Dataset Information

Are we preparing for collaboration, advocacy and leadership? Targeted multi-site analysis of collaborative intrinsic roles implementation in medical undergraduate curricula.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The Collaborator, Health Advocate and Leader/Manager roles are highly relevant for safe patient management and optimization of healthcare system in rehabilitation and prevention. They are defined in competency-based frameworks and incorporate competencies empowering physicians to master typical daily tasks in interdisciplinary, interprofessional and institutional collaboration. However, appropriate implementation of roles remains difficult in undergraduate medical education (UME) and needs to be closely monitored. The aim of this cross-institutional mapping study was to examine for the roles of Collaborator, Health Advocate and Leader/Manager: (1) To what extent do German UME programs explicitly meet the given standards after 5 years of study? (2) Which information may be obtained from multi-site mapping data for evidence-based reflection on curricula and framework? METHODS:In a joint project of eight German UME programs, 80 to 100% of courses were mapped from teachers' perspective against given national standards: (sub-)competency coverage, competency level attainment and assessment. All faculties used a common tool and consented procedures for data collection and processing. The roles' representation was characterized by the curricular weighting of each role content expressed by the percentage of courses referring to it (citations). Data were visualized in a benchmarking approach related to a general mean of the intrinsic roles as reference line. RESULTS:(Sub-)competencies of the Health Advocate are consistently well-integrated in curricula with a wide range of generally high curricular weightings. The Collaborator reveals average curricular representation, but also signs of ongoing curricular development in relevant parts and clear weaknesses regarding assessment and achieved outcomes. The Leader/Manager displays consistently lowest curricular weightings with several substantial deficiencies in curricular representation, constructive alignment and/or outcome level. Our data allow identifying challenges to be considered by local curriculum developers or framework reviewers (e.g. non-achievement of competency levels, potential underrepresentation, lacking constructive alignment). CONCLUSION:Our non-normative, process-related benchmarking approach provides a differentiated crosscut snapshot to compare programs in the field of others, thus revealing shortcomings in role implementation, especially for Leader/Manager and Collaborator. The synopsis of multi-site data may serve as an external reference for program self-assessment and goal-oriented curriculum development. It may also provide practical data for framework review.

SUBMITTER: Griewatz J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7001219 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are we preparing for collaboration, advocacy and leadership? Targeted multi-site analysis of collaborative intrinsic roles implementation in medical undergraduate curricula.

Griewatz Jan J Yousef Amir A Rothdiener Miriam M Lammerding-Koeppel Maria M

BMC medical education 20200204 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Collaborator, Health Advocate and Leader/Manager roles are highly relevant for safe patient management and optimization of healthcare system in rehabilitation and prevention. They are defined in competency-based frameworks and incorporate competencies empowering physicians to master typical daily tasks in interdisciplinary, interprofessional and institutional collaboration. However, appropriate implementation of roles remains difficult in undergraduate medical education (U ...[more]

PMID: 32019523

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Professionalism standards encourage physicians to participate in public advocacy on behalf of societal health and well-being. While the number of publications of advocacy curricula for GME-level trainees has increased, there has been no formal effort to catalog them. OBJECTIVE:To systematically review the existing literature on curricula for teaching advocacy to GME-level trainees and synthesize the results to provide a resource for programs interested in developing advocacy curricula. METHODS:A systematic literature review was conducted to identify articles published in English that describe advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees in the USA and Canada current to September 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We abstracted information and themes on curriculum development, implementation, and sustainability. Learning objectives, educational content, teaching methods, and evaluations for each curriculum were also extracted. RESULTS:After reviewing 884 articles, we identified 38 articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Curricula were offered across a variety of specialties, with 84% offered in primary care specialties. There was considerable heterogeneity in the educational content of included advocacy curriculum, ranging from community partnership to legislative advocacy. Common facilitators of curriculum implementation included the American Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements, institutional support, and preexisting faculty experience. Common barriers were competing curricular demands, time constraints, and turnover in volunteer faculty and community partners. Formal evaluation revealed that advocacy curricula were acceptable to trainees and improved knowledge, attitudes, and reported self-efficacy around advocacy. DISCUSSION:Our systematic review of the medical education literature identified several advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees. These curricula provide templates for integrating advocacy education into GME-level training programs across specialties, but more work needs to be done to define standards and expectations around GME training for this professional activity.

Project description:BackgroundThe Australian Medical Council, which accredits Australian medical schools, recommends medical leadership graduate outcomes be taught, assessed and accredited. In Australia and New Zealand (Australasia) there is a significant research gap and no national consensus on how to educate, assess, and evaluate leadership skills in medical professional entry degree/programs. This study aims to investigate the current curricula, assessment and evaluation of medical leadership in Australasian medical degrees, with particular focus on the roles and responsibilities of medical leadership teachers, frameworks used and competencies taught, methods of delivery, and barriers to teaching leadership.MethodsA self-administered cross-sectional survey was distributed to senior academics and/or heads or Deans of Australasian medical schools. Data for closed questions and ordinal data of each Likert scale response were described via frequency analysis. Content analysis was undertaken on free text responses and coded manually.ResultsSixteen of the 22 eligible (73%) medical degrees completed the full survey and 100% of those indicate that leadership is taught in their degree. In most degrees (11, 69%) leadership is taught as a common theme integrated throughout the curricula across several subjects. There is a variety of leadership competencies taught, with strengths being communication (100%), evidence based practice (100%), critical reflective practice (94%), self-management (81%), ethical decision making (81%), critical thinking and decision making (81%). Major gaps in teaching were financial management (20%), strategic planning (31%) and workforce planning (31%). The teaching methods used to deliver medical leadership within the curricula are diverse, with many degrees providing opportunities for leadership teaching for students outside the curricula. Most degrees (10, 59%) assess the leadership education, with one-third (6, 35%) evaluating it.ConclusionsMedical leadership competencies are taught in most degrees, but key leadership competencies are not being taught and there appears to be no continuous quality improvement process for leadership education. There is much more we can do as medical educators, academics and leaders to shape professional development of academics to teach medical leadership, and to agree on required leadership skills set for our students so they can proactively shape the future of the health care system.

Project description:BackgroundIn healthcare and allied healthcare settings, leadership that supports effective implementation of evidenced-based practices (EBPs) is a critical concern. However, there are no empirically validated measures to assess implementation leadership. This paper describes the development, factor structure, and initial reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of a very brief measure of implementation leadership: the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS).MethodsParticipants were 459 mental health clinicians working in 93 different outpatient mental health programs in Southern California, USA. Initial item development was supported as part of a two United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) studies focused on developing implementation leadership training and implementation measure development. Clinician work group/team-level data were randomly assigned to be utilized for an exploratory factor analysis (n?=?229; k?=?46 teams) or for a confirmatory factor analysis (n?=?230; k?=?47 teams). The confirmatory factor analysis controlled for the multilevel, nested data structure. Reliability and validity analyses were then conducted with the full sample.ResultsThe exploratory factor analysis resulted in a 12-item scale with four subscales representing proactive leadership, knowledgeable leadership, supportive leadership, and perseverant leadership. Confirmatory factor analysis supported an a priori higher order factor structure with subscales contributing to a single higher order implementation leadership factor. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity.ConclusionsThe ILS is a brief and efficient measure of unit level leadership for EBP implementation. The availability of the ILS will allow researchers to assess strategic leadership for implementation in order to advance understanding of leadership as a predictor of organizational context for implementation. The ILS also holds promise as a tool for leader and organizational development to improve EBP implementation.

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians are in a position of great influence to advocate for health equity. As such, it is important for physicians-in-training to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfil this role. Although various undergraduate medical programs have implemented health advocacy training, they often lack experiential learning and physician involvement. These aspects are foundational to the Advocacy Mentorship Initiative (AMI) which utilizes cascading mentorship as a novel approach to advocacy training. Medical students develop advocacy competency as peer mentors to youth raised in at-risk environments, while also being mentored themselves by physician residents. We aim to determine whether there are specific advantages to utilizing cascading mentorship to facilitate the attainment of advocacy competencies in undergraduate medical education.MethodsMedical students participating in AMI between 2017 to 2020 completed pre- and post-exposure questionnaires. Questionnaires assessed confidence in advocacy-related skills and knowledge of youth advocacy concepts, as well as learning goals, skills gained, benefits of AMI and resident mentors, and impact on future career. Sign tests were utilized to analyze quantitative results, and content analysis was used for open-ended responses. A triangulation protocol was also utilized.ResultsFifty mentors participated, 24 (48%) of which completed both pre- and post-exposure questionnaires. Participants gained confidence in advocacy-related skills (p?<?0.05) such as working with vulnerable populations and advocating for medical and non-medical needs. They also reported significant improvements (p?<?0.01) in their understanding of social determinants of health and concepts related to children's health and development. Content analysis showed that participants built meaningful relationships with mentees in which they learned about social determinants of health, youth advocacy, and developed various advocacy-related skills. Participants greatly valued mentorship by residents, identifying benefits such as support and advice regarding relations with at-risk youth, and career mentorship. AMI impacted participants' career trajectories in terms of interest in working with youth, psychiatry, and advocacy.ConclusionsAMI offers a unique method of advocacy training through cascading mentorship that engages medical students both as mentors to at-risk youth and mentees to resident physicians. Through cascading mentorship, medical students advance in their advocacy-related skills and understanding of social determinants of health.

Dataset Information

Are we preparing for collaboration, advocacy and leadership? Targeted multi-site analysis of collaborative intrinsic roles implementation in medical undergraduate curricula.

Publications

Are we preparing for collaboration, advocacy and leadership? Targeted multi-site analysis of collaborative intrinsic roles implementation in medical undergraduate curricula.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets