Dataset Information

A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Reviewing elements of a curriculum, such as courses and clerkships in medical school, is an essential part of the quality improvement process. Yet there is a gap in the literature in terms of actual rubrics for evaluating course quality in medical schools.

Methods

This resource describes a course review process and rubric to evaluate course quality: A subcommittee of faculty members and students evaluates goals, content and delivery, assessment, feedback to students, grading, and student feedback for each course with the rubric. Course directors, Curriculum Committee members, and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members were surveyed on their perception of the process.

Results

A large majority of Curriculum Committee and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members agreed that the review process was objective (100%), provided an evaluation of course quality (>95%), helped identify areas of improvement/strengths (>91%) and issues/concerns in the curriculum (>95%), helped them become more familiar with the curriculum (>90%), and was a catalyst for changes in a course (>77%). Course/clerkship directors had less agreement that the course review process was a catalyst for curriculum changes (46%) and that the process helped identify areas of improvement for a course (62%).

Discussion

This curriculum evaluation process provides a resource for other institutions to use and/or modify for their own course evaluation process. All stakeholders in the review process agreed that the evaluation process was successful in identifying areas that worked and did not work in courses.

SUBMITTER: Moore KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7331966 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship.

Moore Kathryn B KB Bonnett Rachel R Colbert-Getz Jorie M JM

MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources 20200618

<h4>Introduction</h4>Reviewing elements of a curriculum, such as courses and clerkships in medical school, is an essential part of the quality improvement process. Yet there is a gap in the literature in terms of actual rubrics for evaluating course quality in medical schools.<h4>Methods</h4>This resource describes a course review process and rubric to evaluate course quality: A subcommittee of faculty members and students evaluates goals, content and delivery, assessment, feedback to students, ...[more]

PMID: 32656332

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedical education is tasked with shaping how medical students and physicians think, feel and act as professionals, or their Professional Identity Formation (PIF). This process has traditionally rested upon imparting knowledge; integrating sociocultural, professional and organizational expectations and codes of conduct; inculcating program and practice beliefs, values and principles (belief systems); and imbuing shared identities - quintessential elements that, together, comprise the socialization process. Key to supporting this socialization process is reflective practice. However, regnant approaches to mobilizing reflective cycles are faced with resource, personnel and time constraints, hindering efforts to nurture PIF. Group non-written reflections (GNWR) - broadly defined as facilitator-led discussions of shared reflective experiences within groups of learners - may prove to be an effective compromise. To address diverse approaches and a lack of effective understanding, we propose a systematic scoping review (SSR) to map the current use of GNWR in medical training and its role in shaping PIF.MethodsGuided by the Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA)'s constructivist ontological and relativist epistemological position, this SSR in SEBA searched for articles on GNWR published in PubMed, Embase, Psychinfo, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, Open Grey, GreyLit and ProQuest databases. The data found was concurrently analyzed using thematic and direct content analysis. Complementary themes and categories identified were combined, creating the domains that framed the discussion.ResultsOf the 8560 abstracts and 336 full-text articles reviewed, 98 articles were included. The four domains identified were: (1) Indications of use and their value; (2) Structure and how they can be used; (3) Models of reflective practice in GNWR; and (4) Features of communities of practice and the socialisation process.ConclusionThis SSR in SEBA concludes that GNWR does impact PIF when effectively structured and supported. The Krishna-Pisupati Model for PIF platforms a model that explains GNWR's effects of PIF and advances fourteen recommendations to maximize GNWR use.

Project description:BackgroundRecent reports, including the Institute of Medicine's Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, highlight the pervasiveness and underappreciated harm of diagnostic error, and recommend enhancing health care professional education in diagnostic reasoning. However, little is known about clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools.ObjectiveTo describe clinical reasoning curricula at US medical schools and to determine the attitudes of internal medicine clerkship directors toward teaching of clinical reasoning.DesignCross-sectional multicenter study.ParticipantsUS institutional members of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM).Main measuresExamined responses to a survey that was emailed in May 2015 to CDIM institutional representatives, who reported on their medical school's clinical reasoning curriculum.Key resultsThe response rate was 74% (91/123). Most respondents reported that a structured curriculum in clinical reasoning should be taught in all phases of medical education, including the preclinical years (64/85; 75%), clinical clerkships (76/87; 87%), and the fourth year (75/88; 85%), and that more curricular time should be devoted to the topic. Respondents indicated that most students enter the clerkship with only poor (25/85; 29%) to fair (47/85; 55%) knowledge of key clinical reasoning concepts. Most institutions (52/91; 57%) surveyed lacked sessions dedicated to these topics. Lack of curricular time (59/67, 88%) and faculty expertise in teaching these concepts (53/76, 69%) were identified as barriers.ConclusionsInternal medicine clerkship directors believe that clinical reasoning should be taught throughout the 4 years of medical school, with the greatest emphasis in the clinical years. However, only a minority reported having teaching sessions devoted to clinical reasoning, citing a lack of curricular time and faculty expertise as the largest barriers. Our findings suggest that additional institutional and national resources should be dedicated to developing clinical reasoning curricula to improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce diagnostic error.

Dataset Information

A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets