scholarly journals JGME-ALiEM Hot Topics in Medical Education: Analysis of a Multimodal Online Discussion About Team-Based Learning

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Riddell ◽  
Catherine Patocka ◽  
Michelle Lin ◽  
Jonathan Sherbino

ABSTRACT Background  Team-based learning (TBL) is an instructional method that is being increasingly incorporated in health professions education, although use in graduate medical education (GME) has been more limited. Objective  To curate and describe themes that emerged from a virtual journal club discussion about TBL in GME, held across multiple digital platforms, while also evaluating the use of social media in online academic discussions. Methods  The Journal of Graduate Medical Education (JGME) and the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine blog facilitated a weeklong, open-access, virtual journal club on the 2015 JGME article “Use of Team-Based Learning Pedagogy for Internal Medicine Ambulatory Resident Teaching.” Using 4 stimulus questions (hosted on a blog as a starting framework), we facilitated discussions via the blog, Twitter, and Google Hangouts on Air platforms. We evaluated 2-week web analytics and performed a thematic analysis of the discussion. Results  The virtual journal club reached a large international audience as exemplified by the blog page garnering 685 page views from 241 cities in 42 countries. Our thematic analysis identified 4 domains relevant to TBL in GME: (1) the benefits and barriers to TBL; (2) the design of teams; (3) the role of assessment and peer evaluation; and (4) crowdsourced TBL resources. Conclusions  The virtual journal club provided a novel forum across multiple social media platforms, engaging authors, content experts, and the health professions education community in a discussion about the importance, impediments to implementation, available resources, and logistics of adopting TBL in GME.

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne L. Walsh ◽  
Matthew E. Peters ◽  
Rachnanjali L. Saralkar ◽  
Margaret S. Chisolm

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 238212052095182
Author(s):  
Jennifer Morgan ◽  
Shannon Galvin ◽  
Joshua Goldstein ◽  
Colleen Fant ◽  
Robert Murphy ◽  
...  

Introduction: Recently, participation in clinical global health rotations has significantly increased among graduate medical education (GME) trainees. Despite the many benefits these experiences provide, many ethical challenges exist. Well-intentioned partnerships and participants often encounter personal and professional dilemmas related to safety, social responsibility, and accountability. We designed a curriculum to provide trainees of all specialties with a comprehensive educational program aimed at delivering culturally mindful and ethically responsible clinical care in resource-constrained settings. Methods: The McGaw Global Health Clinical Scholars Program (GHCS) at Northwestern University offers a 2-year curriculum for selected GME trainees across specialties interested in global health. Each trainee must complete the following components: core lectures, peer journal club, specialty-specific lectures, a mentorship agreement, ethics and skill-based simulations, a global health field experience, a poster presentation, and a mentored scholarly project. Results: Since 2014, 84 trainees from 13 specialties have participated in the program with 50 current trainees and 39 graduates. Twenty-five trainees completed exit surveys, of which 95% would recommend this program to other trainees and 84% felt more prepared to deliver global health care. In addition, 78% reported career plans that included global health and/or work with underserved populations. Trainees described “acceptance of differences and respect for those differences” and “understanding sustainability” as learning points from the program. Discussion: Providing a comprehensive global health education program across specialties can be feasible and effective. GME trainees who participated in this program report feeling both more prepared for clinical experiences and more likely to serve the underserved anywhere.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 510-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Stork Poeppelman ◽  
Cara A. Liebert ◽  
Daniel Brandt Vegas ◽  
Carl A. Germann ◽  
Anna Volerman

ABSTRACT Background  Team-based learning (TBL) promotes problem solving and teamwork, and has been applied as an instructional method in undergraduate medical education with purported benefits. Although TBL curricula have been implemented for residents, no published systematic reviews or guidelines exist for the development and use of TBL in graduate medical education (GME). Objective  To review TBL curricula in GME, identify gaps in the literature, and synthesize a framework to guide the development of TBL curricula at the GME level. Methods  We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and ERIC databases from 1990 to 2014 for relevant articles. References were reviewed to identify additional studies. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed publications in English that described TBL curriculum implementation in GME. Data were systematically abstracted and reviewed for consensus. Based on included publications, a 4-element framework—system, residents, significance, and scaffolding—was developed to serve as a step-wise guide to planning a TBL curriculum in GME. Results  Nine publications describing 7 unique TBL curricula in residency met inclusion criteria. Outcomes included feasibility, satisfaction, clinical behavior, teamwork, and knowledge application. Conclusions  TBL appears feasible in the GME environment, with learner reactions ranging from positive to neutral. Gaps in the literature occur within each of the 4 elements of the suggested framework, including: system, faculty preparation time and minimum length of effective TBL sessions; residents, impact of team heterogeneity and inconsistent attendance; significance, comparison to other instructional methods and outcomes measuring knowledge retention, knowledge application, and skill development; and scaffolding, factors that influence the completion of preparatory work.


2017 ◽  
Vol 92 (7) ◽  
pp. 1043-1056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeline Sterling ◽  
Peggy Leung ◽  
Drew Wright ◽  
Tara F. Bishop

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. O’Hagan ◽  
Durga Roy ◽  
Blair Anton ◽  
Margaret S. Chisolm

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 585-596
Author(s):  
James G. Hughes ◽  
Peter P. Budetti ◽  
Daniel D. Chapman ◽  
Henry G. Cramblett ◽  
Allen W. Mathies ◽  
...  

I. INTRODUCTION: THE GMENAC REPORT In 1976, the federal government took two major steps that were to have a major impact on public attitudes and policies toward the health professions. (1) Congress passed the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976, formally declaring an end to the notion that there was an overall shortage of physicians in the United States, and emphasizing geographic and primary care shortages instead. (2) Earlier, in April of the same year, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), now the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), established the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) to advise the Secretary of DHEW on a set of issues related to the health professions. The formal charge to GMENAC included five specific questions: (a) What number of physicians is required to meet the health care needs of the nation? (b) What is the most appropriate specialty distribution of these physicians? (c) How can a more favorable geographic distribution of physicians be achieved? (d) What are the appropriate ways to finance the graduate medical education of physicians? (e) What strategies can achieve the recommendations formulated by the Committee? After 4½ years of meetings, analysis, and developing and applying a complex methodology, GMENAC has now completed its work. Its recently published conclusions and recommendations are the subject of this policy statement. II. GMENAC's APPROACH GMENAC chose a ten-year span for its analysis, producing separate estimates for supply of and requirements for health professionals in 1990. Decisions on whether there would be a "shortage" or a "surplus" in a given field were based on a comparison of estimated supply with estimated requirements; the Panel's recommendations were, in turn, based on those decisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document