4.6 Review

Clinician-Educator Tracks for Trainees in Graduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 94, 期 10, 页码 1599-1609

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002814

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Clinician-educator tracks (CETs) appear to be increasing in prevalence in graduate medical education (GME) and may play an important role in medical education workforce development. The authors conducted a scoping review to characterize the current state of knowledge about CETs' structure, content, and outcomes. Method Six databases were searched in January 2018 for English-language peer-reviewed articles published through 2017 to identify articles describing CETs in GME. To be included, the CET had to target GME learners (residents/fellows), be longitudinal, have the primary aim of developing trainees into clinician-educators (CEs), and address at least one CE core competency (direct teaching, curriculum development, mentorship/advising, leadership, assessment, educational scholarship). The authors extracted and analyzed data from included articles. Results Of 1,434 articles identified, 19 were included in the review, representing 18 separate CETs. All but 2 CETs (11%) were specialty-specific. Most included a core curriculum with classroom-based sessions (18; 100%), workplace-based opportunities to practice skills (17; 94%), and a required scholarly project (16; 89%). Seventeen (94%) focused on skills related to direct teaching. Four (22%) identified mentoring/advising as a core curriculum focus. Five (28%) required project dissemination. Time spent in CETs varied widely (median: 166 hours; range: 8 hours/4-month period to 1,288 hours/2-year period). The most common reported outcomes were learner reactions (7; 39%) and career tracking (11; 61%). Conclusions This review yields a composite picture of the current state of CETs in GME. The results highlight the paucity of outcomes data and areas for potential standardization and future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据