Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Vice Chairs of Education (VCE) are responsible for ensuring faculty in their department deliver high-quality education to the next generation of physicians. However, there is a paucity of tools available to assess faculty performance as educators. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) developed the Clinician Educator Milestones (CEM) as a formative assessment tool for faculty educators, but they have yet to be widely implemented. We sought to explore the feasibility and utility of the CEM for both VCEs and faculty educators.</p> Methods <p>Participants included VCEs and faculty from multiple clinical departments at a single academic institution. Faculty performed a CEM self-assessment and VCEs used the CEM to assess faculty. Subsequently, faculty and VCEs were instructed to meet, using their completed CEM as a framework for discussion about faculty development, including strengths, weaknesses, and goals for growth. After 6 months, the VCEs and faculty repeated the assessment/self-assessment using the CEM and met a second time for discussion. We used a convergent parallel mixed methods approach, including quantitative surveys and qualitative focus groups, analyzed with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis respectively.</p> Results <p>Fifteen faculty and 6 VCEs from 6 clinical departments participated (survey response rates were 93.3% for faculty, <i>n</i> = 14, and 83.3% for VCEs, <i>n</i> = 5). 50.0% of faculty and 60.0% of VCEs found the CEM feasible. 35.7% of faculty and 80.0% of VCEs reported they identified strengths. 50.0% of faculty and 100.0% of VCEs reported they identified areas for improvement. Most faculty (71.4%) and VCEs (80.0%) thought the CEM assisted in facilitating a career development discussion. More faculty (57.1%) thought they assisted in providing meaningful feedback than VCEs (40.0%). Overall, participants felt there were opportunities to improve the CEM. Thematic analysis revealed 5 themes: <i>framework for conversation</i>,<i> context-dependent usefulness</i>,<i> assigning value to education</i>,<i> implementation</i>, and <i>barriers</i>.</p> Conclusions <p>A majority of participants found that the CEM was feasible to use and assisted in goal development for faculty educators. Many appreciated that the CEM provided a framework for conversation and that the CEM could potentially be used to assign value to education efforts. However, the majority of participants felt there were areas to improve the tool, which may be due to barriers and context-dependent usefulness, varying based on role and career stage. Linking faculty development resources to specific CEM subcompetencies should be considered to enhance the effectiveness of this novel faculty development resource.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Addressing the gap in assessment of faculty educators: pilot implementation of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Clinician Educator Milestones

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月17日

查看全文
  • Tawni M. Johnston,
  • Ting Sun,
  • Gabrielle M. Moore,
  • Andrea J. Williamson,
  • Kshama Jaiswal,
  • Brigitte K. Smith

摘要

Purpose

Vice Chairs of Education (VCE) are responsible for ensuring faculty in their department deliver high-quality education to the next generation of physicians. However, there is a paucity of tools available to assess faculty performance as educators. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) developed the Clinician Educator Milestones (CEM) as a formative assessment tool for faculty educators, but they have yet to be widely implemented. We sought to explore the feasibility and utility of the CEM for both VCEs and faculty educators.

Methods

Participants included VCEs and faculty from multiple clinical departments at a single academic institution. Faculty performed a CEM self-assessment and VCEs used the CEM to assess faculty. Subsequently, faculty and VCEs were instructed to meet, using their completed CEM as a framework for discussion about faculty development, including strengths, weaknesses, and goals for growth. After 6 months, the VCEs and faculty repeated the assessment/self-assessment using the CEM and met a second time for discussion. We used a convergent parallel mixed methods approach, including quantitative surveys and qualitative focus groups, analyzed with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis respectively.

Results

Fifteen faculty and 6 VCEs from 6 clinical departments participated (survey response rates were 93.3% for faculty, n = 14, and 83.3% for VCEs, n = 5). 50.0% of faculty and 60.0% of VCEs found the CEM feasible. 35.7% of faculty and 80.0% of VCEs reported they identified strengths. 50.0% of faculty and 100.0% of VCEs reported they identified areas for improvement. Most faculty (71.4%) and VCEs (80.0%) thought the CEM assisted in facilitating a career development discussion. More faculty (57.1%) thought they assisted in providing meaningful feedback than VCEs (40.0%). Overall, participants felt there were opportunities to improve the CEM. Thematic analysis revealed 5 themes: framework for conversation, context-dependent usefulness, assigning value to education, implementation, and barriers.

Conclusions

A majority of participants found that the CEM was feasible to use and assisted in goal development for faculty educators. Many appreciated that the CEM provided a framework for conversation and that the CEM could potentially be used to assign value to education efforts. However, the majority of participants felt there were areas to improve the tool, which may be due to barriers and context-dependent usefulness, varying based on role and career stage. Linking faculty development resources to specific CEM subcompetencies should be considered to enhance the effectiveness of this novel faculty development resource.