Priyanka Tulshian1, Bharat Gopal2, Tina Kenyon3. 1. Contra Costa Family Medicine Residency, Martinez, CA. 2. Samaritan Family Medicine Residency, Corvalis, OR. 3. NH Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, Concord, NH.
Abstract
Introduction: A uniform method of iterative professional development for medical educators does not exist in the United States graduate medical education system. The Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Faculty Competencies Special Project Team, a subgroup of the Faculty Development Collaborative, sought to create a competency-based assessment framework for medical educators. This paper describes the feasibility and acceptance of a draft competencies resource using a survey. Methods: A mixed-methods, ten-question survey to assess the feasibility and acceptance of the draft competencies resource was created and distributed to medical educators through educational contacts from October 2019 to November 2019. Results: Eighty-six surveys were completed. Of the 86 respondents, 48 (55%) answered all the survey questions. Thematic analysis for acceptance of the draft yielded three groups, the accepting, neutral, and nonacceptance groups. Each group had distinct characteristics regarding the likelihood of accepting and using the draft competencies. Conclusions: The draft competencies are thought to be feasible, with overall acceptance in the current form. Further research will guide revisions of the competency resource before final distribution.
Introduction: A uniform method of iterative professional development for medical educators does not exist in the United States graduate medical education system. The Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Faculty Competencies Special Project Team, a subgroup of the Faculty Development Collaborative, sought to create a competency-based assessment framework for medical educators. This paper describes the feasibility and acceptance of a draft competencies resource using a survey. Methods: A mixed-methods, ten-question survey to assess the feasibility and acceptance of the draft competencies resource was created and distributed to medical educators through educational contacts from October 2019 to November 2019. Results: Eighty-six surveys were completed. Of the 86 respondents, 48 (55%) answered all the survey questions. Thematic analysis for acceptance of the draft yielded three groups, the accepting, neutral, and nonacceptance groups. Each group had distinct characteristics regarding the likelihood of accepting and using the draft competencies. Conclusions: The draft competencies are thought to be feasible, with overall acceptance in the current form. Further research will guide revisions of the competency resource before final distribution.
Authors: William F Iobst; Jonathan Sherbino; Olle Ten Cate; Denyse L Richardson; Deepak Dath; Susan R Swing; Peter Harris; Rani Mungroo; Eric S Holmboe; Jason R Frank Journal: Med Teach Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: Malathi Srinivasan; Su-Ting T Li; Fredrick J Meyers; Daniel D Pratt; John B Collins; Clarence Braddock; Kelley M Skeff; Daniel C West; Mark Henderson; Robert E Hales; Donald M Hilty Journal: Acad Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Jed D Gonzalo; Amarpreet Ahluwalia; Maria Hamilton; Heidi Wolf; Daniel R Wolpaw; Britta M Thompson Journal: Acad Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Carol Carraccio; Robert Englander; Elaine Van Melle; Olle Ten Cate; Jocelyn Lockyer; Ming-Ka Chan; Jason R Frank; Linda S Snell Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 6.893