Institutional education leaders serve key roles in leading major curricular change within residency education, yet little is known about how they accomplish these goals on the ground. Change management principles have predominantly been developed and described in the hierarchical context of management science and corporate settings. However, the non-hierarchical, complex and adaptive features of health professions education may render these traditional change management models inadequate. We explored how institutional educational leaders navigate the complex residency education system in implementing a major curricular change.
Using constructivist grounded theory, we conducted and iteratively analysed semi-structured interviews with 11 institutional education leaders from across Canada who were responsible for leading the nationally mandated curricular change to competency-based residency education. Thematic analysis was performed iteratively using constant comparison.
Leaders managing the change process focused on two priorities: steering the direction of the change process as it evolved and maintaining the momentum amongst stakeholders to move forward steadily. Four common threats and opportunities impacted the focus on direction and momentum: multiplicity of contexts, innovation, resistance and distractions. In response, leaders utilised various tactics and harnessed diverse leadership styles to manage these challenges accordingly.
We identified a change framework that offers a more contextually nuanced understanding of curricular change in residency education that has not been described in the change management literature generated by the management sector. Institutional education leaders focused on maintaining the direction and momentum, while constantly assessing and adapting to evolving, uncertain and complex conditions. Our findings provide a simple and practical foundation to support leadership education in curricular change as well as researchers in developing further change theories in complex adaptive health professions education systems.
Much remains unanswered regarding how clinical reasoning is learned in the clinical environment. This study attempts to unravel how novice medical students learn to reason, by examining how they make sense of the clinical patient encounter.
The current study was part of a greater research project employing constructivist grounded theory (CGT) to develop a learning model of clinical reasoning. Introducing the sensemaking perspective, as a sensitising concept, we conducted a second level analytic phase with CGT, to further advance our previously developed model. This involved re-examining collected data from semi-structured interviews, participant observations and field interviews of novice students during their early clinical clerkships.
A learning model of how medical students make sense of the patient encounter emerged from the analysis. At its core lie three interdependent processes that co-constitute the students' clinical sensemaking activity. Framing the situation is the process whereby students discern salient situational elements, place them into a meaningful relationship and integrate them into a clinical problem. Inquiring into the situation is the process whereby students gain further insight into the situation by determining which questions need to be asked. Lastly, taking meaningful action is the process whereby students carve out a pathway of action, appropriate for the circumstances. Tensions experienced during these processes impair clinical sensemaking.
The study provides an empirically informed learning model of clinical reasoning, during the early curricular stages. The model attempts to capture the complexity of medical practice, as students learn to recognise and respond to what constitutes the essence of a clinical situation. In this way, it contributes to a conceptual shift in how we think and talk about clinical reasoning. It introduces the concept of clinical sensemaking, as the act of carving a tangible clinical problem out of an often undetermined clinical situation and pursuing justified action.
There is a shortage of generalist physicians globally impacting health equity and access to care. An important way in which medical schools can demonstrate social accountability is by graduating learners interested in careers in generalism. While generalism is endorsed as a matter of principle in medical education, how this translates into curricula is less clear. The aim of this study was to identify how generalism is understood and supported by family physician educational leaders in undergraduate medical education (UME) in Canada.
We conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 38 family medicine leaders in UME across all 17 Canadian medical schools. We examined the data with template analysis, informed by the iceberg model of systems thinking.
Four themes were identified: (1) Teaching and learning strategies in support of generalism—a consistent range existed across UME curricula; (2) Curriculum patterns—changes in leadership and curriculum reform created positive or negative feedback loops that promoted or hindered initiatives to support generalism; (3) Curriculum structures—organ-system-based curricula and availability of generalist faculty presented particular challenges to teaching generalist approaches; (4) Mental models and ways of knowing—the preponderance of biomedical frameworks of thinking in curricula unconsciously undermined generalist approaches to patient care.
UME programmes promoted generalism through a range of teaching activities and strategies, but these efforts were countered by curriculum structures and mental models that perpetuate epistemic inequity between biomedical approaches to medical education and generalist models of care. Novel curricular frameworks are needed to align undergraduate programmes' commitment to social accountability with community-based need.
One central consideration in health professions education (HPE) is to ensure we are making sound and justifiable decisions based on the assessment instruments we use on health professionals. To achieve this goal, HPE assessment researchers have drawn on Kane's argument-based framework to ascertain the validity of their assessment tools. However, the original four-inference model proposed by Kane – frequently used in HPE validation research – has its limitations in terms of what each inference entails and what claims and sources of backing are housed in each inference. The under-specification in the four-inference model has led to inconsistent practices in HPE validation research, posing challenges for (i) researchers who want to evaluate the validity of different HPE assessment tools and/or (ii) researchers who are new to test validation and need to establish a coherent understanding of argument-based validation.
To address these identified concerns, this article introduces the expanded seven-inference argument-based validation framework that is established practice in the field of language testing and assessment (LTA). We explicate (i) why LTA researchers experienced the need to further specify the original four Kanean inferences; (ii) how LTA validation research defines each of their seven inferences and (iii) what claims, assumptions and sources of backing are associated with each inference. Sampling six representative validation studies in HPE, we demonstrate why an expanded model and a shared disciplinary validation framework can facilitate the examination of the validity evidence in diverse HPE validation contexts.
We invite HPE validation researchers to experiment with the seven-inference argument-based framework from LTA to evaluate its usefulness to HPE. We also call for greater interdisciplinary dialogue between HPE and LTA since both disciplines share many fundamental concerns about language use, communication skills, assessment practices and validity in assessment instruments.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：