Billings, Heather

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.

Objective:To address variance in clinical care surrounding sporadic vestibular schwannoma, a modified Delphi study was performed to establish a general framework to approach vestibular schwannoma care. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was established with deliberate representation from key stakeholder societies. External validity of the final statements was assessed through an online survey of registered attendees of the 8th Quadrennial International Conference on Vestibular Schwannoma.Study Design:Modified Delphi method.Methods:The panel consisted of 16 vestibular schwannoma experts (8 neurotology and 8 neurosurgery) and included delegates representing the AAOHNSF, AANS/CNS tumor section, ISRS, and NASBS. The modified Delphi method encompassed a four-step process, comprised of one prevoting round to establish a list of focus areas and three subsequent voting rounds to successively refine individual statements and establish levels of consensus. Thresholds for achieving moderate consensus, at ≥67% agreement, and strong consensus, at ≥80% agreement, were determined a priori. All voting was performed anonymously via the Qualtrics online survey tool and full participation from all panel members was required before procession to the next voting round.Results:Through the Delphi process, 103 items were developed encompassing hearing preservation (N = 49), tumor control and imaging surveillance (N = 20), preferred treatment (N = 24), operative considerations (N = 4), and complications (N = 6). As a result of item refinement, moderate (4%) or strong (96%) consensus was achieved in all 103 final statements. Seventy-nine conference registrants participated in the online survey to assess external validity. Among these survey respondents, moderate (N = 21, 20%) or strong (N = 73, 71%) consensus was achieved in 94 of 103 (91%) statements, and no consensus was reached in 9 (9%). Of the four items with moderate consensus by the expert panel, one had moderate consensus by the conference participants and three had no consensus.Conclusion:This modified Delphi study on sporadic vestibular schwannoma codifies 100% consensus within a multidisciplinary expert panel and is further supported by 91% consensus among an external group of clinicians who regularly provide care for patients with vestibular schwannoma. These final 103 statements address clinically pragmatic items that have direct application to everyday patient care. This document is not intended to define standard of care or drive insurance reimbursement, but rather to provide a general framework to approach vestibular schwannoma care for providers and patients.

Objective Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an evidence-based therapy for the treatment of refractory pain. Current American College of Graduate Medical Education requirements for pain medicine fellowship graduation include observation of five neuromodulation cases. Matriculating fellows have varying degrees of technical skill, training, and experience. The purpose of this study was to use an innovative skill-based assessment tool using the validated Zwisch scale to evaluate fellow surgical performance during SCS cases. Design Cross-sectional survey Setting Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Subjects Consultant faculty (10) in the Division of Pain Medicine and pain medicine fellows (5). Methods A list of faculty-driven neuromodulation surgical objectives was formed and a rubric was created that focused on technical approach, imaging, epidural access and wound closure. Consultants who perform surgical cases were instructed to use the Zwisch scale as a guide to evaluate fellow surgical performance during a neuromodulation case. Faculty and fellows were surveyed before and after implementation of the tool to determine their satisfaction with use of the skill assessment tool. Results The consultants reported they were more satisfied, consistent, and efficient with feedback provided to the trainee on every aspect of neuromodulation surgical cases. The improvement was most significant during the fellows’ intraoperative skill assessment. The fellows indicated increased satisfaction, improved communication, and increased efficiency of feedback when the tool was utilized. The fellows reported greater intraoperative skill assessment and consistency of feedback provided. Conclusions The diverse nature of primary specialty backgrounds observed in pain medicine fellowship training offers a unique opportunity to assess and improve fellow skill and surgical competence in the field of neuromodulation. Both faculty and fellows reported improved satisfaction, consistency and efficiency with feedback provided. Importantly, this pilot project observed that implementation of a skill assessment tool was beneficial for both the faculty and fellow as the feedback received was viewed as strongly beneficial to the educational experience.