BACKGROUND: Despite a mandate to teach quality improvement (QI) to residents, many training programs lack faculty capacity to deliver a QI curriculum. OBJECTIVE: We piloted a co-learning curriculum in QI to train residents while simultaneously developing QI teachers. We evaluated the curriculum's acceptability and feasibility and its effect on faculty engagement in doing and teaching QI. METHODS: The curriculum involved 2 half-day, interactive sessions, a team-based QI project, and end-of-year project presentations. Key curriculum design principles included (1) residents and faculty co-attend all interactive sessions, (2) residents and faculty work together on team-based QI projects, and (3) QI projects align with divisional QI priorities. Using the Kirkpatrick framework for learner outcomes, we focused our program evaluation on Level 1 (satisfaction) and Level 2 (knowledge and skills acquisition) outcomes using year-end curriculum evaluations. RESULTS: Our study included 14 residents (70%) and 6 faculty members (30%). With respect to satisfaction (Kirkpatrick Level 1 outcome), 93% (13 of 14) of residents and 100% (6 of 6) of faculty participants rated the overall curriculum as "above average" or "outstanding." Regarding faculty knowledge and skills acquisition (Kirkpatrick Level 2 outcomes), faculty self-rated their QI knowledge and interest in QI higher than their intent to incorporate QI into future practice and their comfort in teaching or supervising QI projects. All 5 faculty respondents (100%) rated the co-learning model for faculty development in QI as "above average" or "outstanding." CONCLUSIONS: Teaching QI to residents and faculty as co-learners is feasible and acceptable and offers a promising model for programs to teach QI to residents while concurrently building faculty capacity.
BACKGROUND: Despite a mandate to teach quality improvement (QI) to residents, many training programs lack faculty capacity to deliver a QI curriculum. OBJECTIVE: We piloted a co-learning curriculum in QI to train residents while simultaneously developing QI teachers. We evaluated the curriculum's acceptability and feasibility and its effect on faculty engagement in doing and teaching QI. METHODS: The curriculum involved 2 half-day, interactive sessions, a team-based QI project, and end-of-year project presentations. Key curriculum design principles included (1) residents and faculty co-attend all interactive sessions, (2) residents and faculty work together on team-based QI projects, and (3) QI projects align with divisional QI priorities. Using the Kirkpatrick framework for learner outcomes, we focused our program evaluation on Level 1 (satisfaction) and Level 2 (knowledge and skills acquisition) outcomes using year-end curriculum evaluations. RESULTS: Our study included 14 residents (70%) and 6 faculty members (30%). With respect to satisfaction (Kirkpatrick Level 1 outcome), 93% (13 of 14) of residents and 100% (6 of 6) of faculty participants rated the overall curriculum as "above average" or "outstanding." Regarding faculty knowledge and skills acquisition (Kirkpatrick Level 2 outcomes), faculty self-rated their QI knowledge and interest in QI higher than their intent to incorporate QI into future practice and their comfort in teaching or supervising QI projects. All 5 faculty respondents (100%) rated the co-learning model for faculty development in QI as "above average" or "outstanding." CONCLUSIONS: Teaching QI to residents and faculty as co-learners is feasible and acceptable and offers a promising model for programs to teach QI to residents while concurrently building faculty capacity.
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Linda A Headrick; Sunita Mutha; Mary T Coleman; Joseph O'Donnell; Paul V Miles Journal: Acad Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Brian M Wong; Ayelet Kuper; Elisa Hollenberg; Edward E Etchells; Wendy Levinson; Kaveh G Shojania Journal: Acad Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Mark E Splaine; Greg Ogrinc; Stuart C Gilman; David C Aron; Carlos A Estrada; Gary E Rosenthal; Sei Lee; Robert S Dittus; Paul B Batalden Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Jennifer Pearce; Mala K Mann; Caryl Jones; Susanne van Buschbach; Miranda Olff; Jonathan I Bisson Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2012 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Claudia Kroker-Bode; Shari A Whicker; Elizabeth R Pline; Tamela Morgan; Joshua Gazo; Mariah Rudd; David W Musick Journal: J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect Date: 2017-12-14
Authors: Suzanne Lazorick; Arianne Teherani; Luan Lawson; Michael Dekhtyar; Jason Higginson; Jenna Garris; Elizabeth G Baxley Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Reem A Mustafa; Kristin Gillenwater; Suzanne K Miller; Abdelrahman Aly; Hema Pamulapati; Travis M Sifers; Darwish Naji; Betty Drees; David Wooldridge Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2020-08