Dataset Information

Building capacity for quality: a pilot co-learning curriculum in quality improvement for faculty and resident learners.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Despite a mandate to teach quality improvement (QI) to residents, many training programs lack faculty capacity to deliver a QI curriculum. OBJECTIVE: We piloted a co-learning curriculum in QI to train residents while simultaneously developing QI teachers. We evaluated the curriculum's acceptability and feasibility and its effect on faculty engagement in doing and teaching QI. METHODS: The curriculum involved 2 half-day, interactive sessions, a team-based QI project, and end-of-year project presentations. Key curriculum design principles included (1) residents and faculty co-attend all interactive sessions, (2) residents and faculty work together on team-based QI projects, and (3) QI projects align with divisional QI priorities. Using the Kirkpatrick framework for learner outcomes, we focused our program evaluation on Level 1 (satisfaction) and Level 2 (knowledge and skills acquisition) outcomes using year-end curriculum evaluations. RESULTS: Our study included 14 residents (70%) and 6 faculty members (30%). With respect to satisfaction (Kirkpatrick Level 1 outcome), 93% (13 of 14) of residents and 100% (6 of 6) of faculty participants rated the overall curriculum as "above average" or "outstanding." Regarding faculty knowledge and skills acquisition (Kirkpatrick Level 2 outcomes), faculty self-rated their QI knowledge and interest in QI higher than their intent to incorporate QI into future practice and their comfort in teaching or supervising QI projects. All 5 faculty respondents (100%) rated the co-learning model for faculty development in QI as "above average" or "outstanding." CONCLUSIONS: Teaching QI to residents and faculty as co-learners is feasible and acceptable and offers a promising model for programs to teach QI to residents while concurrently building faculty capacity.

SUBMITTER: Wong BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3886476 | biostudies-other | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextContinuous quality improvement (CQI) has become prominent in public health settings; yet, little consolidated guidance exists for building CQI capacity of community-based organizations.ObjectiveTo synthesize relevant literature to identify guiding principles and core components critical to building the capacity of organizations to adopt and use CQI.DesignWe employed a systematic review approach to assess guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building as outlined in the literature.Eligibility criteriaStudies meeting the following criteria were eligible for review: (1) empirical, peer-reviewed journal article, evaluation study, review, or systematic review; (2) published in 2010 or later; and (3) capacity-building activities were described in enough detail to be replicable. Studies not including human subjects, published in a language other than English, or for which full text was not available were excluded.Study selectionThe initial return of records included 6557 articles, of which 1455 were duplicates. The research team single-screened titles and abstracts of 5102 studies, resulting in the exclusion of 4842 studies. Two hundred sixty-two studies were double-screened during full-text review, yielding a final sample of 61 studies from which data were extracted.Main outcome measuresOutcome measures of interest were operationalized descriptions of guiding principles and core components of the CQI capacity-building approach.ResultsResults yielded articles from medical education, health care, and public health settings. Findings included guiding principles and core components of CQI capacity-building identified in current practice, as well as infrastructural and contextual elements needed to build CQI capacity.ConclusionsThis consolidation of guiding principles and core components for CQI capacity-building is valuable for public health and related workforces. Despite the uneven distribution of articles from health care, medical education, and public health settings, our findings can be used to guide public health organizations in building CQI capacity in a well-informed, systematic manner.