BackgroundThe Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada mandate that faculty members demonstrate they are evaluating residents on all CanMEDS (Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists) roles as part of the accreditation process. Postgraduate Medical Education at the University of Ottawa initiated a 5-year project to develop and implement a comprehensive system to assess the full spectrum of CanMEDS roles. This paper presents the findings from a needs assessment with Program Directors, in order to determine how postgraduate medical faculty can be motivated and supported to evaluate residents on the intrinsic CanMEDS roles.MethodsSemi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 60 Postgraduate Program Directors in the Faculty of Medicine. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using qualitative analysis. Once the researchers were satisfied the identified themes reflected the views of the participants, the data was assigned to categories to provide rich, detailed, and comprehensive information that would indicate what faculty need in order to effectively evaluate their residents on the intrinsic roles.ResultsFindings indicated faculty members need faculty development and shared point of care resources to support them with how to not only evaluate, but also teach, the intrinsic roles. Program Directors expressed the need to collaborate and share resources across departments and national specialty programs. Based on our findings, we designed and delivered workshops with companion eBooks to teach and evaluate residents at the point of care (Developing the Professional, Health Advocate and Scholar).ConclusionsIdentifying stakeholder needs is essential for designing effective faculty development. By sharing resources, faculties can prevent ‘reinventing the wheel’ and collaborate to meet the Colleges’ accreditation requirements more efficiently.

Aim: To explore the impact that prolonged use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has on the skin integrity of Canadian health professionals. Method: A descriptive, pan-Canadian, cross-sectional, online survey was carried out to explore the type and prevalence of PPE-related skin injury among Canadian health professionals. Convenience sampling was used to disseminate the online survey link to health professionals. Results: There were responses from 757 health professionals. Masks worn included surgical masks (90%), a combination of surgical or N95/KN95 masks (7.7%) and an N95/KN95 mask alone (2.7%). Responses showed 84.6% of providers always wear a mask while at work with 38.5% wearing the same mask all shift; 90% of participants wore protective eye wear. Complications included soreness or pressure injuries behind the ears (70%), new or worsening acne (52%), a runny nose or sneezing (45%), itching (39%), and dry skin (37%). Hand issues included dry skin (53%), red skin (30%), itching (26%), broken skin (20%), rash (16%), and dermatitis (11%) – 51% of respondents did not moisturise their hands. Complications related to gown use included itching (6%), moisture-associated skin damage (5.5%), feeling claustrophobic (4.5%), and new or worsening acne (3%). Increased perspiration due to PPE was experienced in 87.5% of respondents. Some 43% of respondents noted their mental health became worse due to wearing PPE for prolonged periods. Conclusion: These findings should be used in the development of guidelines to prevent and manage PPE-related skin injuries among health professionals. Education for professionals should focus on skin protection, prevention of PPE-related skin complications and support for mental health issues.

Background It is unclear how often frontline clinical teachers are using this literature and its evidence base in teaching and assessment. Our study purpose was to examine postgraduate program director perspectives on the utilization and integration of evidence-based medical education literature in their teaching and assessment practices. Methods The authors conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a convenience sample of current and former program directors from across Canada. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed inductively to distil pertinent themes. Results In 2017, 11 former and current program directors participated in interviews. Major themes uncovered included the desire for time-efficient and easily adaptable teaching and assessment tools. Participants reported insufficient time to examine the medical education literature, and preferred that it be ‘synthesized for them’. (i.e., Best evidence guidelines). Participants recognised continuing professional development and peer to peer sharing as useful means of education about evidence-based tools. Barriers to the integration of the literature in practice included inadequate time, lack of financial compensation for teaching and assessment, and the perception that teaching and assessment of trainees was not valued in academic promotion. Discussion Faculty development offices should consider the time constraints of clinical teachers when planning programming on teaching and assessment. To enhance uptake, medical education publications need to consider approaches that best meet the needs of a targeted audiences, including frontline clinical teachers. This may involve novel methods and formats that render evidence and findings from their studies more easily ‘digestible’ by clinical teachers to narrow the knowledge to practice gap.

Background: Over the last 31 years, there have been several institutional efforts to better recognize and reward clinician teachers. However, the perception of inadequate recognition and rewards by clinician teachers for their clinical teaching performance and achievements remains. The objective of this narrative review is two-fold: deepen understanding of the attributes of excellent clinician teachers considered for recognition and reward decisions and identify the barriers clinician teachers face in receiving recognition and rewards. Methods: We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Education Source and Web of Science to identify relevant papers published between 1990 and 2020. After screening for eligibility, we conducted a content analysis of the findings from 43 relevant papers to identify key trends and issues in the literature. Results: We found the majority of relevant papers from the US context, a paucity of relevant papers from the Canadian context, and a declining international focus on the attributes of excellent clinician teachers and barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers since 2010. ‘Provides feedback’, ‘excellent communication skills’, ‘good supervision’, and ‘organizational skills’ were common cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. ‘Stimulates’, ‘passionate and enthusiastic’, and ‘creates supportive environment’, were common non-cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. The devaluation of teaching, unclear criteria, and unreliable metrics were the main barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers. Conclusions: The findings of our narrative review highlight a need for local empirical research on recognition and reward issues to better inform local, context-specific reforms to policies and practices.

No abstract