Cargando…

A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND: This is a practice guide for the evaluation tool specifically created to objectively evaluate longitudinal faculty development programs (FDP) using the “5×2 -D backward planning faculty development model”. It was necessary to create this tool as existing evaluation methods are designed t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahmed, Samar A., Hegazy, Nagwa N., Kumar, Archana Prabu, Abouzeid, Enjy, Wasfy, Nourhan F., Atta, Komal, Wael, Doaa, Hamdy, Hossam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8898439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35248032
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03208-x
_version_ 1784663644478373888
author Ahmed, Samar A.
Hegazy, Nagwa N.
Kumar, Archana Prabu
Abouzeid, Enjy
Wasfy, Nourhan F.
Atta, Komal
Wael, Doaa
Hamdy, Hossam
author_facet Ahmed, Samar A.
Hegazy, Nagwa N.
Kumar, Archana Prabu
Abouzeid, Enjy
Wasfy, Nourhan F.
Atta, Komal
Wael, Doaa
Hamdy, Hossam
author_sort Ahmed, Samar A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This is a practice guide for the evaluation tool specifically created to objectively evaluate longitudinal faculty development programs (FDP) using the “5×2 -D backward planning faculty development model”. It was necessary to create this tool as existing evaluation methods are designed to evaluate linear faculty development models with a specific endpoint. This backward planning approach is a cyclical model without an endpoint, consisting of 5 dynamic steps that are flexible and interchangeable, therefore can be a base for an evaluation tool that is objective and takes into account all the domains of the FDP in contrast to the existing, traditional, linear evaluation tools which focus on individual aspects of the program. The developed tool will target evaluation of longitudinal faculty development programs regardless of how they were planned. METHODOLOGY: Deductive qualitative grounded theory approach was used. Evaluation questions were generated and tailored based on the 5 × 2-D model followed by 2 Delphi rounds to finalize them. Based on the finalized evaluation questions from the results of the Delphi rounds, two online focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to deduce the indicators, data sources and data collection method. RESULTS: Based on the suggested additions, the authors added 1 new question to domains B, with a total of 42 modifications, such as wording changes or discarding or merging questions. Some domains received no comments, therefore, were not included in round 2. For each evaluation question, authors generated indicators, data sources and data collection methods during the FGD. CONCLUSION: The methodology used to develop this tool takes into account expert opinions. Comprehensiveness of this tool makes it an ideal evaluation tool during self-evaluation or external quality assurance for longitudinal FDP. After its validation and testing, this practice guide can be used worldwide, along with the provided indicators which can be quantified and used to suit the local context. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03208-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8898439
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88984392022-03-16 A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis Ahmed, Samar A. Hegazy, Nagwa N. Kumar, Archana Prabu Abouzeid, Enjy Wasfy, Nourhan F. Atta, Komal Wael, Doaa Hamdy, Hossam BMC Med Educ Research BACKGROUND: This is a practice guide for the evaluation tool specifically created to objectively evaluate longitudinal faculty development programs (FDP) using the “5×2 -D backward planning faculty development model”. It was necessary to create this tool as existing evaluation methods are designed to evaluate linear faculty development models with a specific endpoint. This backward planning approach is a cyclical model without an endpoint, consisting of 5 dynamic steps that are flexible and interchangeable, therefore can be a base for an evaluation tool that is objective and takes into account all the domains of the FDP in contrast to the existing, traditional, linear evaluation tools which focus on individual aspects of the program. The developed tool will target evaluation of longitudinal faculty development programs regardless of how they were planned. METHODOLOGY: Deductive qualitative grounded theory approach was used. Evaluation questions were generated and tailored based on the 5 × 2-D model followed by 2 Delphi rounds to finalize them. Based on the finalized evaluation questions from the results of the Delphi rounds, two online focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to deduce the indicators, data sources and data collection method. RESULTS: Based on the suggested additions, the authors added 1 new question to domains B, with a total of 42 modifications, such as wording changes or discarding or merging questions. Some domains received no comments, therefore, were not included in round 2. For each evaluation question, authors generated indicators, data sources and data collection methods during the FGD. CONCLUSION: The methodology used to develop this tool takes into account expert opinions. Comprehensiveness of this tool makes it an ideal evaluation tool during self-evaluation or external quality assurance for longitudinal FDP. After its validation and testing, this practice guide can be used worldwide, along with the provided indicators which can be quantified and used to suit the local context. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03208-x. BioMed Central 2022-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8898439/ /pubmed/35248032 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03208-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ahmed, Samar A.
Hegazy, Nagwa N.
Kumar, Archana Prabu
Abouzeid, Enjy
Wasfy, Nourhan F.
Atta, Komal
Wael, Doaa
Hamdy, Hossam
A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis
title A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis
title_full A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis
title_fullStr A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis
title_full_unstemmed A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis
title_short A guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis
title_sort guide to best practice in faculty development for health professions schools: a qualitative analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8898439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35248032
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03208-x
work_keys_str_mv AT ahmedsamara aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT hegazynagwan aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT kumararchanaprabu aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT abouzeidenjy aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT wasfynourhanf aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT attakomal aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT waeldoaa aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT hamdyhossam aguidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT ahmedsamara guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT hegazynagwan guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT kumararchanaprabu guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT abouzeidenjy guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT wasfynourhanf guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT attakomal guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT waeldoaa guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis
AT hamdyhossam guidetobestpracticeinfacultydevelopmentforhealthprofessionsschoolsaqualitativeanalysis