Cargando…
The Statewide Campus System Scholarly Activity Developmental Planning Framework for Community-Based GME Leaders
CONTEXT: During recent years, Graduate Medical Education (GME) leaders in the United States of America have witnessed many substantive changes, including movement to a single accreditation system under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Both MD- and DO-trained residents and fa...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine Statewide Campus System
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7746042/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33655133 http://dx.doi.org/10.51894/001c.6521 |
Sumario: | CONTEXT: During recent years, Graduate Medical Education (GME) leaders in the United States of America have witnessed many substantive changes, including movement to a single accreditation system under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Both MD- and DO-trained residents and faculty must now meet an increasingly stringent set of accreditation standards outlined in Next Accreditation System standards. Specifically, updated scholarly activity standards emphasize a consistent volume and quantity of quality improvement/research projects and dissemination products. The GME literature to date has frequently provided general commentaries regarding individual project strategies or oriented to settings with greater project-related resources. There have also been few articles offering scholarly activity planning strategies for community-based GME officials striving to increase scholarly activity levels. PROPOSED PLANNING FRAMEWORK: The authors propose a customizable assessment-planning framework, largely derived from their combined decades of consultation experiences with hundreds of community-based resident and faculty projects. The authors will first describe the primary elements of their proposed scholarly activity planning approach for GME leaders so often subject to worsening resource constraints. They will describe six ongoing developmental strategies with several exemplars described. Such a framework will likely require ongoing reassessments and modification. CONCLUSIONS: The authors hope that this proposed planning framework will offer GME administrators, faculty and residents with a pragmatic set of strategies to develop scholarly activity projects and supports. Ideally, GME leaders can use this approach to inform their design of a sustainable system-customized infrastructure of scholarly activity supports. |
---|