Cargando…

Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process

BACKGROUND: Reviewing program educational efforts is an important component of postgraduate medical education program accreditation. The post-graduate review process has evolved over time to include centralized oversight based on accreditation standards. The institutional review process and the impa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lypson, Monica L., Prince, Mark E. P., Kasten, Steven J., Osborne, Nicholas H., Cohan, Richard H., Kowalenko, Terry, Dougherty, Paul J., Reynolds, R. Kevin, Spires, M. Catherine, Kozlow, Jeffrey H., Gitlin, Scott D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26887758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0586-4
_version_ 1782416352992034816
author Lypson, Monica L.
Prince, Mark E. P.
Kasten, Steven J.
Osborne, Nicholas H.
Cohan, Richard H.
Kowalenko, Terry
Dougherty, Paul J.
Reynolds, R. Kevin
Spires, M. Catherine
Kozlow, Jeffrey H.
Gitlin, Scott D.
author_facet Lypson, Monica L.
Prince, Mark E. P.
Kasten, Steven J.
Osborne, Nicholas H.
Cohan, Richard H.
Kowalenko, Terry
Dougherty, Paul J.
Reynolds, R. Kevin
Spires, M. Catherine
Kozlow, Jeffrey H.
Gitlin, Scott D.
author_sort Lypson, Monica L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Reviewing program educational efforts is an important component of postgraduate medical education program accreditation. The post-graduate review process has evolved over time to include centralized oversight based on accreditation standards. The institutional review process and the impact on participating faculty are topics not well described in the literature. METHODS: We conducted multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to identify and implement areas for change to improve productivity in our institutional program review committee. We also conducted one focus group and six in-person interviews with 18 committee members to explore their perspectives on the committee’s evolution. One author (MLL) reviewed the transcripts and performed the initial thematic coding with a PhD level research associate and identified and categorized themes. These themes were confirmed by all participating committee members upon review of a detailed summary. Emergent themes were triangulated with the University of Michigan Medical School’s Admissions Executive Committee (AEC). RESULTS: We present an overview of adopted new practices to the educational program evaluation process at the University of Michigan Health System that includes standardization of meetings, inclusion of resident members, development of area content experts, solicitation of committed committee members, transition from paper to electronic committee materials, and focus on continuous improvement. Faculty and resident committee members identified multiple improvement areas including the ability to provide high quality reviews of training programs, personal and professional development, and improved feedback from program trainees. CONCLUSIONS: A standing committee that utilizes the expertise of a group of committed faculty members and which includes formal resident membership has significant advantages over ad hoc or other organizational structures for program evaluation committees.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4756537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47565372016-02-18 Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process Lypson, Monica L. Prince, Mark E. P. Kasten, Steven J. Osborne, Nicholas H. Cohan, Richard H. Kowalenko, Terry Dougherty, Paul J. Reynolds, R. Kevin Spires, M. Catherine Kozlow, Jeffrey H. Gitlin, Scott D. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Reviewing program educational efforts is an important component of postgraduate medical education program accreditation. The post-graduate review process has evolved over time to include centralized oversight based on accreditation standards. The institutional review process and the impact on participating faculty are topics not well described in the literature. METHODS: We conducted multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to identify and implement areas for change to improve productivity in our institutional program review committee. We also conducted one focus group and six in-person interviews with 18 committee members to explore their perspectives on the committee’s evolution. One author (MLL) reviewed the transcripts and performed the initial thematic coding with a PhD level research associate and identified and categorized themes. These themes were confirmed by all participating committee members upon review of a detailed summary. Emergent themes were triangulated with the University of Michigan Medical School’s Admissions Executive Committee (AEC). RESULTS: We present an overview of adopted new practices to the educational program evaluation process at the University of Michigan Health System that includes standardization of meetings, inclusion of resident members, development of area content experts, solicitation of committed committee members, transition from paper to electronic committee materials, and focus on continuous improvement. Faculty and resident committee members identified multiple improvement areas including the ability to provide high quality reviews of training programs, personal and professional development, and improved feedback from program trainees. CONCLUSIONS: A standing committee that utilizes the expertise of a group of committed faculty members and which includes formal resident membership has significant advantages over ad hoc or other organizational structures for program evaluation committees. BioMed Central 2016-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4756537/ /pubmed/26887758 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0586-4 Text en © Lypson et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lypson, Monica L.
Prince, Mark E. P.
Kasten, Steven J.
Osborne, Nicholas H.
Cohan, Richard H.
Kowalenko, Terry
Dougherty, Paul J.
Reynolds, R. Kevin
Spires, M. Catherine
Kozlow, Jeffrey H.
Gitlin, Scott D.
Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process
title Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process
title_full Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process
title_fullStr Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process
title_short Optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process
title_sort optimizing the post-graduate institutional program evaluation process
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26887758
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0586-4
work_keys_str_mv AT lypsonmonical optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT princemarkep optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT kastenstevenj optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT osbornenicholash optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT cohanrichardh optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT kowalenkoterry optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT doughertypaulj optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT reynoldsrkevin optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT spiresmcatherine optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT kozlowjeffreyh optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess
AT gitlinscottd optimizingthepostgraduateinstitutionalprogramevaluationprocess