Designing faculty development to support the evaluation of resident competency in the intrinsic CanMEDS roles: practical outcomes of an assessment of program director needs.

Derek Puddester,Colla J Macdonald,Jane Gaffney,Lorne Wiesenfeld,Debbie Clements

doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0375-5

Derek Puddester, Colla J Macdonald + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0375-5

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundThe Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada mandate that faculty members demonstrate they are evaluating residents on all CanMEDS (Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists) roles as part of the accreditation process. Postgraduate Medical Education at the University of Ottawa initiated a 5-year project to develop and implement a comprehensive system to assess the full spectrum of CanMEDS roles. This paper presents the findings from a needs assessment with Program Directors, in order to determine how postgraduate medical faculty can be motivated and supported to evaluate residents on the intrinsic CanMEDS roles.MethodsSemi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 60 Postgraduate Program Directors in the Faculty of Medicine. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using qualitative analysis. Once the researchers were satisfied the identified themes reflected the views of the participants, the data was assigned to categories to provide rich, detailed, and comprehensive information that would indicate what faculty need in order to effectively evaluate their residents on the intrinsic roles.ResultsFindings indicated faculty members need faculty development and shared point of care resources to support them with how to not only evaluate, but also teach, the intrinsic roles. Program Directors expressed the need to collaborate and share resources across departments and national specialty programs. Based on our findings, we designed and delivered workshops with companion eBooks to teach and evaluate residents at the point of care (Developing the Professional, Health Advocate and Scholar).ConclusionsIdentifying stakeholder needs is essential for designing effective faculty development. By sharing resources, faculties can prevent ‘reinventing the wheel’ and collaborate to meet the Colleges’ accreditation requirements more efficiently.

Highlights

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada mandate that faculty members demonstrate they are evaluating residents on all CanMEDS (Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists) roles as part of the accreditation process
CanMEDS identifies and defines the seven roles required of a competent physician: Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Manager, Health Advocate, Scholar and Professional
This paper presents the findings from the needs assessment with Program Directors (PDs), in order to determine how postgraduate medical faculty could be motivated and supported to evaluate resident competency in each of the intrinsic roles

Summary

Introduction

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada mandate that faculty members demonstrate they are evaluating residents on all CanMEDS (Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists) roles as part of the accreditation process. CanMEDS identifies and defines the seven roles required of a competent physician: Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Manager, Health Advocate, Scholar and Professional. These roles have been adopted by the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) to align with their educational programs and accreditation standards [1]. While the roles of Communicator, Collaborator, Manager, Health Advocate, Scholar and Professional are often referred to as the non-medical expert roles by clinicians and educators, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) have identified these roles as intrinsic to the development and a practice of a physician, and advocates that these roles should be called as such [2]. This is evident in the recent literature, where there appears to be a concerted effort to incorporate multiple roles into each evaluation (Table 1)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion