Promotion Criteria for Medical Educators: Are We Climbing a Ladder with Invisible Rungs?

OBJECTIVE: In 2006 the Association of American Medical Colleges recommended standardization of documentation of the contributions of medical educators and guidelines for their academic promotion. The authors characterized current United States (US) medical school promotion guidelines for medical educators. METHODS: Authors collected publicly available data from medical school promotion websites from March through July 2022 after determining categories by traditional-set domains as well as peer-reviewed standards. Extracted data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and frequencies were calculated for nominal and categorical data. RESULTS: Of 155 medical schools identified, promotion criteria were publicly available for 143 (92%) schools. Ninety-one (64%) schools identified a distinct educator track. Of those with a defined educator track, 44 (48%) schools consider workshops or other media when evaluating candidates for promotion, and only 52 (57%) of schools with a specified educational track require additional documentation of teaching or education as part of their promotion process. Notably, 34 (37%) of the 91 schools with an educator track specifically require an Educational Portfolio, compared to 27 (52%) of the 52 schools that do not have a specific educator track for promotion. CONCLUSION: This study describes the current lack of clarity and consistency of the promotion criteria for medical educators and indicates that the guidelines proposed by the Association of American Medical Colleges over 15 years ago have not been widely adopted. These data amplify previous calls for a more objective set of criteria for evaluating and recognizing the contributions of medical educators.

Teaching Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Pediatric Clinical Settings: A Training Workshop for Faculty and Residents.

Introduction: Health disparities for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, all other genders, sexes, and sexualities (LGBTQIA+) population are striking. Yet, deliberate efforts to integrate sexual orientation and gender identity in pediatric education settings remain lacking. The type of formal training that pediatric educators currently have for teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity is unclear and limited, which led to the development and implementation of this curriculum. Methods: A 2-hour workshop was developed to address gaps in knowledge, equip faculty and resident educators with skills to apply key concepts in teaching activities, and motivate them to examine challenges and opportunities in teaching sexual orientation and gender identity principles in their routine duties in pediatric settings across the undergraduate and graduate education spectrum. Learning strategies of the workshop included learner activation, a didactic, and clinical cases with role-play opportunities. Participants completed evaluations at the end of the workshop. Results: The workshop was implemented in three varied educational settings in 2019. All 65 participants enrolled in the workshop completed the evaluations. Evaluations ranged from 4.6 to 4.9 on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Participants reported workshop strengths and anticipated impact on their own teaching and clinical practice. Discussion: Stark health disparities for the LGBTQIA+ population and gaps in relevant curricula demand a training intervention for pediatric educators. We demonstrated the successful implementation of a training workshop, with evidence of feasibility and generalizability, that addressed knowledge gaps and teaching and clinical skills.

Collecting Validity Evidence: A Hands-on Workshop for Medical Education Assessment Instruments.

Introduction: There is an increasing call for developing validity evidence in medical education assessment. The literature lacks a practical resource regarding an actual development process. Our workshop teaches how to apply principles of validity evidence to existing assessment instruments and how to develop new instruments that will yield valid data. Methods: The literature, consensus findings of curricula and content experts, and principles of adult learning guided the content and methodology of the workshop. The workshop underwent stringent peer review prior to presentation at one international and three national academic conferences. In the interactive workshop, selected domains of validity evidence were taught with sequential cycles of didactics, demonstration, and deliberate practice with facilitated feedback. An exercise guide steered participants through a stepwise approach. Using Likert-scale items and open-response questions, an evaluation form rated the workshop's effectiveness, captured details of how learners reached the objectives, and determined participants' plans for future work. Results: The workshop demonstrated generalizability with successful implementation in diverse settings. Sixty-five learners, the majority being clinician-educators, completed evaluations. Learners rated the workshop favorably for each prompt. Qualitative comments corroborated the workshop's effectiveness. The active application and facilitated feedback components allowed learners to reflect in real time as to how they were meeting a particular objective. Discussion: This feasible and practical educational intervention fills a literature gap by showing the medical educator how to apply validity evidence to both existing and in-development assessment instruments. Thus, it holds the potential to significantly impact learner and, subsequently, patient outcomes.

Jeopardy!: an innovative approach to teach psychosocial aspects of pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: Medical educators have used Jeopardy! game to teach medical knowledge. None has reported using it to teach psychosocial aspects of medicine. METHODS: As part of a cross-cultural communication curriculum for residents in an urban, medically underserved area, we piloted "Bronx Jeopardy!to teach psychosocial aspects of the surrounding community. We applied the same rules used in the popular game show. Participants were asked to complete a survey to rate the content and format of the training. RESULTS: Thirty-four residents participated; 30 (88%) completed the survey. Most reported that the information was new. Almost all reported increased understanding of community diversity, desire to learn more about it, and raised awareness of its challenges and resources. All believed that the session helped dispel negative stereotypes. Regarding format, all participants reported that it built collegiality, stimulated interest, was a fun and effective way to learn, and helped retain information. CONCLUSION: Bronx Jeopardy! was a fun and effective way to learn about psychosocial aspects of pediatrics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Using a gaming format, Bronx Jeopardy! demonstrated an application of Adult Learning Theory. With an expanding questions bank, the tool can be adapted for teaching this topic in other residency programs.