Arone Wondwossen Fantaye1, Simon Kitto1,2, Paul Hendry1,3, Lorne Wiesenfeld4,5, Sharon Whiting6,7, Catherine Gnyra8, Karine Fournier9, Heather Lochnan1,10. 1. Office of Continuing Professional Development, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 5. Postgraduate Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 6. Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ontario, Canada. 7. Office of Faculty of Affairs, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 8. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 9. Health Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 10. Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario.
Abstract
Background: Over the last 31 years, there have been several institutional efforts to better recognize and reward clinician teachers. However, the perception of inadequate recognition and rewards by clinician teachers for their clinical teaching performance and achievements remains. The objective of this narrative review is two-fold: deepen understanding of the attributes of excellent clinician teachers considered for recognition and reward decisions and identify the barriers clinician teachers face in receiving recognition and rewards. Methods: We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Education Source and Web of Science to identify relevant papers published between 1990 and 2020. After screening for eligibility, we conducted a content analysis of the findings from 43 relevant papers to identify key trends and issues in the literature. Results: We found the majority of relevant papers from the US context, a paucity of relevant papers from the Canadian context, and a declining international focus on the attributes of excellent clinician teachers and barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers since 2010. 'Provides feedback', 'excellent communication skills', 'good supervision', and 'organizational skills' were common cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. 'Stimulates', 'passionate and enthusiastic', and 'creates supportive environment', were common non-cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. The devaluation of teaching, unclear criteria, and unreliable metrics were the main barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers. Conclusions: The findings of our narrative review highlight a need for local empirical research on recognition and reward issues to better inform local, context-specific reforms to policies and practices.
Background: Over the last 31 years, there have been several institutional efforts to better recognize and reward clinician teachers. However, the perception of inadequate recognition and rewards by clinician teachers for their clinical teaching performance and achievements remains. The objective of this narrative review is two-fold: deepen understanding of the attributes of excellent clinician teachers considered for recognition and reward decisions and identify the barriers clinician teachers face in receiving recognition and rewards. Methods: We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Education Source and Web of Science to identify relevant papers published between 1990 and 2020. After screening for eligibility, we conducted a content analysis of the findings from 43 relevant papers to identify key trends and issues in the literature. Results: We found the majority of relevant papers from the US context, a paucity of relevant papers from the Canadian context, and a declining international focus on the attributes of excellent clinician teachers and barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers since 2010. 'Provides feedback', 'excellent communication skills', 'good supervision', and 'organizational skills' were common cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. 'Stimulates', 'passionate and enthusiastic', and 'creates supportive environment', were common non-cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. The devaluation of teaching, unclear criteria, and unreliable metrics were the main barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers. Conclusions: The findings of our narrative review highlight a need for local empirical research on recognition and reward issues to better inform local, context-specific reforms to policies and practices.
Authors: Maria Athina Tina Martimianakis; Barret Michalec; Justin Lam; Carrie Cartmill; Janelle S Taylor; Frederic W Hafferty Journal: Acad Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Firdous Jahan; Shazia Sadaf; Saira Kalia; Abdullah Khan; Hasan Bin Hamza Journal: J Coll Physicians Surg Pak Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 0.711
Authors: Kathryn N Huggett; Ruth B Greenberg; Deepa Rao; Boyd Richards; Sheila W Chauvin; Tracy B Fulton; Summers Kalishman; John Littlefield; Linda Perkowski; Lynne Robins; Deborah Simpson Journal: Med Teach Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 3.650