33 research outputs found

    To fail is human: remediating remediation in medical education.

    Get PDF
    IntroductionRemediating failing medical learners has traditionally been a craft activity responding to individual learner and remediator circumstances. Although there have been moves towards more systematic approaches to remediation (at least at the institutional level), these changes have tended to focus on due process and defensibility rather than on educational principles. As remediation practice evolves, there is a growing need for common theoretical and systems-based perspectives to guide this work.MethodsThis paper steps back from the practicalities of remediation practice to take a critical systems perspective on remediation in contemporary medical education. In doing so, the authors acknowledge the complex interactions between institutional, professional, and societal forces that are both facilitators of and barriers to effective remediation practices.ResultsThe authors propose a model that situates remediation within the contexts of society as a whole, the medical profession, and medical education institutions. They also outline a number of recommendations to constructively align remediation principles and practices, support a continuum of remediation practices, destigmatize remediation, and develop institutional communities of practice in remediation.DiscussionMedical educators must embrace a responsible and accountable systems-level approach to remediation if they are to meet their obligations to provide a safe and effective physician workforce

    Guidelines: The dos, don'ts and don't knows of remediation in medical education.

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Two developing forces have achieved prominence in medical education: the advent of competency-based assessments and a growing commitment to expand access to medicine for a broader range of learners with a wider array of preparation. Remediation is intended to support all learners to achieve sufficient competence. Therefore, it is timely to provide practical guidelines for remediation in medical education that clarify best practices, practices to avoid, and areas requiring further research, in order to guide work with both individual struggling learners and development of training program policies. METHODS: Collectively, we generated an initial list of Do's, Don'ts, and Don't Knows for remediation in medical education, which was then iteratively refined through discussions and additional evidence-gathering. The final guidelines were then graded for the strength of the evidence by consensus. RESULTS: We present 26 guidelines: two groupings of Do's (systems-level interventions and recommendations for individual learners), along with short lists of Don'ts and Don't Knows, and our interpretation of the strength of current evidence for each guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Remediation is a high-stakes, highly complex process involving learners, faculty, systems, and societal factors. Our synthesis resulted in a list of guidelines that summarize the current state of educational theory and empirical evidence that can improve remediation processes at individual and institutional levels. Important unanswered questions remain; ongoing research can further improve remediation practices to ensure the appropriate support for learners, institutions, and society

    Medical students as human subjects in educational research

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Special concerns often arise when medical students are themselves the subjects of education research. A recently completed large, multi-center randomized controlled trial of computer-assisted learning modules for surgical clerks provided the opportunity to explore the perceived level of risk of studies where medical students serve as human subjects by reporting on: 1) the response of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at seven institutions to the same study protocol; and 2) the thoughts and feelings of students across study sites about being research subjects. Methods: From July 2009 to August 2010, all third-year medical students at seven collaborating institutions were eligible to participate. Patterns of IRB review of the same protocol were compared. Participation burden was calculated in terms of the time spent interacting with the modules. Focus groups were conducted with medical students at each site. Transcripts were coded by three independent reviewers and analyzed using Atlas.ti. Results: The IRBs at the seven participating institutions granted full (n=1), expedited (n=4), or exempt (n=2) review of the WISE Trial protocol. 995 (73% of those eligible) consented to participate, and 207 (20%) of these students completed all outcome measures. The average time to complete the computer modules and associated measures was 175 min. Common themes in focus groups with participant students included the desire to contribute to medical education research, the absence of coercion to consent, and the low-risk nature of the research. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that risk assessment and the extent of review utilized for medical education research vary among IRBs. Despite variability in the perception of risk implied by differing IRB requirements, students themselves felt education research was low risk and did not consider themselves to be vulnerable. The vast majority of eligible medical students were willing to participate as research subjects. Participants acknowledged the time demands of their participation and were readily able to withdraw when those burdens became unsustainable

    Proposed Standards for Medical Education Submissions to the Journal of General Internal Medicine

    Get PDF
    To help authors design rigorous studies and prepare clear and informative manuscripts, improve the transparency of editorial decisions, and raise the bar on educational scholarship, the Deputy Editors of the Journal of General Internal Medicine articulate standards for medical education submissions to the Journal. General standards include: (1) quality questions, (2) quality methods to match the questions, (3) insightful interpretation of findings, (4) transparent, unbiased reporting, and (5) attention to human subjects’ protection and ethical research conduct. Additional standards for specific study types are described. We hope these proposed standards will generate discussion that will foster their continued evolution

    Hearing the Call of Duty: What We Must Do to Allow Medical Students to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic

    No full text
    corecore