OBJECTIVES Participants in faculty development workshops often comment that 'those who need faculty development the most attend the least'. The goals of this study were to explore the reasons why some clinical teachers do not participate in centralised faculty development activities and to learn how we can make faculty development programmes more relevant to teachers' needs.METHODS In 2006, we conducted focus groups with 16 clinical teachers, who had not participated in faculty development activities, to ascertain their perceptions of faculty development, reasons for non-participation and perceived barriers to involvement. Content analysis and team consensus guided the data interpretation.RESULTS Focus group participants were aware of faculty development offerings and valued the goals of these activities. Important reasons for non-participation emerged: clinical reality, which included volume of work and lack of (protected) time; logistical issues, such as timing and the central location of organised activities; a perceived lack of financial reward and recognition for teaching, and a perceived lack of direction from, and connection to, the university.CONCLUSIONS Clinical reality and logistical issues appeared to be greater deterrents to participation than faculty development goals, content or strategies. Moreover, when asked to discuss faculty development, teachers referred to their development as faculty members in the broadest sense, which included personal and career development. They also expressed the desire for clear guidance from the university, financial rewards and recognition for teaching, and a sense of 'belonging'. Faculty development programmes should try to address these organisational issues as well as teachers' personal and professional needs.faculty development

No abstract

The conceptualisation of faculty development as a means to achieve specific objectives and the desire for relevant programming that addresses current needs (i.e., expectancies), together with an appreciation of learning, self-improvement and networking with colleagues (i.e., values), were highlighted as reasons for participation by regular attendees. Medical educators should consider these 'lessons learned' in the design and delivery of faculty development offerings. They should also continue to explore the notion of faculty development as a social practice and the application of motivational theories that include expectancy-value constructs to personal and professional development.

Participating in the Osler Fellowship, an example of situated and work-based learning, resulted in a sense of connection with students, medical education, core professional values, and colleagues. As medical educators continue to develop longitudinal mentoring programs, the authors hope that these findings will offer insights on faculty development, recruitment, and renewal.

The OSTE is a novel tool to enhance faculty development. We describe 12 key elements that are important for its successful development and delivery.

BackgroundResearch integrating Continuing Professional Development (CPD) with patient safety (PS) and quality improvement (QI) is still in its infancy despite advocacy by leaders in the field. ObjectivesThis theory-driven study explored the feasibility to implement and evaluate the impact of a CPD intervention focused on teaching and practicing PS and QI at the levels of satisfaction, usefulness, knowledge, confidence, intention to change behaviour and reported changes in practice. MethodsThree workshops targeting healthcare professionals were delivered live between 2014 and 2016. Data was collected longitudinally through four questionnaires and analyzed with descriptive statistics and triangulation of sources. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. ResultsSixty-seven healthcare professionals participated in the study. Across workshops, satisfaction was high and a significant increase in knowledge and confidence were reported immediately post-intervention. Intention to change behavior was high across workshops. 'Moral norm' and 'beliefs about consequences' were consistently rated as the most influential factors in participants' intention to change behavior while 'social influence' was consistently rated as the least influential. At the workshops, participants anticipated improving communication, increasing their knowledge on PS-QI, applying content learned and building teamwork. Commonly anticipated barriers to implementation included lack of resources, environmental stressors, and the organizational climate/culture. These barriers were confirmed six-month post where participants reported partially implementing 78% (18/23) anticipated goals. ConclusionsThis study showed the feasibility to develop and implement an effective CPD intervention supporting healthcare professionals' knowledge, confidence, and reported change in teaching and practicing PS-QI.

Along with similar pre-clerkship courses, the LFME provides a valuable context for developing students' clinical skills, providing real-world cases, teaching patient-centred care and improving attitudes toward primary care. The LFME Survey appears to be a promising and innovative tool that deserves further validation.

Background: Narrative medicine is increasingly popular in undergraduate medical curricula. Moreover, although faculty are expected to use narrative approaches in teaching, few faculty development learning activities have been described. In addition, data on the impact of faculty development initiatives designed to teach narrative are limited, and there is a paucity of tools to assess their impact. Aims: To assess the impact and outcomes of a faculty development workshop on narrative medicine. Methods: Two groups of clinical teachers were studied; one group had already attended a half-day narrative medicine workshop (N ¼ 10) while the other had not yet attended (N ¼ 9). Both groups were interviewed about their uses of narrative in teaching and practice. Additionally, the understanding of a set of narrative skills was assessed by first viewing a video of a narrative-based teaching session followed by completion of an 18-item assessment tool. Results: Both groups reported that they used narrative in both their teaching and clinical practice. Those who had attended the workshop articulated a more nuanced understanding of narrative terms compared to those who had not yet attended. Conclusion: This study is one of the first to describe measureable impacts of a faculty development workshop on narrative medicine.