ArticlePDF Available

Developing and implementing a faculty development curriculum for Japanese family medicine residency faculty

Authors:

Abstract

Background Despite the increase in family medicine residency in Japan, there are only a few structured faculty development (FD) programs. The objective of this project was to construct a consensus on core competencies of faculty to develop a faculty development curriculum in a Japanese family medicine context. Methods In 2015, a private FD initiative in the Mie University initiated a curriculum development in collaboration with FD fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh. A literature review and subsequent Delphi process were conducted for core competency development. Based on the core competency list, we designed and implemented a 2‐year part‐time FD curriculum from 2016. A course evaluation using pre‐post confidence level was held during March 2017. Results Twenty‐eight objectives were defined in five core domains: 1) care management/family medicine principle, 2) leadership/professional development, 3) administrative/management, 4) teaching, and 5) research/scholarly activity. A pre‐post survey at the end of an academic year revealed a significant increase in learner confidence for “care management/family medicine principle” (P = .03), “teaching” (P < .01), and “research/scholarly activity” (P < .01), as well as the total score (P = .03). Conclusions A family medicine FD curriculum based on a faculty core competency list was developed by consensus in a Japanese family medicine context. The core competency was strongly context‐oriented, and the relevance of the FD topics and opportunities to apply to the participants' current positions may be inevitable for learner engagement. Further curriculum refinements will be required to see whether the curriculum could be used for faculty development in other family medicine residencies.
J Gen Fam Med. 2020;00:1–6.
|
  1wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jgf2
Received: 23 Septem ber 2019 
|
  Revised: 11 Febr uary 2020 
|
  Accepted: 12 Fe bruar y 2020
DOI: 10.1002/j gf2.3 09
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Developing and implementing a faculty development
curriculum for Japanese family medicine residency faculty
Kenya Ie MD, PhD, MPH1| Masato Narushima MD2| Michiko Goto PhD3|
Joel Merenstein MD4| Stephen Wilson MD, MPH5| Yousuke Takemura MD, PhD6,7
This is an op en access arti cle under the ter ms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoD erivs L icense, which permits use and distrib ution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is no n-commercial and no modi ficat ions or adaptat ions are made.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of General and Family Medicine published by Joh n Wiley & Sons Aust ralia, Ltd on behalf of Japa n Primary Care Association .
1Depar tment of Gener al Internal Medi cine,
St. Marianna Universit y School of Medicine/
Tama Municipa l Hospit al, Ka nagawa , Japan
2Tsu Family Clinic, Mie, Japan
3Depar tment of Education and Research
in Family an d Community Me dicine , Mie
University Graduate School of Medicine,
Mie, Japan
4Depar tment of Family Medicine, UPMC St.
Margar et, Pit tsburgh, Pe nnsylvania
5Depar tment of Family Medicine, University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
6Mie University School of Medicine, Mie,
Japan
7Depar tment of Family Medicine, Gradu ate
School of Medical and Dental Sciences,
Tokyo Medic al and Dental Un iversity, Tokyo,
Japan
Correspondence
Kenya Ie, Department of General Internal
Medicine, St. Ma rianna U niversity School
of Medicine/Tama Municipal Hospital,
Kanagawa, Japan.
Email: iekenya0321@gmail.com
Abstract
Background: Despite the increase in family medicine residency in Japan, there are
only a few structured faculty development (FD) programs. The objective of this pro-
ject was to construct a consensus on core competencies of faculty to develop a fac-
ulty development curriculum in a Japanese family medicine context.
Methods: In 2015, a private FD initiative in the Mie University initiated a curriculum
development in collaboration with FD fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh. A lit-
erature review and subsequent Delphi process were conducted for core competency
development. Based on the core competency list, we designed and implemented a
2-year part-time FD curriculum from 2016. A course evaluation using pre-post confi-
dence level was held during March 2017.
Results: Twenty-eight objectives were defined in five core domains: 1) care man-
agement/family medicine principle, 2) leadership/professional development, 3) ad-
ministrative/management, 4) teaching, and 5) research/scholarly activity. A pre-post
survey at the end of an academic year revealed a significant increase in learner confi-
dence for “care management/family medicine principle” (P = .03), “teaching” (P < .01),
and “research/scholarly activity” (P < .01), as well as the total score (P = .03).
Conclusions: A family medicine FD curriculum based on a faculty core competency
list was developed by consensus in a Japanese family medicine context. The core
competency was strongly context-oriented, and the relevance of the FD topics and
opportunities to apply to the participants' current positions may be inevitable for
learner engagement. Further curriculum refinements will be required to see whether
the curriculum could be used for faculty development in other family medicine
residencies.
KEYWORDS
core competencies, curriculum development, facult y development, family medicine, residency
training
2 
|
   IE Et al.
1 | BACKGROUND
Recent innovations in primary care systems have formulated strong
social infrastructures with economic benefits through its potential
to improve health outcomes and health system efficiency. However,
there is a disparity among nations in the quality of primary care and
its training systems.1 Japan is one of these nations where formal pri-
mary care training, and board certification, has been slow to develop.
The Japanese Academy of Family Medicine (JAFM) implemented
a 3-year family medicine residency to train board-certified family
physicians in 2006. Since then, the numbers of family medicine res-
idencies and board-certified family physicians have been increasing.
In addition, according to a cross-sectional survey conducted at 17
Japanese medical schools in 2014, the top three specialty choices
among final-year medical students were internal medicine, general
practice including family medicine, and pediatrics.2
Along with the recent increase in the number of family med-
icine residency programs, there has been an increase in demand
for nurturing a high-quality family medicine faculty. It is well ac-
cepted that systematic and continuous faculty development (FD)
is nece ssar y to nu r tur e a hig h -q u ali t y fac u lt y, bas ed on the succ ess
of family medicine FD activities especially in the United States,
Canad a, and the United Kingdom sinc e th e late 1970s.3,4 Althoug h
the Japan Primary Care Association (JPCA) has been offering fac-
ulty development for educators, most are sporadic workshops
and there is a need for more struc tured longitudinal FD programs
nationwide. In addition, given the accumulating evidence for the
competency-based curriculum in medical education,5‒9 a core
competency list , specific for faculty development, is vital for fu-
ture FD curriculum development. Previous literature reveals a few
different definitions of faculty competencies. For example, Bland
et al developed 24 core competencies under five domains: edu-
cation, administration, research, written communication, and pro-
fessional academic skills.7 Mor e r ec ently, Harr is et al pub lis he d the
result of their longitudinal curriculum development in 2010, which
summarized 53 core competencies in seven domains: leadership,
administration, teaching, research, medical informatics, care man-
agement, and multiculturalism.8 However, assuming that the core
faculty competency varies across different settings, there was a
need for a sound faculty competency list specific for the contex t
of Japanese family medicine, to f acilitate the develo pment of fam-
ily medicine FD curriculums.
The objective of this project was to construct a consensus for
core competencies of faculty and to develop a faculty development
curriculum in the context of Japanese family medicine.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Context
Family medicine residency at Mie University is one of the old-
est family medicine residencies in Japan. St arting from 2014, a
residency faculty member (MN), who had graduated from another
longitudinal FD program in Japan, launched a private FD initiative
within the Mie University Family Medicine Residency to train recent
residency graduates. In September 2015, the initiative started an FD
curriculum development project in collaboration with an FD fellow
(KI) at the University of Pittsburgh. The founder and the program
director of the FD fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh were
also involved in the curriculum development process. The overview
of the University of Pit tsburgh St Margaret Faculty Development
Fellowship and the results from a survey of it s graduates regarding
fellowship experiences have been previously reported elsewhere.10
2.2 | Study design
There are t wo main areas of exploration for the current paper:
Phase 1 involves the Delphi consensus process for a faculty core
competency list in a Japanese family medicine context; and Phase
2 develops a family medicine faculty development curriculum. For
Phase 2, we used the Kemp model11 to guide our curriculum de-
velopment. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional
Ethical Committee of Mie University Graduate School of Medicine
(No. 1745). All partici pants provided informe d consent pr ior to st ar t-
ing the study.
2.3 | Phase 1: Faculty core competencies
development
A core competency list was developed, using a four-round Delphi
process from November 2015 to March 2016. Seven core faculty
physicians affiliated with the Mie University Family Medicine
Residency were specifically recruited to represent the popula-
tion ser ved (urban and ru ral), pra ctice set tin gs (un iv er sit y hospita l,
communit y hospital, and clinic), and years since graduating medi-
cal school (6-10 years, 11-15 years, and more than 15 years). Prior
to the first round of the Delphi process, the faculty members re-
viewed existing competency lists7‒9 and reached a consensus to
adopt the competenc y list developed by Harris et al 8 as a basis for
our discussion. After removing several items not relevant to the
context of Japanese family medicine, KI and MN wrote the first
draft of the core competency list prior to the Delphi process. The
Delphi process participant s reviewed the draft and added items
that they believed were necessary, including those that were
unique to our context. The agreement to each item was measured
using a nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 9 (strongly agree). The results and comments given in previous
rounds were reported during each Delphi round. Revisions were
made based on group discussion where necessary. Consensus
was defined as all responses ranging within three consecutive
numbers. The consensus of the faculty core competencies that
achieved a median score of 8 or higher was chosen for the final
core competency list.
  
|
 3
IE Et al.
2.4 | Phase 2: FD curriculum development
We used the Kemp model11 to guide our curriculum development.
The FD curriculum was designed with a particular focus on training
junior faculty who had recently graduated from their family medicine
residencies. Prior to the curriculum design, a needs assessment sur-
vey with open-ended questions was distributed via email to prelimi-
nary FD initiative participants to explore each faculty's career vision,
perceived needs for specific competencies as a junior faculty mem-
ber, and their expectations for the FD curriculum. Based on the re-
sults of Phase 1 and the needs assessment survey, the specific goals
of the FD curriculum, course contents, and the appropriate resource
that would support teaching and learning activities were drafted by
the program director (MN) and were discussed and agreed upon by
core faculty members of the FD curriculum.
A pre-post survey of confidence level regarding the faculty
core competencies was administered to the FD curriculum partic-
ipants at the end of the first ac ademic year. The items used a ten-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not confident at all) to 10 (very
confident). The paired t test was used for a pre-post comparison
of the survey response. All analysis was performed using Stata/
SE 14 .2.
TABLE 1 Family medicine faculty core competency list
Domain 1: C are management /family medicine principle
CF1 Demonstrates basic unders tanding of EBM, appraises articles critically, and discusses the evidence appliance for patients
CF2 Conduc ts quality improvement projects in his/her own practice
CF3 Demonstrates and teaches individual patient c are based on “family medicine principles,” such as patient-centered clinical methods and
family-oriented patient care
CF4 Discusses community-oriented primar y care by reflec ting ac tual cases with ACCCA/C concepts
CF5 Facilitates interprofessional education and interprofessional work
CF6 Views own practice from a public health perspective (healthcare system, cost, resource allocation, public and individual benefits,
social determinants of health)
Domain 2: Leadership/professional development
LP1 Recognizes that leadership is relevant for ever yone in various settings
LP2 Identifies strengths and weaknesses in self and others, and manages a project team as a leader
LP3 Acts as a mentor for learners to achieve individual development
LP4 Resolves conflicts, negotiates well, and fosters collaboration and cooperation
LP5 Develops one's own career based on a long-term (eg, 5-y) goal
LP6 Realizes the impact of a shared vision
Domain 3: Administrative/management skill
AM1 Interprets t he healthcare insurance system and manages his/her own practice in accordance with latest insurance policy
AM2 Describes financial status of his/her own practice by reading financial statements
AM3 Communicates and negotiates effectively with stakeholders inside and outside the organization with recognition of personal
preferences and charac teristics of various tools (eg, oral, writ ten, email, SNS)
AM4 Identifies mission-based organizational dynamics (organization theory, personnel management, learning organization)
AM5 Participates actively in meetings with effective meeting skills
Domain 4: Teaching
T1 Teaches learners to effectively provide of fice-based care, using teaching frameworks such as five microskills
T2 Adequately facilitates individual and small group teaching based on adult learning theor y
T3 Gives appropriate feedback, even to difficult learners
T4 Designs, delivers, and evaluates educational programs
T5 Discusses learning objectives and selects appropriate strategies for each learner depending on their individual needs
T6 Deliver s and supervises effective presentations using audiovisual materials and handouts adequately
T7 Evaluates and facilitates learner's writing por tfolios according to the JPCA rubric
Domain 5: Research/scholarly activity
RS1 Formulates a feasible research question in the PICO format
RS2 Participates in research planning, data collection, data analyses, and writing as a research team member
RS3 Adheres to guidelines and regulations regarding the ethical conduct of research and human subject s
RS4 Continues some sort of scholarly activities either by conference presentation, scientific writing (original re search, review, case report,
and letter), or writing books/journals
4 
|
   IE Et al.
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Phase 1: Faculty core competencies
development
In the first round of the Delphi process, the draft of the core com-
petency list , based on the ex ist ing list ,8 included 28 preliminary core
competencies. These items were categorized in five domains which
reflected the essential core competency areas for successful family
medicine faculty: 1) care management and family medicine princi-
ple; 2) leadership and professional development; 3) administrative
and management skills; 4) teaching; and 5) research and scholarly
activity. Among the seven faculty physicians invited, seven (100%)
participated in the second and third rounds of the Delphi process
and six (85.7%) participated in the fourth round. In the second, third,
and fourth Delphi rounds, 19 items, 25 items, and 28 items reached
consensus and achieved a median score of 8 or higher. The final 28
consensus faculty core competencies in a Japanese family medicine
context are shown in Table 1 (Appendix S1). None of the prelimi-
nary items were omitted after iterative revisions based on a panel
discussion.
3.2 | Phase 2: FD curriculum development
3.2.1| Needs assessment
All three 2014 FD initiative learners agreed to par ticipate in the
needs assessment sur vey. Participants wanted to mainly learn about
educational theories, educational skills, educational frameworks,
ma na gem ent ski lls , as we ll as a few prac t ic al bus ine ss sk ill s (e g, work-
life balance, anger management skills). They cited their big workload
and lack of time for the program participation as two major chal-
lenges. As for the career direction of the participants, two of them
were seeking clinician-educator positions at a community hospital
or clinic, and another learner wanted to obtain an academic position
at a university.
3.2.2 | Curriculum design and implementation
Based on the consensus faculty core competency list, we designed
a 2-year par t-time FD program with a curriculum goal of “enhanc-
ing family medicine faculty's clinical, educational, administrative,
and scholarly competencies dependent on each participant's future
career aspiration.” The FD curriculum was designed to have pro-
tected time during the day for seminars once or twice a month, as
well as on-the-job training, longitudinal project-based learning op-
portunities, course assignments (eg, video precepting), and super-
vised writing of course portfolios. Beginning in April 2016, a new
curriculum has been implemented based on the new competency list
with three new learners. Nine faculty members were allocated to be
responsible for the 28 competency areas according to each teacher's
expertise. From April 2016 to March 2018, we held 29 educational
sessions (Table 2). In addition, the FD participant s had mentorship
opportunities from both the FD program director and senior faculty
at their workplace.
TABLE 2 Model family medicine FD curriculum
Day Domain Core competency Top i c
1C/F CF3, CF4 Disease and illness
2A/M AM5, LP2, LP5 Time management
3 T T2, T4, T5 Needs assessment and
Objectives
4 T T1, T3 5 Microskills/precepting
5 T T1, T2, T4, T6 Educational theories and
methods
6C/F CF3, CF4 Shared decision making
7L/P LP1, LP2, LP5 Logical thinking 1
8R/S RS1, RS2, RS4 Research boot camp
9 T T2, T4, T5, T6 Curriculum design
10 C/F CF3, CF4 Continuity of care
11 A/M AM1, AM2 Financial 1 (Profit and loss
statement/balance sheet)
12 TT7, T3 Portfolio evaluation
13 TT2, T3 Small group teaching/
video review
14 L/P LP1, LP2, LP5 Self-reflection
15 A/M AM1, AM2 Financial 2 (financial
statement)
16 TT6 Presentation skill
17 C/F CF3 Healing
17 L/P LP1, LP2, LP5 Logical thinking 2
18 L/P LP1, AM4 Visionary leadership
19 R/S RS3 Research ethics
20 L/P LP2, LP4 Project management
20 R/S RS1, RS 4, CF1 Literature review
21 R/S RS4 Let ter to the editor
22 L/P LP1, LP2, LP5 Leadership development
23 A/M AM4 Learning organization
24 L/P LP2, LP4, AM3 Leadership 360-degree
feedback
25 A/M LP6, AM3, AM4 Analyzing vision and
management strategy
26 TT2, T3, T4 Difficult teaching
encounter
27 A/M AM1, AM2 Marketing
28 TT6, AM5 Present ation and
facilitation
29 A/M AM3, LP4 Negotiation
Note: Domain 1: C/F (Care management/family medicine principle).
Domain 2: L /P (Leadership/professional development).
Domain 3: A /M (Administrative/management skill).
Domain 4: T ( Teaching).
Domain 5: R /S (Research/scholarly activity).
  
|
 5
IE Et al.
3.2.3 | A pre-post confidence level survey
All three FD curriculum participants responded to the pre-post
survey at the end of the academic year, which revealed a signifi-
cant increase in learners' confidence levels for the domain scores
in “Care Management/ Family Medicine Principle” (P = .03),
“Teaching” (P < .01), and “Research/ Scholarly activity” (P < .01), as
well as the overall score (P = .03). On the other hand, participants'
confidence level in “Leadership/Professional Development” and
“Administrative/Management Skill” domains after completion of an
academic year did not significantly improve compared to the base-
line (Table 3). The core competencies with significant improvement
in participants' confidence level are listed in Table 4.
4 | DISCUSSION
This longitudinal and competency-based FD program has a unique
domain, “care management and family medicine principle,” that in-
cludes several items not listed in the existing competency lists from
other countries where family medicine has been well developed.7‒9
Similarly to our results, a recent qualitative study that involved
participants from ten low- and middle-income countries reported
that a consistently identified FD need was how to teach the fam-
ily medicine context and perspective.12 These findings may imply
that the core faculty competency is strongly context-oriented and
changes with the times, and that our core competency list could
be transferred to other countries where faculty resources in family
medicine are scarce.
Based on feedback from FD curriculum par ticipants, there
were several potential tips for a successful FD. First of all, rel-
evance of the topics and opportunities to apply in their current
positions may be inevitable for learner engagement. The lack of
improvement in learners' confidence level for domain 2 (leader-
ship and professional development) and domain 3 (administrative
and management) may suggest the need for legitimate peripheral
participation (LPP),13 especially in administrative and leadership
opportunities for junior faculty. Legitimate peripheral participa-
tion indicates that novice participants in a community of prac-
tice should have opportunities to engage in simple or lower risk
tasks that are important to the community's goals.13 Giving FD
participants a leadership role in lower risk tasks, such as quality
improvement, educational sessions, or simple interprofessional
collaboration, would be an effective strategy to facilitate learning
in these domains. Secondly, an interactive learning environment
based on adult learning principles14 was effective, if participants
have a certain level of baseline knowledge and self-directed atti-
tude. In addition, well thought-out order, amount, and timing of
topics would be required so that learners could link learning con-
tents in a relevant and ef ficient fashion.
Although our evaluation mainly focused on learners' “reaction” and
“learning” based on the Kirkpatrick model,15 there were noteworthy
“behavioral change” and “organizational performance” level accom-
plishments in all three learners. Two letters to the editor, written by
one of the participants with academic career intentions, have been
published.16,17 One learner assigned to be in charge of student and
resident education in a group practice, while another learner, who had
sought a clin ic ia n- ed ucator position , wa s prom oted to be a de pa r tm ent
director of a residency-affiliated hospital.
Domain scorea  (Max score) Pre score (SD) Post score (SD) P-value
Care management/family
medicine principle (60)
30.7 (15.2) 40.3 (12.3) .032
Leadership/professional
development (60)
25 (18) 34 (12.5) .153
Administrative/management
skill (50)
18 (9.2) 31 (9.5) .066
Teaching (70) 27. 7 ( 7. 6) 43 (7.9) .009
Research/scholarly activity
(40)
17. 3 (7. 8) 24 (7.9) .003
Total score (280) 118.7 (55.5) 172.3 (48.7) .025
aThe 28 competency items were assessed using a ten-point Liker t scale, ranging from 1 (not
confident at all) to 10 (ver y confident). The domain score implies the sum of each competency
score within the domain.
TABLE 3 Pre-post comparison of
learners' confidence
TABLE 4 Faculty competencies with significant improvement in
each domain
Identif ies mission-based organizational dynamics (Administrative/
management skill 4)
Participates actively in meetings with effective meeting skills
(Administrative/management skill 5)
Teaches learners to ef fectively provide of fice-based care, using
teaching frameworks such as five microskills (Teaching 1)
Adequately facilitates individual and small group teaching based on
adult learning theory (Teaching 2)
Discusses learning objectives and selects appropriate strategies for
each learner depending on their individual needs (Teaching 5)
Continues some sort of scholarly activities either by conference
presentation, scientific writing, or writing books/journals
(Research/scholarly activity 4)
6 
|
   IE Et al.
The current study has some limitations. Firstly, our facult y core
comp ete ncy list was extrac ted from a limited numb er of physi cians in
a single residency program; thus, further evaluation will be required
to see whether the faculty core competencies could be used in other
residencies. Secondly, we only included physicians in the Delphi pro-
cess. Other healthcare exper ts, as well as patients, may have different
perspectives that would need to be explored in the future refinement
of the faculty core competency list. Lastly, we could not administer
the pre-post learner evaluation at the end of the 2-year curriculum
due to several logistic reasons. Further curriculum evaluations using
both quantitative and qualitative data, as well as curriculum imple-
mentation in other settings, would be required in the future.
5 | CONCLUSION
A family medicine FD curriculum based on a consensus on the faculty
core competency list was developed in a Japanese family medicine
context. We found that the core faculty competency was strongly
context-oriented and changed with the times. Relevance of the FD
topics and opportunities to apply it to their current positions may be
inevitable for learner engagement. Further curriculum refinements
will be required to see whether the curriculum could be used for
faculty development in other family medicine residencies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to give special thanks to Drs. Linda Hogan, Tadao
Okada, Hideki Wakabayashi, Shuhei Ichikawa, Kei Miyazaki, Misuzu
Yuasa, Chizuru Yabe, Youhei Mori, Hiroshi Iwasa, Satoshi Kondo,
Nao ki Har ada, Masakazu Yam am oto, an d Da isuke Kat o for their sup-
port for this project.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of
interest in connection with this article.
ORCID
Kenya Ie https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1387-0588
REFERENCES
1. Barbara Starfield. Primary care: balancing health needs, services
and technology. New York: Oxford Univer sity Press; 1998.
2. Ie K, Murata A , Tahara M, Komiyama M, Ichikawa S, Takemura YC,
et al. What determines medical students' career preference for gen-
eral practice residency training? a multicenter sur vey in Japan. Asia
Pac Fam Med. 2018;17:2.
3. Sorinola O, Thistlethwaite J. A systematic review of faculty devel-
opment activities in family medicine. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):e1309
–e1318.
4. Haines ST, Persky AM. Faculty development: who, what, why,
where, when, and how? Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78(5):97.
5. Merlin LR, Horak HA, Milligan TA , Kraakevik JA, Ali II. A compe-
tency-based longitudinal core curriculum in medical neuroscience.
Neurology. 2014;83:456–62.
6. Weinberger SE, Pereira AG, Oobst WF, Mechaber AJ, Bronze MS.
Competency-Based Education and Training in Internal Medicine.
Ann Inter n Med. 2010;153:751–6.
7. Bland CJ, Schmitz CC, Strit ter FT, Henry RC , Aluise JJ. Successful
Faculty in Academic Medicine: Essential Skills and How to Acquire
Them, Vol. 12. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc; 1990.
8. Harris DL, Krause KC , Parish DC, Smith MU. Ac ademic competen-
cies for medical facult y. Fam Med. 2007;39(5):343–50.
9. Bing-You RG, Lee R, Trowbridge R, Varak lis K , Hafler JP. Principle-
based Teaching Competencies . J Grad Med Educ. 2009;1:101–3.
10. Sairenji T, Jarrett JB, Baldwin LM, Wilson SA. Overview and assess-
ment of a full-time family medicine faculty development fellowship.
Fam Med. 2018;50(4):275–82.
11. Kemp JE, Morrison GR, Ross SM. Designing effective instruction.
New York: Macmillan Pub Co; 1994.
12. Redwood-Campbell L, Dyck C, Delleman B, McKee R. What are the
family medicine facult y development needs of partners in low- and
middle-income countries? Educ Prim Care. 2018;30:1–6.
13. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripher al participa-
tion. Cambridge, UK: C ambridge University Press; 1991.
14. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the defin-
itive classic in adult education and human resource development.
London, UK: Routledge; 2012.
15. Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluating training programs: the four levels. San
Francisco: Berret t-Koehler; 1994.
16. Kato D, Ie K. Comment s on “comparing a longitudinal integrated
clerkship with traditional hospital-based rotations in a rural set-
ting”. Med Teach. 2017;22:1.
17. Kato D, Ie K, Wakabayashi H. Influences on scope of practice: not
only population size. Fam Med. 2018;50(3):241.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Supporting Information section.
How to cite this article: Ie K, Narushima M, Goto M,
Merenstein J, Wilson S, Takemura Y. Developing and
implementing a faculty development curriculum for Japanese
family medicine residency faculty. J Gen Fam Med.
2020;00:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgf2.309
... [1][2][3] Educación en Medicina Familiar, durante y después de la pandemia La formación de médicos especialistas en tiempos de pandemia es un deber que tienen las universidades con la sociedad, lo que ha suscitado que los diferentes posgrados recurran a los principios que soportan cada especialidad, para promover cambios estratégicos inmediatos en los currículos académicos y continuar la formación de especialistas que tengan conocimientos y capacidades para integrarse como parte de la fuerza laboral en los entornos clínicos, pero también en actividades administrativas, de docencia o de investigación; lo anterior cobra especial importancia en tiempo de pandemia, toda vez que la escasez de trabajadores de la salud es un riesgo potencial permanente. [2][3][4][5] La crisis ha vuelto a situar la medicina familiar en el centro de los sistemas de salud en numerosos países del mundo por su papel integral 1 y por ello se deben reconsiderar cinco dimensiones de suma importancia en la formación de especialistas en esta materia, a saber: ...
... 1. Cuidado y manejo clínico de la familia 2. Liderazgo en salud 3. Administración en salud 4. Investigación en salud 5. Enseñanza en salud 5 Por esto es momento de que los programas de especialización en Medicina Familiar fortalezcan, además de las habilidades clínicas, aquellos componentes básicos complementarios de la especialidad. Es momento de recordar los principios de la Medicina Familiar propuestos por Ian R. McWhinney, entre los cuales se encuentran el compromiso con la persona, el conocimiento del contexto personal, familiar y social de la enfermedad, la consideración de que cada contacto con el paciente y su familia es una oportunidad para identificar riesgos; y hacer promoción de la salud y prevención de la enfermedad, así como tener la capacidad de desempeñar un rol en la gestión de recursos de salud. ...
Article
Full-text available
La enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (covid-19), catalogada por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (oms) como pandemia y urgencia de salud pública global, traerá cambios radicales en numerosos sectores de la sociedad, especialmente en la salud y la educación. 1,2 La crisis del co-ronavirus ha dejado en evidencia numerosas limitaciones de nuestros sistemas de salud, como la falta de provisión de equipos de protección personal, la restringida capacidad de las instalaciones de los hospitales, la escasez de respiradores, y especialmente, la falta de profesionales de la salud, 1 sin embargo, también ha demostrado la capacidad de los profesionales de la salud para adaptarse, evolucionar y prosperar. 2,3 En tiempos de pandemia se demuestra que la formación de profesionales de la salud nunca había sido tan imperiosa. 1,3,4 Sin embargo, debido a la necesidad de implementar el distanciamien-to social, numerosas facultades de medicina se encuentran cerradas y no permiten la formación presencial. Afortunadamente, la necesidad ha propiciado que se prioricen enfoques académicos innovadores y se busquen soluciones para realizar una transición rápida de todo el plan de estudios a formatos en línea, incluso sin tener claridad de si alcanzarán o no para lograr las competencias predefinidas durante el tiempo que dure esta pandemia, especialmente aquellas actividades médicas que requieren de entrenamiento con pacientes o de entornos clínicos simulados. 1-3 Sugerencia de citación: Galvis-Acevedo S, Melo-Quiñones J, Sánchez-Duque JA. Educación en medicina familiar, durante y después de pandemia: carta al editor. Aten Fam. 2020;27(número especial)covid-19:48-49. http://dx.
Article
Full-text available
Background Few studies have systematically explored factors affecting medical students’ general practice career choice. We conducted a nationwide multicenter survey (Japan MEdical Career of Students: JMECS) to examine factors associated with students’ general practice career aspirations in Japan, where it has been decided that general practice will be officially acknowledged as a new discipline. Methods From April to December 2015, we distributed a 21-item questionnaire to final year medical students in 17 medical schools. The survey asked students about their top three career preferences from 19 specialty fields, their demographics and their career priorities. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the effect of each item. Results A total of 1264 responses were included in the analyses. The top three specialty choice were internal medicine: 833 (65.9%), general practice: 408 (32.3%), and pediatrics: 372 (29.4%). Among demographic factors, “plan to inherit other’s practice” positively associated with choosing general practice, whereas “having physician parent” had negative correlation. After controlling for potential confounders, students who ranked the following items as highly important were more likely to choose general practice: “clinical diagnostic reasoning (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.65, 95% CI 1.40–1.94)”, “community-oriented practice (aOR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.13–1.57)”, and” involvement in preventive medicine (aOR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.01–1.38)”. On the contrary, “acute care rather than chronic care”, “mastering advanced procedures”, and “depth rather than breadth of practice” were less likely to be associated with general practice aspiration. Conclusions Our nationwide multicenter survey found several features associated with general practice career aspirations: clinical diagnostic reasoning; community-oriented practice; and preventive medicine. These results can be fundamental to future research and the development of recruitment strategies.
Article
The WHO endorses family medicine (FM) globally to improve health outcomes. The Besrour Centre (BC) brings together partners from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to collaborate on FM development in different contexts. Faculty development is an identified area of need, but specific needs were unknown. A qualitative study was conducted using two 1–1.5-hour focus groups at the 2015 BC conference. Ten countries and 12 universities were represented. Transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analysed for themes using a descriptive approach. There was unanimous support for the need for faculty development tools and resources, particularly in teaching skills. Most programmes lacked formal structure or funding. A consistently identified concept was how to teach specialist faculty the FM context, as was the importance of FM perspective to inform government policies. The need for faculty development of FM in LMICs is strong. FM faculty development resources can be expanded and shared through global health networks. Further expansion of faculty development workshops and toolkits is recommended. This study adds to the current knowledge because it helps to identify the gaps and priorities, specifically focused on LMICs, when developing faculty development FM programmes.
Article
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Part-time faculty development (FD) fellowships help faculty become successful and effective teachers in medicine. Fulltime FD fellowships provide a unique and promising model to train and retain high-quality faculty. This article presents an overview of a well-established, fulltime FD fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh and the results from a survey of its graduates regarding fellowship experiences and their career trajectories. METHODS: A 29-item questionnaire was sent to all graduates who completed the University of Pittsburgh St Margaret Faculty Development Fellowship from 1982 and 2014. Questions covered motivation for pursuing the fellowship, explored fellowship experiences, and examined its impact on career and professional development. We present descriptive frequencies and common themes identified from qualitative data from physician respondents. RESULTS: Fifty-two of the 69 physicians surveyed responded (75.2% response rate). Many completed a 2-year fellowship (n=32, 61.5%). Nearly two-thirds of graduates had an educator position as their first (n=34, 65.4%) and current (n=30, 62.5%) job. Graduates reported a mean fellowship satisfaction score of 8.83 (SD 1.74) on a 10-point scale. Research-related activities and professional development skills were identified as being the most useful/valuable aspects of the fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Fellowship graduates were highly satisfied with their training and had a high retention rate in academic positions. Our findings can guide FD fellowship program design and address the needs of future and current educators in medicine.
Article
Recent efforts to improve medical education include adopting a new framework based on 6 broad competencies defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. In this article, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Education Redesign Task Force II examines the advantages and challenges of a competency-based educational framework for medical residents. Efforts to refine specific competencies by developing detailed mile-stones are described, and examples of training program initiatives using a competency-based approach are presented. Meeting the challenges of a competency-based framework and supporting these educational innovations require a robust faculty development program. Challenges to competency-based education include teaching and evaluating the competencies related to practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice, as well as implementing a flexible time frame to achieve competencies. However, the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine Education Redesign Task Force II does not favor reducing internal medicine training to less than 36 months as part of competency-based education. Rather, the 36-month time frame should allow for remediation to address deficiencies in achieving competencies and for diverse enrichment experiences in such areas as quality of care and practice improvement for residents who have demonstrated skills in all required competencies.
Article
Current medical educational theory encourages the development of competency-based curricula. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's 6 core competencies for resident education (medical knowledge, patient care, professionalism, interpersonal and communication skills, practice-based learning, and systems-based practice) have been embraced by medical schools as the building blocks necessary for becoming a competent licensed physician. Many medical schools are therefore changing their educational approach to an integrated model in which students demonstrate incremental acquisition and mastery of all competencies as they progress through medical school. Challenges to medical schools include integration of preclinical and clinical studies as well as development of learning objectives and assessment measures for each competency. The Undergraduate Education Subcommittee (UES) of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) assembled a group of neuroscience educators to outline a longitudinal competency-based curriculum in medical neuroscience encompassing both preclinical and clinical coursework. In development of this curriculum, the committee reviewed United States Medical Licensing Examination content outlines, Liaison Committee on Medical Education requirements, prior AAN-mandated core curricula for basic neuroscience and clinical neurology, and survey responses from educators in US medical schools. The newly recommended curriculum provides an outline of learning objectives for each of the 6 competencies, listing each learning objective in active terms. Documentation of experiences is emphasized, and assessment measures are suggested to demonstrate adequate achievement in each competency. These guidelines, widely vetted and approved by the UES membership, aspire to be both useful as a stand-alone curriculum and also provide a framework for neuroscience educators who wish to develop a more detailed focus in certain areas of study.