AEM Education and Training最新文献

Engaging learners in the virtual or hybrid learning environment requires a combination of interactive content, effective communication, and mastery of function in the virtual space. Teaching in the virtual and hybrid environment presents many challenges but it remains a part of emergency medicine resident didactics, making it imperative that theory underpins our approach to virtual and hybrid learning. Connecting didactic techniques to theory can ensure that innovation promotes the intended learning outcome. This paper will demonstrate how to connect education theory to common didactic techniques implemented in the virtual and hybrid environment.

Coaching supports many aspects of competency-based medical education, particularly by providing individualized instruction throughout the duration of the training experience. Many of the current recommendations regarding coaching have been established at the undergraduate medical education (UME) level. Although medical training is ideally envisioned as a continuum, trainees in graduate medical education (GME) are exposed to different learning environments, assessment processes, and sometimes more limited resources (institutional vs. departmental funding, personnel, and space) and time than their UME counterparts. These differences have important implications for the coaching approach needed for GME trainees. There are few papers that describe the specific trainee, residency program, and faculty coach characteristics to consider when designing a residency coaching program as well as the difference between a traditional coaching model and a coaching approach in medical education. The authors aim to specifically address coaching in GME and provide practical considerations for creating and implementing a coaching program for residents. Readers can use this as a framework to determine trainee-, program- and institution-specific needs when considering a coaching program for GME trainees.

While medical educators are publishing more than ever, many barriers still exist, causing some to feel disheartened. Ongoing strategies are desirable to support educators who are facing challenges when submitting and revising their scholarly manuscripts to journals. Increasing publication rates can enhance an educator's promotion and tenure progress and career satisfaction and aid in the establishment of a community of practice. On a broader scale, increased publication encourages a diversity of voices contributing to and advancing the field of medical knowledge. In this article, we present a guide for those looking to engage more deeply in medical education (MedEd) research and scholarship. First, we describe the difference between MedEd research (which seeks to develop and/or answer a research question and expand general knowledge) and other forms of scholarship (which may include, but are not limited to, curricular innovations, infographics, educational downloads, commentaries, editorials, reviews, last pages, instruments, case scenarios, and instructional toolboxes). Next, we discuss an eight-step process to prepare for publication: (1) formulate the idea, (2) implement the project, (3) select the appropriate journal, (4) write the paper, (5) submit the manuscript, (6) receive journal feedback, (7) revise the manuscript, and (8) resubmit the manuscript. It is the hope that with practice and mentorship, and the help of this guide, medical educators can more successfully publish their work moving forward.

Medical education faculty often take on the responsibility of helping their learners through professional or personal obstacles to achieve individual success. This can be challenging to navigate given the multiple “hats” that an individual faculty educator may wear, including coach, mentor, and advisor. Medical educators may feel uncertain as to which role may be most effective in any given interaction with a learner. Considering each as a communication strategy with unique skill sets and relational principles, rather than as a rigid role, can allow an educator more flexibility to use each approach in learner interactions. The authors discuss the separate modes of the coaching, mentoring, and advising approaches; the critical differences in relational and behavioral skills used; the potential pitfalls with each approach; and how feedback may fit into this framework. Once each approach is mastered, a medical educator may find it most effective to use a blended approach, weaving all three together intentionally, calling on each skill set as the need arises to support the learner.