Search

A social accountability mandate for Canadian medical schools formally emerged in Canada with changes to accreditation standards in 2015. However, how social accountability is defined and operationalized within medical schools has transpired independently. Key enablers of social accountability in Canadian medical schools have been largely unexplored. This paper is the first of a two part series that seeks to explore drivers of social accountability in a sample of Canadian medical schools. Nine key drivers of social accountability emerged from the data including a unified vision, committed leadership, accreditation standards, champions of social accountability, authentic community engagement, community-based learning opportunities, a supportive organizational and governance structure, diversity within medical schools, and measurement of progress and outcomes. This is the first study of its kind to examine what is driving social accountability across Canadian medical schools. An appreciative inquiry approach highlights areas of progress for future work to focus and build upon. This paper presents the findings from part one of the study – exploring the themes emerging from key informant interviews with senior leaders. A second paper will dive into the broader perspectives of faculty, staff and students, to explore more fully the varying perspectives of social accountability within colleges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Changing the current geographical maldistribution of the medical workforce is important for global health. Research regarding programs that train doctors for work with disadvantaged, rural populations is needed. This paper explores one approach of remote supervision of registrars in isolated rural practice. Researching how learning occurs without on-site supervision may also reveal other key elements of postgraduate education. Methods: Thematic analysis of in-depth interviews exploring 11 respondents’ experiences of learning via remote supervision. Results: Remote supervision created distinctive learning environments. Respondents’ attributes interacted with external supports to influence whether and how their learning was promoted or impeded. Registrars with clinical and/or life experience, who were insightful and motivated to direct their learning, turned the challenges of isolated practice into opportunities that accelerated their professional development. Discussion: Remote supervision was not necessarily problematic but instead provided rich learning for doctors training in and for the context where they were needed. Registrars learnt through clinical responsibility for defined populations and longitudinal, supportive supervisory relationships. Responsibility and continuity may be as important as supervisory proximity for experienced registrars. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]