CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium on Education Scholarship: Training our Future Clinician Educators in Emergency Medicine

Woods, Robert A.; Artz, J.D.; Carrière, Benoit; Field, Simon; Huffman, James L.; Dong, Sandy L.; Bhanji, Farhan; Yiu, Stella; Smith, Sheila; Mengual, Rose; Hicks, C; Frank, Jason R.

doi:10.1017/cem.2017.41

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a large group, the consensus conference participants democratically developed the discussion and brainstorming procedures. Based on suggestions from the floor about previous consensus procedures at other similar conferences, 23,24 our group decided to engage in small-group brainstorming discussions aligned with the expertise and interests of the participants, which was then discussed as a large group and vetted by the Selected as ALIEM AIR Cardiovascular, Non-ACS module 2019. 39 This post was deemed to be of an acceptable score within the ALiEM AIR Scoring tool, and was granted the designation "AIR Approved" by the adjudicating group of educators.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion

Husain

Repanshek

Singh

et al. 2020

WestJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: As scholarship moves into the digital sphere, applicant and promotion and tenure (P&T) committee members lack formal guidance on evaluating the impact of digital scholarly work. The P&T process requires the appraisal of individual scholarly impact in comparison to scholars across institutions and disciplines. As dissemination methods evolve in the digital era, we must adapt traditional P&T processes to include emerging forms of digital scholarship. Methods: We conducted a blended, expert consensus procedure using a nominal group process to create a consensus document at the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Academic Assembly on April 1, 2019. Results: We discussed consensus guidelines for evaluation and promotion of digital scholarship with the intent to develop specific, evidence-supported recommendations to P&T committees and applicants. These recommendations included the following: demonstrate scholarship criteria; provide external evidence of impact; and include digital peerreview roles. As traditional scholarship continues to evolve within the digital realm, academic medicine should adapt how that scholarship is evaluated. P&T committees in academic medicine are at the epicenter for supporting this changing paradigm in scholarship. Conclusion: P&T committees can critically appraise the quality and impact of digital scholarship using specific, validated tools. Applicants for appointment and promotion should highlight and prepare their digital scholarship to specifically address quality, impact, breadth, and relevance. It is our goal to provide specific, timely guidance for both stakeholders to recognize the value of digital scholarship in advancing our field. [

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion

Husain

Repanshek

Singh

et al. 2020

WestJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). Our process was informed in part by similar consensus-based processes carried out by colleagues in other fields [27, 28]. A Research Ethics Board exemption was sought and obtained from the University of Saskatchewan’s Research Ethics Board (BEH 957).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of a provincial multidisciplinary framework of consensus-based standards for Point of Care Ultrasound at the University of Saskatchewan

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe development and adoption of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) across disciplines have created challenges and opportunities in implementing training and utilization standards. Within the context of a large, geographically disparate province, we sought to develop a multidisciplinary POCUS framework outlining consensus-based standards.MethodsA core working group of local POCUS leaders from Anesthesia, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, and Trauma, in collaboration with western Canadian colleagues, developed a list of key domains for the framework along with a range of potential standards for each area. The members of the working group and the registrants for a multidisciplinary Roundtable discussion at the University of Saskatchewan’s annual POCUS conference (SASKSONO19, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, March 2nd, 2019) were invited to complete a survey on POCUS standards for each domain. The survey results were presented to and discussed by participants at the Roundtable discussion at SASKSONO19 who reached consensus on modified standards for each domain. The modified standards were considered for endorsement by all conference attendees using an audience-response system.ResultsThe working group proposed standards in eight domains: scope of use, credentialing and privileges, documentation, quality assurance, leadership and governance, teaching, research, and equipment maintenance. Consensus on modified standards was achieved in the 18 participant Roundtable. Each standard was then endorsed by > 90% of conference respondents.ConclusionThe resulting framework will inform the utilization of POCUS within Saskatchewan. Both this process and its outcomes could inform the development of multidisciplinary POCUS standards within other jurisdictions.

show abstract

“…CAEP has supported the development of education scholars via the Clinician Educator Mentorship Service at the CAEP Annual Conference, the Academic Section Education Consultation Service for Divisions and Department of EM, and a second Academic Symposium on education scholarship in 2016. Building on the inaugural symposium, the 2016 symposium produced consensus guidelines on the training of future clinician educators, 7 the development of educators and scholars with an impact on EM, 6 and provided further guidance on the production of high quality medical education scholarship. 1,[8][9][10][11] These consensus guidelines suggest best practices to support the growth of the next generation of scholars.…”

Section: The Present: We've Come a Long Way In Just 8 Yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Education scholarship in Canadian emergency medicine: The past, present, and future

Woods

Chan

Thoma

et al. 2018

CJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium on Education Scholarship: Training our Future Clinician Educators in Emergency Medicine

Abstract: These recommendations serve as a framework for training and supporting the next generation of Canadian EM medical educators.

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion

Consensus Guidelines for Digital Scholarship in Academic Promotion

The development of a provincial multidisciplinary framework of consensus-based standards for Point of Care Ultrasound at the University of Saskatchewan

Education scholarship in Canadian emergency medicine: The past, present, and future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About