Search

Purpose: Internationally, health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) are often developed to promote engagement in educational scholarship, yet little is known about how HPESUs change over time or what factors support their longevity. In hopes of helping HPESUs thrive, this study explored factors that shaped the evolution of 8 HPESUs over the past 14 years., Method: This study involved retrospective case-study analysis of the 8 American, Canadian, and Dutch HPESUs profiled in a 2004 publication. First, the research team summarized key elements of HPESUs from the 2004 articles, then conducted semistructured interviews with the current unit directors. In the first set of questions, directors were asked to reflect on how the unit had changed over time, what successes the unit enjoyed, what enabled these successes, what challenges the unit encountered, and how these challenges were managed. In the second set of questions, questions were tailored to each unit, following up on unique elements from the original article. The team used Braun and Clarke's 6-phase approach to thematic analysis to identify, analyze, and report themes., Results: The histories of the units varied widely-some had grown by following their original mandates, some had significant mission shifts, and others had nearly disappeared. Current HPESU directors identified 3 key factors that shaped their HPESU's longitudinal development: the people working within and overseeing the HPESU (the need for a critical mass of scholars, a pipeline for developing scholars, and effective leadership), institutional structures (issues of centralization, unit priorities, and clear messaging), and funding (the need for multiple funding sources)., Conclusions: Study findings offer insights that may help current HPESU directors to strategically plan for their unit's continued development. Tactically harnessing the factors identified could help directors ensure their HPESU's growth and contend with the challenges that threaten the unit's success.

Purpose: Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) are organizational structures within which a group is substantively engaged in health professions education scholarship. Little research investigates the strategies employed by HPESU administrative leaders to secure and maintain HPESU success. Using institutional entrepreneurship as a theoretical lens, this study asks: Do HPESU administrative leaders act as institutional entrepreneurs (IEs)?, Method: This study recontextualizes two preexisting qualitative datasets that comprised interviews with leaders in health professions education in Canada (2011-2012) and Australia and New Zealand (2013-1014). Two researchers iteratively analyzed the data using the institutional entrepreneurship construct until consensus was achieved. A third investigator independently reviewed and contributed to the recontextualized analyses. A summary of the analyses was shared with all authors, and their feedback was incorporated into the final interpretations., Results: HPESU leaders act as IEs in three ways. First, HPESU leaders construct arguments and position statements about how the HPESU resolves an institution's problem(s). This theorization discourse justifies the existence and support of the HPESU. Second, the leaders strategically cultivate relationships with the leader of the institution within which the HPESU sits, the leaders of large academic groups with which the HPESU partners, and the clinician educators who want careers in health professions education. Third, the leaders work to increase the local visibility of the HPESU., Conclusions: Practical insights into how institutional leaders interested in launching an HPESU can harness these findings are discussed.

Purpose: The medical education community is rapidly accepting the use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) as a means of assessing residents. Stakeholder engagement is advised in developing EPAs, but no studies have investigated the role of patient input. In this qualitative study, the authors investigated what patient input may add to designing a patient-centered EPA., Method: The authors chose "management of acute low back pain (LBP)" as a common, important clinical task on which to base the patient-centered EPA. In 2015, 14 patients who presented to a teaching hospital with acute LBP participated in semistructured interviews exploring their illness experience and expectations of doctors. Clinicians representing multiple disciplines participated in a focus group. The authors used the Framework Method to analyze data, identifying and developing themes, similarities, and differences between patient and clinician input. They used the findings to develop the EPA. Through an iterative procedure of data review and tracking data sources, they determined how patient and clinician input informed each EPA descriptor., Results: Drawing from their firsthand experience of LBP, patients described unique expectations of trainees which directly informed EPA descriptors. For example, the authors primarily used patients' detailed descriptions of desirable and observable trainee behaviors to inform the required attitudes descriptor., Conclusions: Patients can provide unique contributions, complementary to those of clinicians, to EPAs. Consultations with patients led to the development of a patient-centered EPA, which aligned best clinical practice with patient expectations. Educators seeking to apply patient-centered care to EPA development could adopt a similar approach.

Problem: Health professions education scholarship (HPES) is an important and growing field of inquiry. Problematically, consistent use of terminology regarding the individual roles and organizational structures that are active in this field are lacking. This inconsistency impedes the transferability of current and future findings related to the roles and organizational structures of HPES., Approach: Based on data collected during interviews with HPES leaders in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the Netherlands, the authors constructed working definitions for some of the professional roles and an organizational structure that support HPES. All authors reviewed the definitions to ensure relevance across multiple countries., Outcomes: The authors define and offer illustrative examples of three professional roles in HPES (clinician educator, HPES research scientist, and HPES administrative leader) and an organizational structure that can support HPES participation (HPES unit). These working definitions are foundational and not all-encompassing and, thus, are offered as stimulus for international dialogue and understanding., Next Steps: With these working definitions, scholars and administrative leaders can examine HPES roles and organizational structures across and between national contexts to decide how lessons learned in other contexts can be applied to their local contexts. Although rigorously constructed, these definitions need to be vetted by the international HPES community. The authors argue that these definitions are sufficiently transferable to support such scholarly investigation and debate.