Log in


  

Topics and Materials

A special session of SACME VJC
Providing Quality Peer Reviews – and Learning Along the Way

August 30, 2019 | 12:00-1:00 pm CT

Presenters

Alisa Nagler JD, MA, EdD
Assistant Director for Accreditation, Validation and Credentialing,
American College of Surgeons
Adjunct Associate Professor of Medical Education,
Duke University School of Medicine

Asha Maharaj, MBA, CELP
Director, Community and Continuing Education
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) 

Facilitators

Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
University of Pennsylvania

Christine Flores, MPH
Administrative Director
Continuing Professional Development
Oregon Health & Science University 

Overview

Join us for this exciting and participatory, special session of the SACME Virtual Journal Club. We will be focusing on one of the key areas of scholarship in our field – peer review.

The peer-review process requires the dedication and work of volunteers, who contribute considerable time and effort. While reviewers’ motivation to participate in the peer-review process may be uniquely individual, there are numerous benefits to reviewing abstracts or manuscripts, far outweighing the perceived burden of the work required. In addition, thoughtful and constructive feedback to authors can provide guidance to enhance their current work and future writings. Lastly, meeting planners and journal editors rely on the peer review process to identify quality scholarly contributions. 

This session will summarize the peer review process and highlight the benefits to all involved. Participants will work together improving an example of a “bad” review. Practical tips will be provided for reviewers to make the most of their experience in a meaningful, productive and convenient manner.

Special attention will be paid to the review of SACME proposals for the 2020 meeting.  


Previous Session Topics

A special session of SACME's VJC
Posters and Oral Presentations: Skills and Best Practices for Submitting Your Scholarly Work as Abstracts

July 29, 2019 at 12:00-1:00 pm CT 

Session Presenter

Sanjeev Sockalingam, MD, MHPE, FRCPC, FACLP
VP Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Professor, Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Toronto

Facilitated by

Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
University of Pennsylvania 

Christine Flores, MPH
Administrative Director
Continuing Professional Development
Oregon Health & Science University

Overview

Join us for this exciting and participatory special session of the SACME Virtual Journal Club. We will be focusing on one of the key areas of scholarship in our field - submitting your work as an abstract for peer reviewed presentation. We will start the discussion around the question of what counts as scholarly work and the ways to identify work that you are already doing that might be appropriate for submission, and how to choose the best option for your presentation.

Tips and ideas about how to best approach building various sections of the abstract will be shared.  

We invite you to bring your questions and examples from your past experience with conference abstract submissions so that we can together review potential challenges you may have encountered and talk about ways to overcome them.

This session is deigned and timed to help you successfully answer the call for abstracts for the upcoming 2020 SACME meeting.

_

Surveying the Landscape: What We’re Learning About the Changing World of Professional Development

June 26th, 2019 2:00-3:00 pm CT

Session Presenter

Graham McMahon, MD, MMSc
President and Chief Executive Officer
Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education

Facilitated by

Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
University of Pennsylvania

Overview: 

Continuing medical education is rapidly evolving to meet the dynamically changing needs of health professionals. In this webinar we will use ACCME’s strategic plan as the foundation to explore and explain how that evolution is being facilitated and encouraged. Opportunities and needs that we’ll discuss include harmonization of requirements and standards, better educational methods, attention to the learning environment, investment in faculty educators, a more cohesive approach to learner data management and the support for educational research. By the end of the session, attendees should have a clear picture of how ACCME sees the future of CME, and what we’re doing to help get us there.

Recommended Readings:

Graham T. McMahon. Chapter 18: Advancing CME and CPD: Evolution, Innovation, Accreditation, and Alignment. In: William Rayburn, W., Davis, D., and Turco, M. editor(s). Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Healthcare. Philadelphia (United States): Wolters Kluwer; 2018.

Subha Ramani, Graham T. McMahon & Elizabeth G. Armstrong (2019): Continuing professional development to foster behaviour change: From principles to practice in health professions education, Medical Teacher, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1615608

Graham T. McMahon. The Leadership Case for Investing in Continuing Professional Development. Academic Medicine, Vol. 92, No. 8 / August 2017

David A. (Dave) Davis & Graham T. McMahon (2018): Translating evidence into practice: Lessons for CPD, Medical Teacher, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1481285.

Additional Readings:

ACCME 2018-2019 Highlights: Advancing CME to Optimize Care

_

Collaborating Interprofessionally for Team-Based Care 

May 30th, 2019 2:00-3:00 pm CT

Session Presenters

Simon Kitto, PhD
Professor, Department of Innovation in Medical Education
Director of Research, Office of Continuing Professional Development
University of Ottawa
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery,
University of Toronto

Facilitated by

Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
University of Pennsylvania

Overview: 

CME/CPD programs are increasingly offering activities to enhance skills, knowledge and behaviours designed to promote effective interprofessional communication, teamwork and collaboration. This presentation explores pertinent issues related to how health professionals can learn together to improve their ability to collaborate, communicate and coordinate their services to support the delivery of effective team-based care. Particular emphasis will be placed on the importance of determining the barriers and facilitators to interprofessional teamwork as an essential precursor to the development and implementation of interprofessional CPD teamwork interventions.

Recommended Readings

Reeves S, Kitto S. Chapter 8: Collaborating Interprofessionally for Team-Based Care. In: William Rayburn, W., Davis, D., and Turco, M. editor(s). Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Healthcare. Philadelphia (United States): Wolters Kluwer; 2018.

Kitto S, Marshall SD, McMillan SE, et al. Rapid response systems and collective (in)competence: an exploratory analysis of intraprofessional and interprofessional activation factors. J Interprof Care.2015;29(4):340346

Brandt BF, Kitto S, Cervero RM. Untying the interprofessional Gordian knot: The National Collaborative on Improving the Clinical Learning Environment. Acad Med. 2018;93:1437–1440.

S Reeves, S Boet, B Zierler, S Kitto, Interprofessional education and Practice guide no. 3: evaluating interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 2015

____

A Long View of Lifelong Learning and CPD/CME

April 22, 2019  2:00-3:00 pm CT

Session Presenters

David A. Davis, MD, FSACMEFounding Director, the Center for Outcomes and Research in EducationProfessor, Medical EducationMohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine & Health ServicesDubai, UAE

Paul E. Mazmanian, PhD, FSACME
Associate Dean of Assessment, Evaluation, and Scholarship
Professor, Family Medicine and Population Health
Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Medicine

Facilitated by

Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
University of Pennsylvania

About this discussion

Dave and Paul will touch on several key trends shaping future directions in continuing professional development - content issues, delivery methods, and an expanding audience for CME/CPD, among other logistical topics. In particular, the webinar will focus on the lifelong learner and longitudinal study to support his/her multi-decade journey from admission to a health professional program to retirement. Bring your own ideas about the future. 

Suggested readings

Mazmanian, P.E., Davis, D.A. Chapter 26: Projecting the Future of Continuing Professional Development. (2018) In: Rayburn, W., Davis, D., and Turco, M. editor(s).Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Healthcare: Better Education, Better Outcomes (pp. 385-406). Philadelphia, PA (United States): Wolters Kluwer.

____

Online Information Resources for Point of Care (POC) Learning

March 28, 2019  2:00-3:00 pm CT

Presenters

Sarah Knox Morley, MLS, PhD
Principal Lecturer IIIInterim Co-Director of the Library and Division Head for Research, Education, Consultation and Reference Services University of New Mexico Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center
Albuquerque, NM  

William F. Rayburn, MD, MBA
Distinguished Professor
Associate Dean, Continuing Medical Education and Professional Development Emeritus Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
University of New Mexico School of Medicine
Albuquerque, NM

Trevor Quiner, MD, MS
Clinical Instructor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
University of New Mexico School of Medicine
Albuquerque, NM

Facilitator

Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
University of Pennsylvania

Summary

Leaders in continuing professional development (CPD) appreciate that the learning of most physicians and health care professionals is directed by patient encounters in the clinical environment.  The reported number of clinical questions prompting additional information seeking has increased over the years.

The medical literature bears witness to Internet (or online) searches as playing a major role to answer questions arising in clinical practice. Information from different online resources can often vary for the same topics, quality of evidence cited, cost, and credit for continuing education. Conscientious decision making for individual patients is not merely from randomized trials and meta-analyses but from tracking the best evidence with which to answer a specific clinical question.

Points of Discussion

What types of POC online information resources exist at your institution?

How do you incorporate these resources into your daily practice?

What challenges exist in using the computer or mobile devices for information seeking?

Suggested Readings

Morley SK, Rayburn WF Online Information Resources for Point of Care (POC) Learning in Rayburn WF, Turco MG, Davis DA (eds.). Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Health Care. Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer, 2018, pp 135-48.

Moja L, Kwag KH. Point of care information services: a platform for self-directed continuing medical education for front line decision makers. Postgrad Med J 2015, 91:83-91.

Andrews R, Mehta N, Maypole J, Martin S. Staying afloat in a sea of information: point-of-care resources. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2017; 8: 225-35.

___

Articulating the Value of Continuing Medical Education/Continuing Professional Development

February 20, 2019 at 2:00 - 3:00 pm CT

Presenters

Todd Dorman, M.D., FCCM, FSACMESenior Associate Dean for Education CoordinationAssociate Dean Continuing Medical EducationProfessor & Vice Chair for Critical CareDepartment of Anesthesiology & Critical Care MedicineJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Facilitated by

 Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
Penn Medicine

Summary: Offices of CME/CPD are sometimes seen similar to extension education offices. That is as a profit center. We will discuss why it is better to exist as a value center and review and consider a variety of values a CME/CPD office can provide. Upon completion of the discussion, providers of CME/CPD will be able to discuss the values and make a case to leadership on why CME/CPD is a valuable strategic lever for change.

Key Points:

Profit centers may have an inherent conflict of interest within them
The values provided by CME/CPD are of a diverse type and not all are fiscal.
Getting the most out of CME/CPD requires educational providers to have a greater appreciation for these fiscal and non-fiscal benefits

    Objectives/Goals:

    The learner will be able to describe why CME/CPD should be a value center.The learner will be able to list at least three values CME/CPD brings to their organization

    Suggested Readings:

    Dorman, T. Chapter 24: Articulating the Value of Continuing Medical Education. (2018) In: Rayburn, W., Davis, D., and Turco, M. editor(s). Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Healthcare: Better Education, Better Outcomes (pp. 353-362). Philadelphia, PA (United States): Wolters Kluwer.

    Continuing Medical Education: Looking back, planning ahead. Dennis Wentz editor. Chapter 31.

    https://premiosgroup.com/value-center-not-profit-center-cost-center/. (This article focuses at an IT department but covers the landscape of being a value center can be beneficial.

    ___

    Improving Communication Skills of Health Care Providers

    January 30, 2019 | 2:00 - 3:00 CT

    Presenter: Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP
    Penn Medicine

    FacilitatorCurtis Olson, PhD, FSACME
    Immediate Past Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
    Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine,Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

    It is now broadly accepted that effective communication is critical for quality and safety in health care. Communication failures are among the most frequently identified root-causes of sentinel events in hospital settings and represent the majority of serious adverse health outcomes in hospitals. In addition, the quality of the interactions that patients experience in their clinical encounters highly influences the perception of the overall quality of health care they receive. Effective training methods and successful techniques for teaching and improving communication skills have been studied and linked to improvements in patient experience and health outcomes, quality and safety of health care delivery overall, and health care provider satisfaction and self-efficacy. Unfortunately, most physicians and other healthcare professionals receive limited, if any, training in communication skills.

    This session will focus on the following key areas:

    - Critical role of communication in healthcare

    - Conceptual and pedagogical basis for communication skill training

    - Strategies for facilitating provider-patient relationship

    - Examples of models and frameworks for communication training in medical education with key elements and assessment methodologies

    - Overcoming barriers to effective teamwork in healthcare

      We will review and discuss the critically important role of Continuing Medical and Interprofessional Education and Development in addressing the needs for improving communication in our health care systems. Ideas and examples from practice abut successful implementation strategies will be shared, including available resources and research.

      Reference:

      Kostic, M. Chapter 7: Improving Communication Skills of Health Care Providers. (2018) In: Rayburn, W., Davis, D., and Turco, M. editor(s). Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Healthcare: Better Education, Better Outcomes (pp. 101-120). Philadelphia, PA (United States): Wolters Kluwer.

      This reference will be provided to all registered attendees for the purpose of participating in this session.

      ___

      Continuing Professional Development in the Clinical Learning Environment

      December 4, 2018 | 2:00 - 3:00 pm CT

      Presenter: 

      Barbara Barnes, MD, MS, FSACME
      Associate Vice Chancellor, Continuing Education and Industry Relationships,
      University of Pittsburgh
      VP, Sponsored Programs, Research Support, and CME,
      University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

      Facilitators

      Curtis Olson, PhD, FSACME
      Immediate Past Editor-in-Chief,Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
      Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine,
      Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

      Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHPDirector of Continuing Medical Education, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of PennsylvaniaCo-Director of Interprofessional Continuing Education,Penn Medicine

      Session Overview:

      In the last decade there have been increasing expectations of continuing professional development (CPD) providers and scholars to demonstrate the impact of their interventions on clinical outcomes as defined in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Triple Aim. Although educational activities are a necessary element in improving care, they must be integrated with other strategies derived from needs identified in the setting within which care is delivered and in the broader healthcare system.

      The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) focuses heavily on the clinical learning environment (CLE) in which residents and fellows train, with particular emphasis on patient safety, quality, and well-being. The ACCME (Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education) incorporates some of these elements into the criteria for accreditation with commendation. However, many CPD professionals have limited preparation and opportunity to engage with sites and systems of care, focusing their activities on needs and outcomes of individual learners rather than those of teams, healthcare organizations, and the general population.

      This Virtual Journal Club will commence with a brief overview of the relevance of the concepts of learning healthcare organizations and health systems science to CPD. This will be followed by a discussion of factors that are driving engagement of educators with clinical systems. Subsequently participants will identify opportunities and barriers to interfacing with outpatient and inpatient sites, healthcare delivery systems, and policy-makers to improve the relevance and outcomes of their CPD programs.

      Potential Discussion Questions:

      At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

      • How can CPD providers engage with local healthcare delivery systems to identify needs and formulate interventions for individual practitioners, teams, and organizations?
      • How can these concepts be applied by CPD units in specialty societies and organizations that do not have dedicated clinical delivery systems?
      • How can information exchange and coordination be improved among micro-, meso- and macro-systems?
      • How can we better educate CPD professionals on the principles of systems science and other related disciplines?
      Suggested Pre-Reading:
      • Barnes BE. Drivers of Change and Advancing the Clinical Learning Environment. In W.F. Rayburn, M.G. Turco, and D.A. Davis (eds.), Continuing professional development in medicine and health care: better education, better outcomes. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer 2018
      • Gonzalo JD, Starr SR, Borkan JM. What is Health Systems Science? Building on an Integrated Vision. In Sochelak SE., et. al. (eds.), Health Systems Science. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association.
      ___


      November 19, 2018 | 2:00 - 3:00 pm CT

      Title: The Role of CPD in Developing Leaders in Academic Health Care Systems

      Presenters: 

      Richard I. Rothstein, MDJoseph M. Huber Professor and ChairDepartment of MedicineDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical CenterThe Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

      Mary G. Turco, EdD, FSACMEClinical Associate Professor of MedicineDepartment of MedicineDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical CenterThe Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

      Facilitator

      Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHPDirector of Continuing Medical Education, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of PennsylvaniaCo-Director of Interprofessional Continuing Education,Penn Medicine

      Session Overview:

      Are you developing leaders for your academic health system, medical center or hospital? If so, how are you going about it? And, if not, why not? Are there challenges you face as you develop or deliver a Leadership Program? In this session, we will discuss the role of CPD professionals in developing leaders for the AHS, AMC or teaching hospital. With the chapter we authored (with Allison McHugh) in Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Health Care: Better Education, Better Patient Outcomes titled “Learning to Lead in an Academic Health System” as pre-reading,  and a slide deck about Collective Competency theory by Lorelei Lingard and her colleagues as pre-viewing, we will discuss why it is imperative to help system leaders reflect on and train for what it takes to lead themselves, others, and healthcare teams effectively to today’s complex environments.  We will then discuss what you are doing or aspire to do, any barriers you may have encountered, and how to address them.  We will also give a short overview of the CPD Leadership Program we and Dartmouth-Hitchcock colleagues developed in 2015-16 and show examples of the institutional impact and genuine outcomes the Program is starting to generate. We hope you’ll join us.

      Goals:

      At the end of the session, participants will be able to:

      • 1.      discuss concepts regarding leading yourself, others, and inter-professional health care teams
      • 2.      use a CPD focus to influence the design/redesign or development of a current or future Leadership Program
      • 3.      describe the elements of a Leadership program where participants are generating specific goals and outcomes that are based of their leadership  training

      Pre-Reading/Pre-Viewing:

      Turco, M., McHugh, A., Rothstein, R. (2018) Learning to Lead in an Academic Health System. In W. F. Rayburn, M. G. Turco, & D. A. Davis (Eds.), Continuing professional development in medicine and health care: better education, better outcomes (pp. 335-341). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.  

      Lingard, L.  (PowerPoint) “Rethinking the Discourse of Competency in the Context of Teamwork” (with permission)

      ___

      October 16, 2018 | 2:00 - 3:00 PM CT 

      Title: Meaningful Involvement of Patients, Families and Caregivers in Continuing Professional Development

      Presenter:  David Wiljer, PhDExecutive Director, Education Technology Innovation,Associate Professor, Dept. of PsychiatryUniversity of Toronto

      Facilitator: Curtis Olson, PhD, FSACMEImmediate Past Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsAssistant Professor, Department of Medicine,Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

      Session Overview

      Patients, families and caregivers involved in meaningful ways in better continuous professional development have the potential to improve care, resulting in the best outcomes. The focus of this discussion will be on understanding the diverse ways patients can be involved, and on exploring some particular considerations that may optimize meaningful involvement. Two key domains will be explored: 1) involving patients as partners and teachers in the continuing professional development of health professionals and in the improvement of quality, evidence-based care; and 2) improving the impact of CPD by activating patients through effective patient education.

      This discussion will start from the assumption that patients and families should be involved in the lifelong learning cycle of health care professionals (HCPs).  As in the case study above, taking time to learn together with, for, and from patients and their families can enrich the clinical experience and professional growth. Working from this assumption, the discussion seeks to drive the conversation forward and ask the question, how do we meaningfully involve patients and families in the continuing professional development of health professionals to improve the quality of care that is delivered?

      Goals

      1. Assess levels of involvement that contribute to meaningful involvement in health professions education
      2. Identify the potential roles of patients and service users and their families in health professional education
      3. Examine the role of patient education in developing effective health professional education

      References

      Wiljer, D. Chapter 11: Meaningful Involvement with Patients, Families and Caregivers. In: William Rayburn, MD, MBA, David Davis, MD, and Mary Turco, EdD, editor(s). Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Healthcare. Philadelphia (United States): Wolters Kluwer; 2016. All registrants will receive a copy of the book chapter.

      Ferguson G, Abi-Jaoude A, Johnson A, Saikaly R, Woldemichael B, Maharaj A, Soklaridis S, Nirula L, Hasan M, Wiljer D. Collaborating with Families: Exploring Family Member and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Engaging Families Within Medical Education. Acad Psychiatry. 2018 Feb 12. doi: 10.1007/s40596-017-0878-y.

      Towle A, Bainbridge L, Godolphin W, et al. Active patient involvement in the education of health professionals. Med Educ. 2010;44:64-74.

      __

      September, 2018

      Title: Improving CPD Interventions and Strengthening the CPD Value Proposition By Developing Our Capacity for Doing Research

      Presenter: Curtis Olson, PhD, FSACME

      Immediate Past Editor-in-Chief,Journal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsAssistant Professor, Department of Medicine,Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

      Facilitator: 

      Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP,Director of Continuing Medical Education,Perelman School of Medicine at the University of PennsylvaniaCo-Director of Interprofessional Continuing Education,Penn Medicine

      Overview:

      All CPD professionals confront two imperatives: delivering ever more effective educational interventions and strengthening stakeholders’ understanding of the value of CPD to our institutions and to improving patient care. Enhancing effectiveness requires better ways of detecting, measuring, and communicating the impacts of CPD interventions. Enhancing value entails providing key stakeholders with evidence showing the effectiveness of specific educational interventions and, in the academic setting, trading in the currency of the realm (ie, dissemination of our efforts through forums such as refereed journals).

      Both imperatives require that we give greater attention to research in CPD.  This session present the case for developing increased research capacity in CPD and explore ways in which CPD professionals at all levels can contribute to this end.

      Journal Club Questions:

      1. Why should CPD professionals at all levels learn more about educational research? 
      2. How can busy CPD professionals find ways to engage in research? 
      3. What steps can individual CPD professionals take to further develop their understanding of and ability to conduct educational research?
      Articles to be Reviewed: 

      Olson, C. A., & White Williams, B. (2018). Principles of effective research in continuing professional development in the health professions. In W. F. Rayburn, M. G. Turco, & D. A. Davis (Eds.), Continuing professional development in medicine and health care: better education, better outcomes (pp. 363-384). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer. Access this material.

      Olson, C. A. (2012). Twenty predictions for the future of CPD: implications of the shift from the update model to improving clinical practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 32(3), 151-152.

      __

      June, 2018

      Title: Comparing and Contrasting Faculty Development and Continuing Professional Development

      Presenters:

      Ivan Silver, MD, MEd, Vice-President Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto

      Karen Leslie MD MEd, Director of the Centre for Faculty Development, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto

      Facilitator: 

      Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP, Director of Continuing Medical Education Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania; Co-Director of Interprofessional Continuing Education, Penn Medicine

      Overview:

      Faculty Development and Continuing Professional Development programs have had parallel and overlapping histories and areas of focus at medical schools in the past 50 years. During the session we will first review the history of each of these education fields and then highlight their shared elements and their differences in target audience, purpose, pedagogy and scholarship. We will then examine the opportunities for these two fields to intersect and to compliment each other to foster system change and use pooled practice and teaching evaluation data to foster performance improvement and continuing professional competence. 

      Journal Club Questions:

      1. Describe three key differentiating features between faculty development and continuing professional development. What are three similar features?

      2. Faculty development and continuing professional development are often in different offices at medical schools. How would you optimally align these two fields and practices for the benefit of both?

      3. What are the opportunities for these two education fields to engage in collaborative scholarship and research?

      Articles to be Reviewed: 

      Ng, S.L., Baker, L.R. & Leslie, K. Re-positioning faculty development as knowledge mobilization for health professions education. Perspect Med Educ 2017;6(4):273-276.

      Silver I, Leslie K. Comparing and Contrasting Faculty Development and Continuing Professional Development. In: Rayburn WF, Davis D, Turco M, eds. Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Health Care: Better Education, Better Patient Outcomes. New York: Wolters Kluwer; 2017:203-218.

      Davis DA, Rayburn WF, Smith GA. Continuing Professional Development for Faculty: An Elephant in the House of Academic Medicine or the Key to Future Success? Acad Med. 2017;92(8):1078-1081.

      __

      May, 2018

      Title: The Practice and Improvement Gaps in Medical Practice and Medical Education: Insights from Implementation Science.

      Presenters: Gary A. Smith, Ph.D., Assistant Dean for Faculty Development in Education, University of New Mexico School of Medicine

      Facilitator Curtis Olson, PhD, Immediate Past Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

      Assistant Professor, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

      Within academic medical centers, clinician educators grow and improve practice along combined professional trajectories as physicians and educators.  CME and faculty development programs focus separately on these roles, have different traditions and approaches, but are both charged with continuing professional development responsibilities.  Both of these CPD programs also share the paradox of unacceptably low rates of transfer of disseminated research to practice (the practice gap) and from practice to expected outcomes (the improvement gap).

      The session will use the lens of implementation science to inquire about roles of faculty development and CME programs, separately and potentially together, to enhance medical and teaching practice along with learner and patient outcomes.

      Journal Club Questions:

      1. How are faculty development and CME programs similar and different?  How could each benefit from one another?

      2. What are the challenges that form the practice and improvement gaps?

      3. How are CPD programs – both faculty development in teaching and CME in medical practice – positioned to close these gaps?  And, if not, what changes are necessary?

      Articles to be Reviewed: 

      Davis DA, Rayburn WF, Smith GA. Continuing professional development for faculty: An elephant in the house of academic medicine or the key to future success? Academic Medicine. 2017; 92(8):1078-1081.

      Smith GA, Stark AM. Enhancing continuing professional development with insights from implementation science. In: Rayburn WF, Davis D, Turco M, eds. Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Health Care: Better Education, Better Patient Outcomes. New York: Wolters Kluwer; 2017:305-322.

      __

      April, 2018

      Title: Implications of UME and GME Outcomes-based Reform Efforts for CPD

      Presenters & Facilitators: Eric S. Holmboe, MD, MACP, FRCP and Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP

      Background: Outcomes-based approaches to undergraduate (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) using competencies, milestones and entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are increasingly being implemented globally. 

      A critical assumption (or necessary foundational state) of outcomes-based approaches using competency frameworks is that the teachers (i.e. interprofessional healthcare educators) and institutions are highly competent in the clinical areas they teach and provide care. This has major implications for efforts in continuous professional development (CPD) as a large body of research shows this condition is not always met within training institutions. 

      This session will explore current issues in implementing competencies using milestones and EPAs as part of the educational continuum.

      Questions to be addressed in the discussion include:

      • Role of competencies, milestones and EPAs to meet public and health system needs
      • Impact of institutional performance on educational and clinical care outcomes
      • Essential competencies needed by interprofessional educators
      • Co-learning and co-production as potential approaches to enhance CPD in quality improvement and patient safety
      • What exactly is competency-based CPD? Is it really anything new?

      Eric has selected the following recent articles to stimulate discussion on this topic.

      Articles to be Reviewed: 

      Batalden P, Davidoff F. What is “quality improvement” and how can it transform healthcare? Qual Saf Healthc. 2007;16(1):2–3.

      Campbell C, Silver I, Sherbino J, Cate O Ten, Holmboe ES. Competency-based continuing professional development. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):657–62. 

      Wong BM, Holmboe ES. Transforming the Academic Faculty Perspective in Graduate Medical Education to Better Align Educational and Clinical Outcomes. Acad Med. 2016;91(4):473-9.

      Additional reference: 

      Wong BM and Holmboe ES. Reforming UME and GME by Implementing Competencies to Meet Public and Health System Needs. In Continuing Professional Development in Medicine and Health Care. William Rayburn MD, MBA, David A. Davis MD, Mary G. Turco EdD, Editors. LWW. 2017.

      __

      March, 2018

      Title: Are conventional learning theories sufficient to guide multi-site complex educational interventions?

      Presenters & Facilitators: Jocelyn Lockyer, PhD and Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP

      "Without theories, people might view research findings as disorganized collections of data, because researchers and practitioners would have no overarching frameworks to which data could be linked.” (Schunk, 2016, p11) 

      Theories provide frameworks for interpreting environmental observation and serve as bridges between research and education. They enable research findings to be organized and systematically linked to theories and they reflect environmental phenomena and generate new research through hypotheses. 

      During this session, the presenter will lead us in the review of CPD learning theories and interventions for better patient outcomes. 

      Together we will determine how the lessons learned in this study can apply to our work in CPD.

      Article to be Reviewed

      Semrau KEA, Hirschhorn LR, Marx Delaney M, Singh VP, Saurastri R, Sharma N, Tuller DE, Firestone R, Lipsitz S, Dhingra-Kumar N, Kodkany BS, Kumar V, Gawande AA; BetterBirth Trial Group. Outcomes of a Coaching-Based WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist Program in India. N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 14;377(24):2313-2324. 

      Click here to access this article.

      Atul Gawande TED Talk: 

      June, 2016

      Title: Professional Identity Formation: Role of CPD

      Presenters & Facilitators: Barbara Barnes, MD and Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP

      There has been considerable recent literature on the topic of professional identify formation, particularly for students and residents. This issue is also extremely relevant to practicing health professionals, particularly as they experience career transitions and confront a changing healthcare environment. In this session we will be discussing the topic based on one primary and several other articles as well as a recent interview with Dr. Fred Hafferty. We will explore how this concept relates to CPD and how attendees can address professional identity formation in their CPD programs. Participants may find it useful to read the articles ahead of the session and consider how the views expressed may inform their own thinking and practice related to the topic.

      Article to be Reviewed

      Hafferty, FW, Alternative Framings, Countervailing Visions: Locating the "P" in Professional Identity Formation, Academic Medicine 2016:91:2:171-174

      Interview with the Author

      http://s3.amazonaws.com/AKIAJLYL55VQXLE4XG3Q-0-Tammy/Friday%20interview-720.mp4

      Additional Suggested Readings

      Cruess, RL, Amending Miller's Pyramid to Include Professional Identity Formation, Academic Medicine 2016:91:2:180-185


      May 27, 2016

      Title: Learning from each other, building collective minds, and other behaviors exhibited by highly effective clinical teams: Implications for CPD

      Presenter: John Parboosingh, MB FRCSC

      Facilitators: Curt Olson, PhD

      Journal articles in support of this premise will be reviewed at the Journal Club.

      Participants will be invited to discuss the statement that “conversations between networked professionals are essential components of the learning process (Pedagogy) and should receive more attention in CME/CPD sessions.

      Articles to be Reviewed

      Suchman, A. Organizations as machines, organizations as conversations: Two core metaphors and their consequences. Med Care 2011;49: S43–S48

      Link to article alternate link

      Jordan ME, Lanham HJ, Crabtree BF, et al. The role of conversation in health care interventions: Enabling sensemaking and learning. Implement Sci. 2009:4:1-15.

      Link to article

      Additional Suggested Readings


      Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines”? Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004;29(7473):1013-1018.

      Hess, D et al: Enhancing engagement in practice improvement: A conceptual framework .Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2015; 35(1): 71–79.

      Abbey N. Developing 21st Century Teaching and Learning: Dialogic Literacy. Johns Hopkins School of Education.2008.

      http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/literacy/articles/developing-21st-century-teaching/index.html

      Margolis A, Parboosingh J. Networked Learning and Network Science: Potential Applications to Health Professionals' Continuing Education and Development. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions: Summer 2015 - Volume 35 - Issue 3 - p 211–219.


      April 27, 2016

      Title: Preparation for future learning as a missing competency in health professions education

      Presenter: Don Moore, PhD

      Facilitators: Mila Kostic, CHCP, FACEHP

      Overview: 

      The authors state that the evidence suggests that clinicians may not be learning effectively from all facets of their practices. They have not been prepared for future learning. Preparation for future learning is understood to be the capacity to learn new information, to use resources effectively, and to invent new strategies for learning and problem-solving, supporting the use of adaptive expertise in novel circumstances.

      In a previous article, the authors further state that the CE community has relied on the adult education model of the “self-regulating learner” which they consider to be flawed. In that article, they review the assumptions that underlie the idea of the “self-regulating learner” in CE and why these assumptions are faulty. Rather than trying to link the “faulty” self-regulating learner model to formal CE activities their recommendation is that (1) the CE community should recognize that adaptive expertise is needed in practice settings to address novel challenges and (2) focus on practice-embedded learning activities that would require that clinicians be “prepared for future learning”. They review the instructional conditions that they suggest promote preparation for future learning.

      They conclude with suggestions for moving forward.

      Journal Club Questions:

      1. What is preparation for future learning?

      2. How are students prepared for future learning?

      3. What is the role of the basic sciences in preparing students for future learning?

      4. How can what the authors propose be used in CPD learning activities?

      5. Is there any part of the article that you have concerns about?

      Recommended Reading

      Mylopoulos M, et al, Preparation for future learning: a missing competency in health professions education? Medical Education 2016; 50: 115–123.

      Link to full text article


      February 24, 2016

      Title: INQUIRY-TERMS- LEARNING- PERFORMANCE: Mutually Beneficial Exchanges

      Presenter: Alan Knox, PhD, EED, University of Wisconsin

      Facilitators: Curtis Olson, PhD, University of WisconsinMila Kostic, University of Pennsylvania

      Summary

      The SACME VJC on Wednesday, February 24 is about use of terminology to connect scholarly inquiry and professional learning activities. The recent JCEHP supplement on terminology, and a current International Compendium, illustrate ways to enhance mutually beneficial exchanges between scholarly inquiry and effective professional learning activities. This VLC session will be moderated by Alan Knox, who three years ago became an emeritus professor of education at the University of Wisconsin, and continues his long association with the UW School of Medicine and Public Health, Office of Continuing Professional Development. His recent book is Improving Professional Learning (2016) Stylus Publishing.

      Plan

      Preparation for the February 24 VJC session includes the following overview, and reading several related statements. Proposed discussion questions are provided.

      Words Matter! A distinctive feature of the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education (SACME), among professional associations generally, is the centrality of mutually beneficial exchanges that occurred between scholarly practitioners and scholars of practice. For generations, SACME members, along with contributors, consulting editors, and readers of the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (JCEHP) have used their experience from various specialties in the helping professions. This abundance of experience and vision is especially apparent, at a time when there is a World Congress on Continuing Professional Development.

      The Fall 2015 JCEHP supplement based on the Terminology Project, includes an editorial1 which is the main reading in preparation for the February 24, 2016 VJC session. A related reading is the editorial’s reference 8, on research to practice, based on a thematic analysis of earlier articles reported in JCEHP,2, regarding interrelated concepts and words for effective communication in the field.

      The recent launch by practitioners and scholars of an International Compendium of Adult and Continuing Education (ICACE) provides both an opportunity and a resource of potential interest to VJC participants. An e- edition of the Compendium will provide a resource that builds on the pioneering terminology project, which focused on terminology related to four important types of professional learning activities. However, the Compendium will include more than 100 brief articles and related concepts, envisioned in the 2006 JCEHP article on systemic connections, that reflect the broad scope of major relationships entailed in effective professional learning and quality improvement.

      This opportunity will occur because during 2016, proposals to author an article are being received from able practitioners and scholars from various countries and types of continuing education organizations. For interested VJC participants, a link is provided to the Compendium website, and to the presentation to launch the Compendium at a recent international conference general session.

      During our hour-long February 25 VJC session, we will discuss ways in which each of us can guide mutually beneficial exchanges among people engaged in inquiry (educational research and evaluation) and practitioners, focus on enhanced professional learning and performance. As suggested in the recent JCEHP editorial, the effectiveness of professional learning and quality improvement sessions reflects a combination of personal and situational influences. Similar influences contribute to excellent professional performance. Clear understanding of terms for important concepts can facilitate exchanges among practitioners and scholars.

      Discussion Questions

      1. How important is it, in your University professional development program, to strengthen connections between scholarship and practice by people who help conduct professional learning activities for members of the health professions?

      2. When conducting your professional development programs, how would you characterize typical relationships between scholarship and practice?

      3. How difficult is use of terminology regarding communication among people in various specialties?

      4. How does increased inter-professional education affect conducting professional learning activities and enhancing professional performance and benefits for patients?

      Articles

      1. Knox AB. Reflections on Terminology in the Continuing Education of Health Professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2015;35:S43-S44.

      2. MacIntosh-Murray A, Perrier L, Davis D. Research to practice in The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions: A thematic analysis of volumes 1 through 24. J Cont Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(3):230-243.


      October 2, 2015

      Title: What are the implications of implementation science for medical education?

      Presenters: David Price, MD, FAAFP, FACEHPABMS Research and Education Foundation Barbara Barnes, MD, MS University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

      Facilitator: Mila Kostic, University of Pennsylvania

      Article:

      What are the implications of implementation science for medical education? Price, David; Barnes, Barbara

      Med Educ Online 2015, 20: 27003 

      Additional Reading Materials:

      May be posted shortly.

      June 3, 2015

      Title:

      Active Engagement in Professional Improvement

      Presenter: Dr. Alan Knox, University of Wisconsin

      Facilitator: Curt Olson, PhD

      This session will explore why and how to engage health professionals in continuing education and quality improvement activities that enhance performance. The recent article to read beforehand is:

      Hess, Reed, Turko, Parboosingh, Bernstein “enhancing provider engagement in practice improvement” Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions,35(1):71-79,2015.

      Click to access article

      Our session may encourage you to try some additional engagement strategies, such as: peer interactions, appreciative inquiry, use of technology, and evaluation feedback.

      In preparation for the session, read the article,  review  the following discussion questions, select some that you want to discuss, and share your comments.

      1. What is the contribution of structured/facilitated dialogue to guide enhanced learning and improved practice?

      2. How is praxis between concepts and performance important to enhanced teamwork and engagement?

      3. How central is the affective domain (feelings, emotions, motives, commitment) to the JCEHP article conceptual framework and procedures?

      4. Why is individualized, informal and self-directed learning important for engagement ?

      5. How might appreciative inquiry based on shared stories contribute to guidelines that enhance improvement?

      6. Why is trust and a supportive context important for practice improvement?

      7. What types of learning and improvement activities warrant greater use?

      8. What are some effective ways to estimate participant readiness to engage in performance improvement activities?

      April 27, 2015

      Title:

      Critical Thinking Strategies

      Presenter: Annette Donawa, PhD, Johns Hopkins University

      Facilitator: Mila Kostic, University of Pennsylvania

      Learning Objectives:
      - Review and discuss the Elder & Paul Elements of Thought critical thinking model.
      - Discuss critical thinking strategies. - Review the State, Elaborate, Explicate, and Illustrate (SEEI) model.

      - Discuss how this framework can be applied and integrated into CME.

      Article:

      Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies, Geert ten Dam, Monique VolmanLearning and Instruction 14 (2004) 359–379

      Additional Resources:

      Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking

      Defining Critical Thinking

      Our Concept and definition of Critical Thinking

      Professional Development Model – Colleges and Universities that Foster Critical Thinking

      Role of Socratic Questioning in Thinking, Teaching, and Learning

      Becoming a Critic of your own thinking

      March 6, 2015

      Title: 

      Effectiveness of CME 

      Presenter: Don Moore, PhD

      Facilitator: Curt Olson, PhD

      Background: Ever since George Miller’s “Continuing Education for What?” in the 1960s, there have been concerns that CME does not work. Sibley’s report in the early 1980s1 reinforced those concerns. In many ways, these concerns have prevented the field from reaching its full potential, even though since 1977, there have been several meta-analyses that demonstrated that CME is effective, but under certain circumstances. Now, under the auspices of the Accreditation Council for CME, Cervero and Gaines have developed a synthesis of the meta-analyses and have produced a more positive picture of CME effectiveness.

      It would be helpful for you to read the report “Effectiveness of CME: Updated synthesis of systematic reviews”, July 2014.

      After a short summary of the report, we will examine these questions:1. Are systematic reviews and meta-analysis the right methodologies to examine the issue of effectiveness?2. Did the report (or the methodologies) leave something out?3. What do the findings mean for the day-to-day practice of CME?4. Do we really know what conclusion #3 (“more interactive, more methods, multiple exposures”) means?5. When Cervero and Gaines say “it will be important to incorporate the insights from the scientific study of CME effectiveness” (the last phrase in the report), what do they mean?6. Do you agree with “reforming CME is less a knowledge problem than a political problem of changing the systems of which CME is an important constituent element”?

      1. Sibley JC, Sackett DL, Neufeld V, Gerrard B, Rudnick KV, Fraser W. A randomized controlled trial of continuing medical education. N.Engl.J.Med. 1982;306:511-515.

      Recommended Readings: 

      • Accreditation Council for CME Publishes Two ReportsAddressing Important Issues in CME click to access

      February 4, 2015

      Title:

      What determines how we practice? Insights from the Asch study

      Presenter: Robert Englander, MD, Senior Director for Competency-based Learning and Assessment, Association of American Medical Colleges

      Facilitator: Curt Olson, PhD

      Background: A fundamental assumption of continuing education of health professionals is that clinical performance is educationally sensitive. That is, it can be improved through activities aimed at changing practice. However, studies by David Asch, MD, MBA and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania suggest that a powerful predictor of how a physician practices is where he or she received residency training.
      Questions to be addressed in the discussion include:1. How can we make sense out of the findings of the Asch study? What hypotheses might account for them?2. What questions does this study raise regarding physician performance?3. What other factors are thought/known to influence how physicians practice?4. What is the evidence that these other factors are influential?
      Dr. Englander has selected the following recent articles to stimulate discussion on this topic.

      Recommended Readings: (links coming soon)

      • D.A. Asch, S. Nicholson, S. Srinivas, J. Herrin, A.J. Epstein. Evaluating obstetrical residency programs using patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, September 23/30, 2009, vol. 302, pp. 1277-83
      • D.A. Asch, A. Epstein, S. Nicholson. Evaluating medical training programs by the quality of care delivered by their alumni. Journal of the American Medical Association, September 5, 2007, vol. 298, pp. 1049-51.

      January 8, 2015

      Title:

      "Flipping" the Classroom Approach in Medical Education

      Presenter: William Rayburn, MD, MBA, University of New Mexico

      Facilitator: Barbara Barnes, MD, University of Pittsburgh

      Background: The flipped classroom describes an educational approach that reverses the traditional lecture and homework elements of a course. For those considering whether to flip their own classroom, a valuable question to ask is: “Do I use the time I spend in front of my students to best effect?” If the answer is “no,” then a transition to the flipped classroom, or adoption of at least some of its features, could represent a simple and practical way of reinvigorating teaching and learning.
      Objectives:
      1. Describe the format of “flipping” the classroom.2. Understand an ongoing project to illustrate tips about “flipping” a lecture.3. Discuss implications of this approach with CME/CE/CPD.
      Recommended Readings:
      Primary

      Moffet J. Twelve tips for “flipping” the classroom. Medical Teacher 2014, 1-6, (early online). [Link requested - will post soon]

      Other

      McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, et al. The Flipped Classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med 2014; 89: 236-43. Link to article.

      Leung JM, Jin Y, Yung AL. Short review of the flipped classroom approach. Medical Education 2014; 48: 1127. Link to article.

      July 31, 2014

      Title: Basics of Evaluation Science as Applied to Health Professions Education

      Presenter: Thomas J. Van Hoof, MD, EdD, Associate Professor, University of Connecticut Schools of Nursing & Medicine

      Description: The purpose of this session is to outline some basic principles and concepts of evaluation science that are critical to health professions education, including formative and summative evaluation and process and outcome evaluation. Through reflection and pre-reading, participants will be prepared to discuss some challenges that they face in planning and implementing educational activities and quality improvement programs and to consider how evaluation can be helpful to improving and to judging such efforts..

      Reflective Questions (prior to reading): 

      1. What is the distinction between formative evaluation and summative evaluation?
      2. What is the difference between “assessment” and “evaluation”?
      3. What are different ways in which one can use formative evaluation to plan and implement a program?
      4. Why is a process evaluation critical to a summative evaluation?
      5. Is evaluation always necessary and why is stakeholder perspective so important to evaluation efforts?

      Recommended Readings (prior to session but after reflection): 

      1. Weiss CH. “Purposes of Evaluation” (Chapter 2, pp. 10-23) in Evaluation. (2nd Ed.). 1998. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Download not available. Please check with your institution's library for access. 
      2. Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, et al. (2006). The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, S1-8. Download PDF file.
      3. Moore DE, Green JS, Gallis HA. (2009). Achieving desired results and improved outcomes: Integrating planning and assessment throughout learning activities. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 29,1, 1-15. Download PDF file.

      Suggested Readings:

      1. Morrison J. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: evaluation. BMJ, 326, 385-387.
      2. Wilkes M, Bligh J. (1999). Evaluating educational interventions. BMJ, 318, 1269-1272.
      3. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Chapters 3-8 (pp. 21-74) in Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. (3rd Ed.). 2006. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
      4. Brookfield SD. “Evaluating Learning and Its Facilitation” (Chapter 11, pp. 261-282) in Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. 1986. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

      May 29, 2014 

      Topic for Discussion:Self-Other Agreement in Multisource Feedback: Are Physicians Really So Bad at Self-Assessment (and Does it Matter)?

      Presenter: Curtis Olson, PhD

      Facilitator: Barbara Barnes, MD

      Background: It is often stated that physicians are not good at self-assessment, and indeed there is a substantial body of evidence that supports this assertion. Multisource feedback is one strategy for addressing this problem and it has been the object of many studies. The present study examines the level of agreement between physician self-assessments and those of their colleagues and patients and explores factors that might influence the degree of agreement. Discussion of this study will raise some important questions about the global assertion that physicians can’t self-assess and suggest future lines of inquiry to enhance our understanding of this important topic.

      Questions to be addressed in the discussion include:
      What is self-assessment and what types of self-assessments are expected of physicians?
      Why do the authors think self-other agreement in assessments is important?
      What type of self-assessment was examined in this study?
      To what extent were the self-assessments of physicians who took part in this study congruent with those of colleagues and patients?
      What assumptions do the authors make about the relationship between self-other agreement and clinical performance?
      What does this study contribute to the literature on physician self-assessment and self-other agreement?
      What is the evidence on the relationship between self-other agreement and performance?
      What implications might this study have for using MSF?  For using self-assessments generally?

      Curt has selected the following recent articles to stimulate discussion on this topic.


      Articles for Review in Support of the Discussion:

      • Roberts, M. J., Campbell, J. L., Richards, S. H., & Wright, C. (2013). Self-other agreement in multisource feedback: the influence of doctor and rater group characteristics. J Contin Educ Health Prof, 33(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1002/chp.2116 - read/download article

      • Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2008). "I'll never play professional football" and other fallacies of self-assessment. J Contin Educ Health Prof, 28(1), 14-19. doi: 10.1002/chp.150 - read/download article

      Additional readings for those who want to explore the topic further can be found in Roberts et al.’s excellent reference list.

      • Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self-other agreement: does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577-598.

      April 24, 2014 

      Topic for Discussion:Assessment of Outcomes of Simulation Education/training Associated with Team Training and Competencies Beyond Clinical Skills Training 

      Presenter: Barbara Barnes, MDFacilitator: Curtis Olson, PhD

      Background: There is increased interest in using simulation for training of healthcare professionals to function in new models of care and to address competencies beyond medical knowledge and clinical care. An AAMC study in 2011 demonstrated that 90% of medical schools used simulation to educate on communication skills and 90% to assess these skills.   For teaching hospitals, this was 92% and 49% respectively. However, despite these findings there has not been a rigorous assessment of the relationship between performance in the simulated and actual environments. Barbara has selected the following recent articles to stimulate discussion on this topic.

      Articles for Review in Support of the Discussion: 

      1. Curtis JR, et al. Effect of communication skills training for residents and nurse practitioners on quality of communication with patients with serious illness: a randomized trial. JAMA, 2013 December 4; 310(21):2271-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282081 - read/download article

      2. Yardley, S., W Irvine, A. and Lefroy, J. (2013), Minding the gap between communication skills simulation and authentic experience. Medical Education, 47: 495–510.doi: 10.1111/medu.12146 - read/download article

      Additional background for this topic comes from JCEHP Volume 32, Issue 4 which contains a number of interesting articles that address simulation specifically in the CE context.  The article by Rosen et al provides a review of the literature on simulations that take place in the workplace (in situ).  The second article by Curtis et al discusses the issue of fidelity in simulation and provides an interesting and sometimes counterintuitive perspective.

      Participant Guidelines: Click here for guidelines regarding technical issues and procedures during the webinar.

      View Session Recording: Click here.




      Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software