Supporting medical education research quality: the Association of American Medical Colleges' Medical Education Research Certificate program.

The quality of the medical education research (MER) reported in the literature has been frequently criticized. Numerous reasons have been provided for these shortcomings, including the level of research training and experience of many medical school faculty. The faculty development required to improve MER can take various forms. This article describes the Medical Education Research Certificate (MERC) program, a national faculty development program that focuses exclusively on MER. Sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and led by a committee of established medical education researchers from across the United States, the MERC program is built on a set of 11 interactive workshops offered at various times and places across the United States. MERC participants can customize the program by selecting six workshops from this set to fulfill requirements for certification. This article describes the history, operations, current organization, and evaluation of the program. Key elements of the program's success include alignment of program content and focus with needs identified by prospective users, flexibility in program organization and logistics to fit participant schedules, an emphasis on practical application of MER principles in the context of the participants' activities and interests, consistency in program content and format to ensure standards of quality, and a sustainable financial model. The relationship between the national MERC program and local faculty development initiatives is also described. The success of the MERC program suggests that it may be a possible model for nationally disseminated faculty development programs in other domains.

Clerkship directors' perceptions of the impact of HCFA documentation guidelines.

PURPOSE: Chart notes are used to support billing codes under the evaluation and management guidelines of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), in addition to serving as a record of the visit. To better understand the effect of the HCFA documentation guidelines, the authors collected data on how the guidelines affect participation by university- and community-based faculty in clinical education programs. METHOD: In 2000, the authors sent six copies of their questionnaire to the associate deans of the 125 U.S. medical schools and requested they distribute them to all core clerkship directors. The questionnaire consisted of multiple-choice and short-answer questions regarding documentation of medical visits, participation of community-based faculty, understanding of HCFA documentation guidelines, and effects on education programs. RESULTS: The response rate was about 50%. Most of the 379 clerkship directors who responded (77%) stated they were aware the HCFA documentation guidelines include specifications regarding the role medical students can play and documentation of medical visits, and 64% indicated they were concerned the guidelines would affect their educational programs. Concerns included the loss of student independence and active participation in the patient care environment (37), time constraints and the changing balance between education and service (16), loss of faculty and decreased morale (11), and decreased quality of care for patients (7). CONCLUSION: Leaders of medical education must work to modify these guidelines to protect the quality of patients' care, while maximizing students' educational opportunity and participation.