to prevent, identify, manage fatigue and impairment. |
Marriott Copley Place - Harvard
|
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Anthony Paolo, PhD Amy Schigelone, PhD Alison Whelan, MD Purpose and Rationale: The purpose of our mini-workshop is to provide each participant with the knowledge and skills for development and implementation of a unique "blueprint" for design of an outcomes assessment program appropriate to each participant's institutional setting. Through identification of institution-specific applications of outcomes assessment data, prospective development of a tentative set of educational outcomes measurements and recognition of potential logistic problems (as well as potential solutions) associated with data management and distribution, workshop participants will be able to facilitate implementation of a coordinated outcomes assessment program in their medical educational setting which is:
A program for assessment of medical education outcomes is a requirement for Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accreditation of U.S. medical schools Educational outcomes assessment can measure the extent to which medical school experiences result in the achievement of undergraduate medical educational objectives and is a critical component of a dynamic medical education program. However, there is not a single set of outcomes measures which can be uniformly applied at every medical school in order to fully assess outcomes of the medical education process. Rather, each school's outcomes assessment program will incorporate a unique set of outcomes measures which closely match the specific educational objectives of the institution. The scope of data collected and analyzed can range from programmatic assessments, such as anonymous student evaluations of specific courses, to long-term, individualized, followup information pertaining to each graduate through residency training and beyond. By definition, a comprehensive outcomes assessment program of the entire medical school experience will involve ongoing collection of data from a wide range of sources which must be analyzed on an integrated basis .While broad outcomes assessments may drive curricular overhauls they can also, importantly, inform a more stepwise approach to curricular evolution. Interest in comprehensive outcomes assessments programs is increasing throughout the medical educational community, but there is also a growing recognition of the complexity of outcomes assessment program design and implementation. The process involves a collaborative effort among numerous different individuals, offices and departments within the medical school to address and resolve issues such as data acquisition and management, data security and confidentiality, data ownership and outcomes assessment reporting.Because each medical school has unique features structurally and administratively, as well as unique educational objectives, there is not a single prescribed outcomes assessment program will be appropriate for every medical school. However, there are common principles which can direct a proactive, deliberate approach to the process of outcomes assessment program development in any undergraduate medical educational institution. A comprehensive outcomes assessment program will likely involve utilization of currently available data as well as development of additional assessment instruments A well-defined set of outcomes measurements should provide specific information pertaining to individual student and program outcomes on a longitudinal basis which fit the medical school culture, mission and objectives. These outcome measurements are essentially the "building blocks" of an outcomes assessment program while the coordination of medical school personnel and resources involved in data collection, analysis and distribution is the "mortar" which cements these measurement components together into a structurally sound, functional outcomes assessment program. Specific Objectives: Participants in the workshop will be able to:
Intended Audience: Our workshop is intended primarily for individuals involved in school-wide aspects of outcomes assessment in undergraduate medical education. However, the content and activities of the workshop are also widely applicable to graduate medical education outcomes assessment program design. |
104 Hynes Convention Center |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: James E. McNamee, PhD Patricia A. Thomas, MD, FACP Purpose and Rationale: Many AAMC Medical Schools have implemented Teaching Portfolio curricula for faculty to document teaching activity and quality. This documentation is useful for performance assessment and promotion reviews, and for competitive selection for membership in an Academy of Educators. Faculty at Schools with Mission-Based Management programs may use a Teaching Portfolio to link measures of teaching performance to school and department missions. Recent literature demonstrates that documentation of educational scholarship is increasingly recognized as evidence for faculty salary increases, promotion, and even tenure. (2, 4,5,6) Challenges remain however to implementing Teaching Portfolios widely and for uses other than promotion and tenure reviews. Tracking the use of Teaching Portfolios and the successes of faculty who employ them is feasible and provides useful information about how departments and schools value teaching scholarship relative to other measures of productivity and achievement. At the AAMC Annual Meeting in 2001 and again in 2002 we conducted successful Mini Workshops on the Teaching Portfolio's history, structure and implementation. In this workshop we propose:
Based on feedback from past years' participants we will offer email support for participants following the course, providing consultation, resources, and sharing examples of "best practices." Specific Objectives: At the conclusion of the workshop participants will be able to:
Intended Audience: Medical School Faculty, Academic Deans, Promotions Committee Members, Department Chairs, Program Directors, Course Masters, And Medical Educators.
|
106 Hynes Convention Center |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Alexander R. Green, MD Emily Rickards, MA Roxana Llerana-Quinn, PhD Daniel Goodenough, PhD Tim Broughton, PhD Augustus White, MD, PhD Margaret Hinrichs, MEd David Hirsh, MD Laura Morgan Roberts, PhD Purpose and Rationale: Few academic clinicians receive any formal training in providing culturally competent care (CCC), 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 improve the culturally competent care skills of faculty members and to share some CCC program ideas from Harvard Medical School (HMS). 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 four stations where different strategies are used to teach and promote cultural competence and culturally competent care programs. Participants will be able to identify, discuss, and practice selected effective teaching methods and program development ideas currently in use at Harvard Medical School. Specific Objectives: The participants will:
Intended Audience: Educators and faculty who are involved in teaching or who have expressed an interest in culturally competent care will benefit from participation because each station will focus on separate and distinct skills in how to teach and promote cultural competence. |
107 Hynes Convention Center |
Wednesday, November 10 |
||
|
8:00 - 10:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Jeffrey Morzinski, PhD, MSW Ruric Anderson, MD Louise M. Arnold, PhD Purpose and Rationale: Professionalism in medicine has remerged as a major area of emphasis in recent years. Since January 2000, 46 articles in Academic Medicine used the term professionalism in the title or abstract. Thirty-four articles indexed using the term professionalism in PubMed during the first quarter of 2004. The focus of these articles ranges from editorials and calls to advance the image of medicine to "primers" on professionalism. Cruess et. al., provided a working definition of professionalism for medical educators in order to enhance their ability to teach this topic. They began by proposing a definition of a "profession" as "An occupation whose core element is work based upon the mastery of a complex body of knowledge and skills. It is a vocation in which knowledge of some department of science or learning or the practice of an art founded upon it is used in the service of others. Its members are governed by codes of ethics and profess a commitment to competence, integrity and morality, altruism, and the promotion of the public good within their domain. These commitments form the basis of a social contract between a profession and society, which in return grants the profession a monopoly over the use of its knowledge base, the right to considerable autonomy in practice and the privilege of self-regulation. Professions and their members are accountable to those served and to society." Clearly, medicine as a profession is seeking to fulfill its obligations to society as seen by the surge of literature on professionalism along with the inclusion of professionalism as one of the six ACGME outcomes project competencies. However, in examining this emerging literature on medicine as a profession there is seldom any mention regarding the professionalism associated with individuals who teach our future physicians. What is professionalism as a medical educator? What is our "professional" obligation as educators to our learners and to society? For example, how often have you heard a colleague say, as he watches a medical student crossing the graduation stage, "How did she/he ever make it through? I would NEVER send anyone I cared about to see him/her as a physician?" Physician faculty are held accountable for the accurate and timely submission of their medical records, but recording a passing grade for a student "to whom you would never refer someone you cared about" or failing to submit the grading form on time is often accepted as common practice. To address this gap, we have implemented a faculty development initiative that focuses on "the practice and profession of teaching". During this 5-month, 24-hour program, faculty enhance their skills as teachers (e.g., presentation skills, small group facilitation, clinical teaching) and to identify the elements of professional behavior associated with their membership in the "profession of medical education". Adapting Stephen Brookfield's critical incidents technique, each week participants must describe and submit a critical incident associated with their teaching/educational administrative role. Included in the description of each incident is the requirement that they identify relevant elements of professionalism consistent with the American Board of Internal Medicine's elements of professionalism (e.g., honesty in providing accurate feedback, respect for the learner, excellence in their preparation/teaching role, accountability to submit accurate evaluations). These critical incidents and the elements of professionalism are discussed at the faculty development sessions culminating in a specific set of expectations for professionalism in medical educators consistent with each of the ABIM elements. Building on the lessons learned from our local faculty development initiatives, this workshop will engage participants in exploring and defining key attributes of medical educator professionalism with critical analysis provided by a leading scholar in professionalism. Specific Objectives:
Intended Audience: Individuals interested in the professionalism of medical educators from an array of roles including teachers, faculty developers, administrators, coordinators and education committee members. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon J |
|
8:00 - 10:30a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Purpose and Rationale: Qualitative data from focus group discussions, interviews, observation field notes, and responses to open-ended questions is increasingly used in medical education settings. The purpose of this workshop is to provide participants with perspectives on the role of qualitative data in program development, evaluation, and research; and to enhance their repertoire of skills in analyzing qualitative data. Specific Objectives: At the end of this workshop, participants will be able to:
Intended Audience: Physicians and generalists in medical education, as well as faculty and staff involved in student affairs, who wish to develop perspectives and skills for analyzing 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 research applications. |
Marriott Copley Place - Suffolk |
|
8:00 - 11:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Nancy S. Searle, EdD Boyd F. Richards, PhD Purpose and Rationale: Four years ago, Fincher et. al. identified in their manuscript, "Scholarship in Teaching: An Imperative for the 21st Century," the challenge medical schools face in implementing an "infrastructure needed to foster, assess, and reward scholarship in teaching and other activities supportive of learning." This call to action, resulting from the Group on Educational Affairs project on scholarship and building on Boyer's work, challenges "medical educators who accept responsibility for fostering scholarship in teaching" to "provide mechanisms to support the creation, critical review, and dissemination of educational scholars' works" and then to evaluate those mechanisms to "understand the reasons some methods are more effective than others." Faculty at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) implemented a program consistent with this challenge. The program is designed specifically to recognize faculty educational contributions and includes peer review, standards-based selection procedures, specific criteria for assessing quality, and structured formats to facilitate preparation and review of mini-portfolios. The program encourages scholarship in four distinct categories of educational endeavors: Teaching and Evaluation; Educational Leadership; Development of Enduring Educational Materials; and Educational Research. This program is unique in its design and use of non-competitive selection procedures. Now, after three years of use, evidence is mounting that major goals of this program, to recognize faculty and to enable consideration of faculty educational contributions as scholarship in promotions decisions, are being realized. Due to the strength of this evidence, the ongoing enthusiasm for the program within the BCM administration and faculty, and the wide-spread, positive reaction to publications and presentations (1. Richards at the AAMC Annual Meeting 2002, 2.Coburn at the Faculty Association for Surgical Education Annual Meeting, 2003, 3. Richards at GEA, 2003, Richards at the University of Michigan, 2003) about the program, we seek to empower other institutions to implement similar programs and thereby reap similar benefits. Specific Objectives:
Intended Audience: Faculty and educational deans interested in enhancing the consideration of educational scholarship in their institutions. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon B |
|
8:00 - 11:00a |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Elizabeth Krajic Kachur, PhD Purpose and Rationale: A mentoring relationship is often seen as an essential step for achieving success in a career. Most successful people in different professions can point to one or several mentors who were crucial to their career growth and success. However, not all medical trainees or early career clinicians and educators are aware of the value of a mentoring relationship or are in a position to ascertain one. They rarely receive special training on the mentoring process. Consequently they are often ill equipped to face barriers that arise in their path, and even less prepared to develop solutions to overcome these challenges. Mentoring relationships can be formal or informal, a mentee may have single or multiple mentors, the mentor may be local or distant. One can find successful mentoring programs in medical institutions around the country, but there are also many examples of unsuccessful programs. There is not a single recipe for success but there is an increasing recognition of the fact by medical educators that mentoring is an integral tool to the career development of medical students, house officers and faculty. During this workshop we will define the key requisites and skills of an effective mentor, distinguish mentors from advisors and role-models, review available literature and outline the key skills required of an effective mentor. We will discuss different models of mentoring and various types of formal mentoring programs, giving examples of successful and unsuccessful programs. We will then brainstorm with the group to determine the best models of effective mentoring programs. Finally, in small groups, participants will determine how to design mentoring programs, anticipate challenges and develop solutions when their programs do not result in anticipated success. Specific Objectives: After completing the workshop, each participant will:
Intended Audience:
|
Marriott Copley Place - Salon C |
|
1:00 - 3:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Kurt E. Borg, PhD Dona L. Harris, PhD Sebastian R. Alston, MD Robert Hash, MD Purpose and Rationale: When designing and implementing a Problem-Based Learning curriculum, we need to think of assessment in a different way. Most traditional tests assess content acquisition but not other skills the students may have gained from their experiential learning, namely (1) how to evaluate resources, (2) how to solve complex problems, (3) how to work in teams effectively, and (4) how to communicate clearly and concisely. Instructors need ways to assess these outcomes, too. Therefore, the examinations needed to match the teaching method. This workshop will provide the opportunity to discuss common assessment issues that PBL can present and will offer suggestions and practical experiences for creating student assessment methods in response to those issues. Specific Objectives: In this interactive workshop, participants will discuss and participate in activities that demonstrate basic issues to be considered in the development and implementation of an assessment approach that measures and provides feedback about the medical student's development of knowledge, skills and professional behaviors. Workshop participants will develop an understanding of what tutorial assessment forms might be used to assess PBL students, how to "grade" a student, how to assure overall assessment fairness, how to give feedback to students, and how to go about writing an integrated patient-case exam. Participants will apply the assessment models/methods to hypothetical medical student case studies. At the end of the workshop participants will be able to: (1) define a valid and reliable approach to assessment, (2) discuss considerations of using the assessment methods in the classroom or clinical setting, (3) describe performance criteria for students in behavioral terms, (4) use a performance rubric; and (5) develop and use student performance criteria to create meaningful student feedback. Workshop participants will gain an understanding of developmental assessment models and how this model might be applied in either the classroom or clinical assessment settings. At the conclusion of the workshop, a 30-minute question-and-answer segment will provide workshop leaders the opportunity to ascertain participant understanding of the workshop learning objectives and to identify areas that may need further clarification. Intended Audience: The workshop will interest those wishing to broaden their knowledge of formative medical education assessment methods. Both clinical and academic faculty involved in the development or use of feedback methods and/or assessment tools for pre-clinical and clinical medical students are encouraged to attend. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon C |
|
1:00 - 3:30p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Elizabeth G. Armstrong, PhD Joseph O'Donnell, MD John X. Thomas, Jr., PhD Greg Ogrinc, MD, MS Thomas Viggiano, MD Purpose and Rationale: Members of the Quality Improvement in Medical Education Network have organized and provided a variety of workshops about teaching practice-based learning and improvement, including the following workshop sessions:
The most common worry we hear from participants at these workshops is the lack of faculty with expertise in practice-based learning improvement. We propose to create an opportunity in which faculty can develop a level of expertise sufficient to begin teaching medical students and residents. Specific Objectives: Participants will be able to:
Intended Audience: Faculty from medical schools and residencies who wish to teach practice-based improvement and are willing to acquire these skills by completing an improvement project of their own. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon B |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizers: Larry D. Gruppen, PhD Purpose and Rationale: Questionnaires and surveys are among the most commonly used tools to gather information about programs, learners, educational innovations and interventions, and the attitudes, preferences and opinions of research participants. The prevalence of the use of questionnaires and surveys emphasizes the importance of constructing these instruments carefully so that the information obtained is valid and trustworthy and that the probability of getting a response from the participants is maximized. Although questionnaires SEEM easy to make, there are many pitfalls in the process that can be avoided. These include constructing a questionnaire/survey blueprint, question wording, selecting appropriate response formats, and designing the form for easy data entry and coding. This workshop will provide some basic principles in questionnaire/survey design and give workshop participants an opportunity for hands-on experience designing a questionnaire. The workshop will also provide guidance as to where to find already exiting measures that can be incorporated into surveys when appropriate. Specific Objectives: Following participation in this workshop, learners will be able to:
Intended Audience: Faculty and staff who are responsible for program evaluation and learner assessment that focuses on the opinions, preferences, and attitudes of participants and learners. Faculty who wish to use questionnaires in research studies will also find useful principles. Participants are encouraged to take with them to the workshop drafts or working versions of surveys or questionnaires they plan to or currently use. These will be used in small group applications of the workshop principles. |
Marriott Copley Place - Salon I |
|
1:00 - 4:00p |
GEA/GSA Mini-Workshop Session Organizer: Faculty: Loring Brinckerhoff, PhD Mark Greenberg, PhD Purpose and Rationale: Within the last several years, at both college and graduate schools, administrators and advisors have been seeing more students with learning and mental health issues that require attention. Some of these issues have been previously identified earlier in students' careers, others are being newly diagnosed. In the high pressure setting of medical school, early intervention with careful assessment and referral to the appropriate resources can offer critical, timely support to talented individuals capable of becoming competent physicians, and can avert educational and emotional crises, that are costly | |