Lindsay Baker

In this article we introduce a synthesis of education “paradigms,” adapted from a multi-disciplinary body of literature and tailored to health professions education (HPE). Each paradigm involves a particular perspective on the purpose of education, the nature of knowledge, what knowledge is valued and included in the curriculum, what it means to learn and how learning is assessed, and the roles of teachers and learners in the learning process. We aim to foster awareness of how these different paradigms look in practice and to illustrate the importance of alignment between teaching, learning and assessment practices with paradigmatic values and assumptions. Finally, we advocate for a pluralistic approach that purposefully and meaningfully integrates paradigms of education, enhancing our ability to drive quality in HPE.

To (1) provide a detailed account of the nature and scope of faculty development (FD) programs in medical education, (2) assess the quality of FD studies, and (3) identify in what areas and through what means future research can purposefully build on existing knowledge. The authors searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ERIC for articles reporting evaluations of FD initiatives published between 1989 and 2010. They applied standard systematic review procedures for sifting abstracts, scrutinizing full texts, and abstracting data, including program characteristics, evaluation methods, and outcomes. They used a modified Kirkpatrick model to guide their data abstraction. The authors included 22 articles reporting on 21 studies in their review. The most common program characteristics included a series/longitudinal format, intended for individuals, and offered to physicians only. Although the most common aim was to improve teaching effectiveness, several programs had multiple aims, including scholarship and leadership. Program evaluation focused on quantitative approaches. A number of studies employed longitudinal designs and included some follow-up component. Surveys were the most popular data collection method, participants the most common data source, and self-reported behavior changes the most commonly reported outcome. Although the authors' findings showed some recent expansion in the scope of the FD literature, they also highlighted areas that require further focus and growth. Future research should employ more rigorous evaluation methods, explore the role of interprofessional teams and communities of practice in the workplace, and address how different organizational and contextual factors shape the success of FD programs.

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Discussion: 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.

Simulated learning activities are increasingly being used in health professions and interprofessional education (IPE). Specifically, IPE programs are frequently adopting role-play simulations as a key learning approach. Despite this widespread adoption, there is little empirical evidence exploring the teaching and learning processes embedded within this type of simulation. This exploratory study provides insight into the nature of these processes through the use of qualitative methods. A total of 152 clinicians, 101 students and 9 facilitators representing a range of health professions, participated in video-recorded role-plays and debrief sessions. Videotapes were analyzed to explore emerging issues and themes related to teaching and learning processes related to this type of interprofessional simulated learning experience. In addition, three focus groups were conducted with a subset of participants to explore perceptions of their educational experiences. Five key themes emerged from the data analysis: enthusiasm and motivation, professional role assignment, scenario realism, facilitator style and background and team facilitation. Our findings suggest that program developers need to be mindful of these five themes when using role-plays in an interprofessional context and point to the importance of deliberate and skilled facilitation in meeting desired learning outcomes.

The facilitation of learners from different professional groups requires a range of interprofessional knowledge and skills (e.g. an understanding of possible sources of tension between professions) in addition to those that are more generic, such as how to manage a small group of learners. The development and delivery of interprofessional education (IPE) programs tends to rely on a small cohort of facilitators who have typically gained expertise through ‘hands-on’ involvement in facilitating IPE and through mentorship from more experienced colleagues. To avoid burn-out and to meet a growing demand for IPE, a larger number of facilitators are needed. However, empirical evidence regarding effective approaches to prepare for this type of work is limited. This article draws on data from a multiple case study of four IPE programs based in an urban setting in North America with a sample of neophyte facilitators and provides insight into their perceptions and experiences in preparing for and delivering IPE. Forty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted before (n == 20) and after (n == 21) program delivery with 21 facilitators. Findings indicated that despite participating in a three-fold faculty development strategy designed to support them in their IPE facilitation work, many felt unprepared and continued to have a poor conceptual understanding of core IPE and interprofessional collaboration principles, resulting in problematic implications (e.g. ‘missed teachable moments’) within their IPE programs. Findings from this study are discussed in relation to the IPE, faculty development and wider educational literature before implications are offered for the future delivery of interprofessional faculty development activities.

Background: A growing number of faculty are engaging in research in health professions education. Suggestions continue to be made in the literature for a clear and less onerous pathway for the ethical review of this work. Aim: We aim to provide advice about the ethics application process for those conducting research in health professions education. Methods: We used critical reflection of our experiences as research ethics board (REB) members, applying for, reviewing and consulting about the ethics application process in both UK and Canadian health contexts in addition to evidence and advice that is available in the literature to inform the tips provided. Results: Twelve tips are offered to help faculty understand and navigate through the ethics application process. Conclusion: Health professionals have an important role to play in advancing the field of health professions education, and despite issues identified with current review pathways, REB review is in place to ensure that this work is undertaken safely and ethically. We believe the tips offered in this article will help faculty identify, and devise plans to address, some ethical issues that are common in health professions education research.

Interprofessional education (IPE) is considered a key mechanism in enhancing communication and practice among health care providers, optimizing participation in clinical decision making and improving the delivery of care. An important, though under-explored, factor connected to this form of education is the unequal power relations that exist between the health and the social care professions. Drawing on data from the evaluation of a large multi-site IPE initiative, we use Witz's model of professional closure (1992) to explore the perspectives and the experiences of participants and the power relations between them. A subset of interviews with a range of different professionals (n = 25) were inductively analyzed to generate emerging themes related to perceptions of professional closure and power. Findings from this work highlight how professionals' views of interprofessional interactions, behaviours and attitudes tend to either reinforce or attempt to restructure traditional power relationships within the context of an IPE initiative.

(2011). Assessment of interprofessional learning: the design of an interprofessional objective structured clinical examination (iOSCE) approach. Journal of Interprofessional Care: Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 73-74. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2010.483746