Billings, Heather

AI skill development is essential in health professions education (HPE), yet this type of faculty development is complex to design and implement. While competency frameworks and AI education programs are emerging, many faculty developers are themselves still building AI literacy and confidence, and practical guidance for how to design a faculty development program on AI that is accessible, skill-oriented, and responsive to rapid technological change remains limited. Although webinars and workshops can only do so much, a well-planned faculty development program can provide a great introduction to AI, alleviate fears, and inspire participants to keep growing and learning. Drawing on our experience designing and hosting the AAMC GEA AI Skill-Building Webinar Series and the current literature in AI, this article offers twelve practical tips for faculty developers who are creating AI-focused learning opportunities for everyone involved in HPE. These tips will help readers create robust AI skill-building sessions that move participants beyond awareness of AI and shift their perspectives toward applied, reflective, and responsible use of AI in HPE.

Purpose To implement and evaluate a faculty mentorship skill development curriculum within a radiation oncology department at a single academic medical center. Methods A three-part faculty development curriculum consisting of three 45-minute facilitated workshops was implemented for physician faculty mentors. The curriculum was designed to support mentors in navigating mentoring relationships, aligning expectations, and fostering mentee independence. Content was informed by evidence-based mentorship frameworks and adult learning principles, including models developed by the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research, social cognitive theory, and principles of psychological safety and self-efficacy. Faculty participants representing a range of academic ranks and mentoring experience levels participated voluntarily. Pre- and post-curriculum self-assessment surveys evaluated participant understanding and implementation of mentorship skills, as well as perceptions of common mentorship challenges, using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. Results Curriculum content progressed from foundational mentorship concepts, including mentor roles, mentoring networks, and stages of mentoring relationships, to communication strategies, expectation alignment, and promotion of mentee independence. Educational methods included brief didactic instruction, case-based discussion, guided reflection, and peer-to-peer learning. Survey data demonstrated improvement in participant self-assessment scores across all evaluated mentorship domains, including mentoring across differences, supporting mentee goal achievement, confidence as a mentor, providing constructive feedback, awareness of mentorship challenges, setting clear expectations, and understanding core mentorship competencies. Participants also reported reduced perceived challenges related to mentorship, with the largest improvements observed in setting boundaries, mentoring across differences, and addressing sensitive topics. Conclusions This faculty mentorship development curriculum was feasible to implement and demonstrated favorable early improvements in self-reported mentorship knowledge, confidence, and perceived ability to navigate common mentorship challenges. Further longitudinal evaluation is needed to assess sustained implementation of mentorship skills and longer-term impact on mentoring relationships.

Effective translation relies on high performance teams integrating diverse disciplines to bring new drugs, medical devices, diagnostics or behavioral interventions into improved health. Despite substantial advancements informed by the Science of Team Science (SciTS), challenges remain in effective translational team (TT) operations, while limited institutional, scholarly, and practitioner legitimacy of team science expertise constrains efforts to address them. Here, we describe an essential member of the TT, the Team Science Professional (TSP). Serving as a team educator and facilitator of team interventions, the TSP plays a pivotal role in facilitating effective team performance. Current challenges faced by this nascent profession are defining career pathways and establishing competencies needed for expert performance. To address these challenges, the authors, representing a spectrum of academic universities organized as a special interest group (SIG) of the Association of Clinical and Translational Science (ACTS), propose a suite of individualized, standardized and pathway-selective micro-credentials (digital badges). Digital badges in “Team Science (TS) Fundamentals,” “TS Practitioner,” “TT Trainer” and “TT Intervention Expert” are described, along with preliminary feasibility and usability evaluations of the submission process. These stackable credentials provide a customizable, portable recognition of skills and help advance career pathways for TSPs. In so doing, the Digital Badge Initiative will enhance the capacity of translational science “Hubs” such as those supported by Clinical and Translational Science Awards to conduct effective and rigorous translation. Moving forward, the ACTS TSP SIG will be examining the impact of digital badging on standardization and its effect on career recognition and retention.

Abstract The demand for high-quality faculty development in medical education is more acute than ever. Faculty developers’ responsibilities are growing exponentially as they are called upon to help medical faculty maintain expertise in an evolving array of content domains, curricular and assessment strategies, education technologies, and active learning methods. Faculty development has a long history of supporting medical education colleagues in times of change. More recently expectations for faculty developers are expanding due to (1) increasing enrollment of learners, (2) emphasis on learner-centered teaching practices and competency-based assessment methods, and (3) heightened accreditation standards for training faculty. Yet, faculty development in medical education lacks the conventional structures of a profession, such as an adopted set of competencies. In 2023, a series of sessions at regional, national, and international medical education conferences were held to generate ideas and collect examples of faculty developer competencies from over 100 stakeholders. More than 500 responses were gathered from prompts such as “What are the competencies faculty developers need?” and “What is one of the most valuable faculty developer competencies today?” This perspective offers both a rationale for establishing faculty development in medical education as a profession and a path forward through the provision and broad promotion of clearly defined core competencies. The competencies outlined are intended to help inform those entering or currently working in the profession, recruiters of faculty developers, medical education leaders, institutional partners, those conducting performance appraisals of faculty developers, and the broader medical education community. The aim of this work is to generate discussion among vested medical education and faculty development stakeholders who seek to provide structure, clarify roles, and further define medical education faculty development as a profession.

Abstract Purpose Clinician educators are essential to the academic medicine workforce, yet understanding how they assess their own teaching competencies is limited. The Clinical Educator Milestones (CEMs) guide growth across key educator domains, but their use and perceived relevance remain underexplored. This study aims to (1) evaluate clinician educators’ self-reported performance on the CEMs; (2) examine differences by career level, specialty, and experience; and (3) inform faculty development efforts through a clearer understanding of educators’ perceived strengths and gaps. Method Clinician educators from 9 US academic institutions completed a self-assessment rating their performance across 4 universal pillars and 11 educational theory and practice competencies on a 1- (novice) to 5- (expert) point scale in 0.5-point increments from August to November 2024. Descriptive statistics and mean difference tests were used to analyze variation across demographic and professional characteristics. Results A total of 484 responses to at least 1 CEM were received. Respondents rated themselves highest in commitment to professional responsibilities (mean [SD], 4.30 [0.68]), teaching and facilitating learning (mean [SD], 3.96 [0.74]), and professionalism (mean [SD], 3.93 [0.73]) and lowest in medical education scholarship (mean [SD], 3.11 [1.15]), program evaluation (mean [SD], 3.33 [1.03]), and the science of learning (mean [SD], 3.43 [1.10]). Statistically significant group differences were found by years of posttraining clinical experience (F2,413 = 16.87, P < .001, η2 = .076), years of teaching experience (F2,433 = 20.87, P < .001, η2 = .088), and academic rank (F2,403 = 13.96, P < .001, η2 = .065). Conclusions This study identifies key trends in self-perceived strengths and needs among clinician educators and highlights the limited awareness of the CEM framework. As institutions aim to build effective educator development systems, the CEMs can serve as a useful structure for tailoring support to individuals and identifying institutional needs.

Abstract Problem Faculty at academic health centers have many competing demands on their time, leading to high work stress, burnout, and limited capacity to meaningfully improve their teaching, evaluation, feedback, and other education-related skills. Faculty development provides a useful mechanism to assist faculty in enhancing their knowledge and skills in these areas, but engaging faculty can be a challenge. Approach To promote engagement, the authors developed a multipronged, pragmatic approach to faculty development. They created: (1) brief videos leveraging micro-learning strategies; (2) prepackaged workshops for use during existing faculty meetings; (3) a newsletter to raise awareness of faculty development opportunities; (4) a searchable, web-based catalog to facilitate rapid retrieval of faculty development content; and (5) an academy to acknowledge engagement of individual faculty members, provide certificates, and promote a culture that prioritizes our education mission. Outcomes Since they launched the new approach in 2017, they have developed 41 microlearning videos, 15 prepackaged workshops, and 24 issues of the newsletter. Between January 2017 and May 2021, the videos generated more than 150,055 views; the workshops were downloaded 2,850 times; and the issues of the newsletter, emailed bimonthly to 3,500 members of the faculty, had an open rate that increased from 30% in 2017 to 70% in 2021. The Academy of Educational Excellence, which was launched in 2018, grew to more than 490 members. Preliminary feedback suggests faculty and education leaders are highly satisfied with the faculty development resources and approaches to engagement. Next Steps Next steps include obtaining more user satisfaction data and evaluating whether education-related knowledge and skills have improved among faculty participants.