Planning and Presenting Workshops That Work: A Faculty Development Workshop.

Introduction: Workshops are commonly used in higher education, although faculty often have little or no training in how to develop and deliver this type of teaching methodology. This publication can be used to deliver a 1-hour active learning session to faculty utilizing experiential learning as a framework. Methods: An hour-long workshop on developing and implementing effective workshops was given to five cohorts of participants in the Academic Pediatric Association's Educational Scholars Program (ESP) between 2010 and 2018, following a 2008 pilot. After a brief didactic presentation, participants developed their own workshop plans. A unique reflection in action was utilized to model effective workshop facilitation techniques. Written surveys were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop. Data from the ESP graduates were used to report the percentage of respondents who conducted their own workshop postgraduation. Results: A total of 116 faculty participated in this workshop over the course of 5 years. One hundred and fourteen participants stated they found the session to be useful. The role modeling/reflection by the facilitators and the opportunity to work with others on a workshop plan were described as the most valuable aspects. Approximately 70% of scholars who responded to postgraduation surveys had conducted at least one regional, national, or international workshop. Discussion: This faculty development session implements active and adult learning principles to model and teach participants how to develop and lead an effective workshop. It also provides a mechanism for collaboration among participants to develop a workshop based on shared interests.

Academic General Pediatrics Hiring Practices and Completion of Academic General Pediatrics Fellowships.

OBJECTIVE: Academic General Pediatrics (AGP) is a pediatric subspecialty with substantial faculty contributions in clinical care, research, education, and advocacy. However, AGP fellowship recruitment challenges exist. We aimed to describe AGP hiring practices from 2014 to 2019 and the role of fellowship training in hiring decisions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study of AGP Division Directors (DDs) and Fellowship Program Directors (PDs) from US-based academic institutions. Survey questions were developed iteratively and pilot-tested for content validity. Participants were identified from the Association of American Medical Colleges' directory of pediatric departments, Academic Pediatric Association's AGP Accreditation Committee's list of fellowship programs, and institutional websites. Descriptive analysis was used for close ended survey questions. Narrative responses were reviewed for trends. RESULTS: Forty-nine DDs (57%) and 22 PDs (73%) responded. All DDs reported at least one available faculty position and 73% reported filling a position with protected time. PDs reported 89 graduating fellows, 88% of whom secured an academic position with protected time. Seventy-percent of DDs and 100% of PDs reported that AGP fellows could secure an academic position with protected time, while only 22% and 1%, respectively, reported a graduating pediatric resident could secure a similar position. DDs indicated AGP fellowship trained candidates are preferable for enhancing research and education programs. CONCLUSION: AGP remains an active subspecialty and the majority of graduating fellows secured faculty positions with protected time. Further studies are needed to understand ways to improve visibility of AGP fellowships.

How Full Is Your Tank? A Qualitative Exploration of Faculty Volunteerism in a National Professional Development Program.

OBJECTIVE: Professional development programs (PDPs) within academic professional organizations rely on faculty volunteers, but little is known about the volunteering process and experience. Our aim was to gain insights into the initial decision to volunteer, the experience of volunteering and the decision to re-volunteer or not (ie, remain or leave as a volunteer). The study setting was a PDP of the Academic Pediatric Association, the Educational Scholars Program. METHODS: In 2014, 13 Educational Scholars Program faculty members participated in semistructured phone interviews. The authors performed a general inductive analysis of the data, inductively created codes, and analyzed coded data for emergent themes that led to the creation of a model for recruiting and sustaining volunteers. RESULTS: Four themes related to the initial volunteer decision and the decision to re-volunteer or not (self-interest and altruism, reputation of the program, relevant skill set, and doability), and 4 themes related to the experience of volunteering (emotional impact, career advancement and professional recognition, professional growth, and doability) emerged. The relationship among the themes led to the creation of a model of volunteering, involving a metaphorical volunteerism "tank" that is full when faculty initially volunteer and subsequently fills or empties as a result of dynamic interplay between the themes for each individual. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders of PDPs may find our model of volunteering beneficial for enhancing the emotional and tangible benefits and minimizing the logistical issues of volunteering. This information should contribute to success in recruiting and retaining the volunteers who are essential for developing and sustaining PDPs.

Graduate medical education leadership development curriculum for program directors.

OBJECTIVE: Program director (PD) orientation to roles and responsibilities takes on many forms and processes. This article describes one institution's innovative arm of faculty development directed specifically toward PDs and associate PDs to provide institutional resources and information for those in graduate medical education leadership roles. METHODS: The designated institutional official created a separate faculty development curriculum for leadership development of PDs and associate PDs, modeled on the Association of American Medical Colleges-GRA (Group on Resident Affairs) graduate medical education leadership development course for designated institutional officials. It consists of monthly 90-minute sessions at the end of a working day, for new and experienced PDs alike, with mentoring provided by experienced PDs. We describe 2 iterations of the curriculum. To provide ongoing support a longitudinal curriculum of special topics has followed in the interval between core curriculum offerings. RESULTS: Communication between PDs across disciplines has improved. The broad, inclusive nature allowed for experienced PDs to take advantage of the learning opportunity while providing exchange and mentorship through sharing of lessons learned. The participants rated the course highly and education process and outcome measures for the programs have been positive, including increased accreditation cycle lengths. CONCLUSION: It is important and valuable to provide PDs and associate PDs with administrative leadership development and resources, separate from general faculty development, to meet their role-specific needs for orientation and development and to better equip them to meet graduate medical education leadership challenges. This endeavor provides a foundational platform for designated institutional official and PD interactions to work on program building and improvement.

A model to begin to use clinical outcomes in medical education.

The latest phase of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project challenges graduate medical education (GME) programs to select meaningful clinical quality indicators by which to measure trainee performance and progress, as well as to assess and improve educational effectiveness of programs. The authors describe efforts to measure educational quality, incorporating measurable patient-care outcomes to guide improvement. University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville education leaders developed a tiered framework for selecting clinical indicators whose outcomes would illustrate integration of the ACGME competencies and their assessment with learning and clinical care. In order of preference, indicators selected should align with a specialty's (1) national benchmarked consensus standards, (2) national specialty society standards, (3) standards of local, institutional, or regional quality initiatives, or (4) top-priority diagnostic and/or therapeutic categories for the specialty, based on areas of high frequency, impact, or cost. All programs successfully applied the tiered process to clinical indicator selection and then identified data sources to track clinical outcomes. Using clinical outcomes in resident evaluation assesses the resident's performance as reflective of his or her participation in the health care delivery team. Programmatic improvements are driven by clinical outcomes that are shown to be below benchmark across the residents. Selecting appropriate clinical indicators-representative of quality of care and of graduate medical education-is the first step toward tracking educational outcomes using clinical data as the basis for evaluation and improvement. This effort is an important aspect of orienting trainees to using data for monitoring and improving care processes and outcomes throughout their careers.

USMLE step 1 scores as a significant predictor of future board passage in pediatrics.

PURPOSE: To explore the relationship(s) between USMLE, In-Training Exam, and American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) board-certifying exam scores within a Pediatric residency-training program. METHODS: Data were abstracted from records of graduating residents from the Pediatric residency program at the University of Florida College of Medicine Jacksonville from 1999 to 2005. Seventy (70) residents were identified and their files reviewed for the following information: USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores, in-training exam results and eventual board scores as reported by the ABP. Correlation and regression analyses were performed and compared across all tests. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients between the three types of tests were all statistically significant. Using logistic regression, however, only USMLE Step 1 scores (compared to Step 2) had a statistically significant association with board performance. Interestingly, none of the three in-training exam scores had any additional impact on predicting board performance given one's USMLE Step 1 score. USMLE Step 1 scores greater than 220 were associated with nearly a 95 per cent passage rate on the board-certifying exam. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggests that performance on USMLE Step 1 is an important predictor of a resident's chances of passing the pediatric boards. This information, which is available when a resident initiates training, can be used to identify those at risk of not passing the boards. While Step 1 scores should not be used as a sole determinant in the recruiting process, individual learning plans can be developed and implemented early in training to maximize one's ability to pass the certifying exam.