Search

Issue: Life-long learning is a skill that is central to competent health professionals, and medical educators have sought to understand how adult professionals learn, adapt to new information, and independently seek to learn more. Accrediting bodies now mandate that training programs teach in ways that promote self-directed learning (SDL) but do not provide adequate guidance on how to address this requirement. Evidence: The model for the SDL mandate in physician training is based mostly on early childhood and secondary education evidence and literature, and may not capture the unique environment of medical training and clinical education. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about how medical schools and postgraduate training programs should implement and evaluate SDL educational interventions. The Shapiro Institute for Education and Research, in conjunction with the Association of American Medical Colleges, convened teams from eight medical schools from North America to address the challenge of defining, implementing, and evaluating SDL and the structures needed to nurture and support its development in health professional training. Implications: In this commentary, the authors describe SDL in Medical Education, (SDL-ME), which is a construct of learning and pedagogy specific to medical students and physicians in training. SDL-ME builds on the foundations of SDL and self-regulated learning theory, but is specifically contextualized for the unique responsibilities of physicians to patients, inter-professional teams, and society. Through consensus, the authors offer suggestions for training programs to teach and evaluate SDL-ME. To teach self-directed learning requires placing the construct in the context of patient care and of an obligation to society at large. The SDL-ME construct builds upon SDL and SRL frameworks and suggests SDL as foundational to health professional identity formation. KEYWORDSself-directed learning; graduate medical education; undergraduate medical education; theoretical frameworks Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2021.1938074. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction: Faculty development in the clinical setting is challenging to implement and assess. This study evaluated an intervention (IG) to enhance bedside teaching in three content areas: critical thinking (CT), high-value care (HVC), and health care equity (HCE). Methods: The Communities of Practice model and Theoretical Domains Framework informed IG development. Three multidepartmental working groups (WGs) (CT, HVC, HCE) developed three 2-hour sessions delivered over three months. Evaluation addressed faculty satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and behavior change. Data collection included surveys and observations of teaching during patient care. Primary analyses compared counts of post-IG teaching behaviors per hour across intervention group (IG), comparison group (CG), and WG groups. Statistical analyses of counts were modeled with generalized linear models using the Poisson distribution. Results: Eighty-seven faculty members participated (IG n = 30, CG n = 28, WG n = 29). Sixty-eight (IG n = 28, CG n = 23, WG n = 17) were observed, with a median of 3 observation sessions and 5.2 hours each. Postintervention comparison of teaching (average counts/hour) showed statistically significant differences across groups: CT CG = 4.1, IG = 4.8, WG = 8.2; HVC CG = 0.6, IG = 0.9, WG = 1.6; and HCE CG = 0.2, IG = 0.4, WG = 1.4 (P <.001). Discussion: A faculty development intervention focused on teaching in the context of providing clinical care resulted in more frequent teaching of CT, HVC, and HCE in the intervention group compared with controls. WG faculty demonstrated highest teaching counts and provide benchmarks to assess future interventions. With the creation of durable teaching materials and a cadre of trained faculty, this project sets a foundation for infusing substantive content into clinical teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Residents play a significant role in teaching, but formal training, feedback, and evaluation are needed. Aims: Our aims were to assess resident teaching skills in the resident-as-teacher program, quantify correlations of faculty evaluations with resident self-evaluations, compare resident-as-teacher evaluations with clinical evaluations, and evaluate the resident-as-teacher program. Method: The resident-as-teacher training program is a simulated, videotaped teaching encounter with a trained medical student and standardized teaching evaluation tool. Evaluations from the resident-as-teacher training program were compared to evaluations of resident teaching done by faculty, residents, and medical students from the clinical setting. Results: Faculty evaluation of resident teaching skills in the resident-as-teacher program showed a mean total score of 4.5 ± 0.5 with statistically significant correlations between faculty assessment and resident self-evaluations ( r == 0.47; p < 0.001). However, resident self-evaluation of teaching skill was lower than faculty evaluation (mean difference: 0.4; 95%% CI 0.3-0.6). When compared to the clinical setting, resident-as-teacher evaluations were significantly correlated with faculty and resident evaluations, but not medical student evaluations. Evaluations from both the resident-as-teacher program and the clinical setting improved with duration of residency. Conclusions: The resident-as-teacher program provides a method to train, give feedback, and evaluate resident teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]