Article

Outcomes results from the evaluation of the APA/HRSA Faculty Scholars Program.

Office of Educational Services, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Ambulatory Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 1.6). 01/2004; 4(1 Suppl):103-12. DOI: 10.1367/1539-4409(2004)0042.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The goal of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association/Health Resources and Services Administration National Faculty Development Scholars Program was to improve primary care education in the pediatric setting. The program evaluation focused on four stake-holder objectives: 1) increase the educational skills of community and generalist faculty; 2) create pediatric leadership focused on changing the culture within the medical community to support primary care education; 3) develop an infrastructure that supports sustained faculty development efforts at the local, regional, and national level; and 4) include content areas consistent with Health Resources and Services Administration contract requirements.
A multimethod evaluation plan, focused on the 107 completing scholars, was implemented utilizing six evaluation instruments.
Key outcomes from both quantitative and qualitative outcome measures reveal that all evaluation objectives were achieved. Scholars presented 438 local workshops and 161 regional/national workshops focused on pediatric education with a combined attendance of 7939 participants. More than half of the scholars have now assumed a leadership position in education associated with program participation. Ninety-three percent of the scholars reported organizational/infrastructure changes associated with their program participation ranging from increased numbers of community teaching sites to specific resource allocations to support of faculty development.
The outcomes of this evaluation reveal that the faculty development program achieved its objectives, with participants leading workshops, impacting faculty development infrastructure, advancing their own careers, and being strategically positioned in leadership roles with the skills to improve primary care education in the ambulatory setting.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
83 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Professional identity encompasses how individuals understand themselves, interpret experiences, present themselves, wish to be perceived, and are recognized by the broader professional community. For health professional and health science educators, their 'academic' professional identity is situated within their academic community and plays an integral role in their well being and productivity. This study aims to explore factors that contribute to the formation and growth of academic identity (AI) within the context of a longitudinal faculty development program. Using a qualitative case study approach, data from three cohorts of a 2-year faculty development program were explored and analyzed for emerging issues and themes related to AI. Factors salient to the formation of AI were grouped into three major domains: personal (cognitive and emotional factors unique to each individual); relational (connections and interactions with others); and contextual (the program itself and external work environments). Faculty development initiatives not only aim to develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes, but also contribute to the formation of academic identities in a number of different ways. Facilitating the growth of AI has the potential to increase faculty motivation, satisfaction, and productivity. Faculty developers need to be mindful of factors within the personal, relational, and contextual domains when considering issues of program design and implementation.
    Medical Teacher 01/2012; 34(3):e208-15. · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due to the increasing complexity of medical education and practice, the preparation of healthcare professionals for leadership roles and responsibilities has become increasingly important. To date, the literature on faculty development designed to promote leadership in medical education has not been reviewed in a systematic fashion. The objective of this review is to synthesize the existing evidence that addresses the following question: 'What are the effects of faculty development interventions designed to improve leadership abilities on the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of faculty members in medicine and on the institutions in which they work?' Search strategy: The search, which covered the period 1980-2009, included six databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, and ABI/Inform) and used the following keywords: faculty development; in-service training; doctor; medic; physician; faculty; leadership; management; administration; executive; and change agent. Hand searches were also conducted, and expert recommendations were solicited. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Articles with a focus on faculty development to improve leadership, targeting basic science and clinical faculty members, were reviewed. All study designs that included outcome data beyond participant satisfaction were examined. From an initial 687 unique records, 48 articles met the review criteria in three broad categories: (1) reports in which leadership was the primary focus of the intervention; (2) reports in which leadership was a component of a broader focus on educational development; and (3) reports in which leadership was a component of a broader focus on academic career development. Data extraction: Data were extracted by three coders using the standardized Best Evidence Medical Education coding sheet adapted for our use. One reviewer coded all of the articles, and two reviewers each coded half of the dataset. Coding differences were resolved through discussion. Data synthesis: Data were synthesized using Kirkpatrick's four levels of educational outcomes. Findings were grouped by intervention type and level of outcome. Forty-eight articles described 41 studies of 35 different interventions. The majority of the interventions targeted clinical faculty members and included workshops, short courses, fellowships, and other longitudinal programs. The majority of studies were quantitative in nature, though five studies used a qualitative design, and 12 studies used mixed methods. All quantitative studies were quasi-experimental and most employed a single group design; only two studies had a comparison group. Qualitative study designs were typically not specified. The majority of evaluation data, primarily collected post-intervention, consisted of participants' responses to questionnaires and interviews. KEY POINTS AND SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES: Despite methodological limitations, the faculty development literature tends to support the following outcomes: ▪ High satisfaction with faculty development programs. Participants consistently found programs to be useful and of both personal and professional benefit. They also valued the practical relevance and applicability of the instructional methods used. ▪ A change in attitudes toward organizational contexts and leadership roles. Participants reported positive changes in attitudes toward their own organizations as well as their leadership capabilities. Some reported an increased awareness of--and commitment to--their institution's vision and challenges, whereas others reported greater self-awareness of personal strengths and limitations, increased motivation, and confidence in their leadership roles. A greater sense of community and appreciation of the benefits of networking were also identified. ▪ Gains in knowledge and skills. Participants reported increased knowledge of leadership concepts, principles, and strategies (e.g., leadership styles and strategic planning), gains in specific leadership skills (e.g., personal effectiveness and conflict resolution), and increased awareness of leadership roles in academic settings. ▪ Changes in leadership behavior. Self-perceived changes in leadership behavior were consistently reported and included a change in leadership styles, the application of new skills to the workplace (e.g., departmental reorganization and team building), the adoption of new leadership roles and responsibilities, and the creation of new collaborations and networks. Observed changes primarily suggested new leadership positions. ▪ Limited changes in organizational practice. Although not frequently examined, changes in organizational practice included the implementation of specific educational innovations, an increased emphasis on educational scholarship, and the establishment of collegial networks. ▪ Key features of faculty development. Features contributing to positive outcomes included the use of: multiple instructional methods within single interventions; experiential learning and reflective practice; individual and group projects; peer support and the development of communities of practice; mentorship; and institutional support. ▪ Avenues for future development: Moving forward, faculty development programs should: ground their work in a theoretical framework; articulate their definition of leadership; consider the role of context; explore the value of extended programs and follow-up sessions; and promote the use of alternative practices including narrative approaches, peer coaching, and team development. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES: More rigorous and diverse research designs are needed to capture the complexity of interventions in this area. Varied methods of assessment, utilizing multiple data sources to tap changes at the interpersonal and organizational level should be explored, as should the maintenance of change over time. Process-oriented studies, comparing different faculty development strategies and clarifying the process of change through faculty development, should also become a priority. Participants value leadership development activities and report changes in attitudes, knowledge, skills and behavior. Moreover, despite methodological limitations, certain program characteristics seem to be associated with positive outcomes. Further research is required to explore these associations and document changes at both the individual and organizational level.
    Medical Teacher 01/2012; 34(6):483-503. · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • Source