BACKGROUND: Clinician-educators are encouraged to engage in scholarly activity despite numerous barriers to conducting educational research. We found no reports of formal educational research groups among general internists. AIM: To evaluate a Scholarship in Medical Education Group (SIMEG) for general internists. METHODS: The setting is a Division of General Internal Medicine at a large academic medical center. In 2005 twenty-two faculty members formed SIMEG to collaborate on educational research and award protected days for scholarly education projects. Through monthly dialogue and literature review, standards for critiquing educational research were created. RESULTS: A total of 63 protected days were awarded to successful applicants. SIMEG members' curriculum vitae were monitored over two years. From 2005 to 2006, SIMEG members' presentations (15 to 29; p=0.125), peer-reviewed publications (8 to 27; p=0.016) and collaborative projects (19 to 42; p=0.047) increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our educational research group enjoyed improving scholarly productivity over two years. Keys to success were supportive leadership, a culture of collaboration, creating a useful framework for critiquing research, and involving medical learners as co-investigators. Since faculty members are pressured to teach and care for patients while maintaining scholarly productivity, groups like SIMEG should become increasingly valued.
BACKGROUND: Clinician-educators are encouraged to engage in scholarly activity despite numerous barriers to conducting educational research. We found no reports of formal educational research groups among general internists. AIM: To evaluate a Scholarship in Medical Education Group (SIMEG) for general internists. METHODS: The setting is a Division of General Internal Medicine at a large academic medical center. In 2005 twenty-two faculty members formed SIMEG to collaborate on educational research and award protected days for scholarly education projects. Through monthly dialogue and literature review, standards for critiquing educational research were created. RESULTS: A total of 63 protected days were awarded to successful applicants. SIMEG members' curriculum vitae were monitored over two years. From 2005 to 2006, SIMEG members' presentations (15 to 29; p=0.125), peer-reviewed publications (8 to 27; p=0.016) and collaborative projects (19 to 42; p=0.047) increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our educational research group enjoyed improving scholarly productivity over two years. Keys to success were supportive leadership, a culture of collaboration, creating a useful framework for critiquing research, and involving medical learners as co-investigators. Since faculty members are pressured to teach and care for patients while maintaining scholarly productivity, groups like SIMEG should become increasingly valued.