Tag Archives: medicine

STFM’s Secret Is Out: We Care About Research

Stacy Brungardt, CAE STFM Executive Director

Stacy Brungardt, CAE
STFM Executive Director

Psst…want to know a secret? STFM wants to be the authority in innovation and research in medical education. Kind of cool, right?

The problem is, this really isn’t supposed to be a secret. Despite our commitment to research in activities and dollars, STFM can improve on communicating how high a priority this is for the Society. Our interest in research generally remains a secret that is known only to those who sit on our Research Committee and Board of Directors. For the sake of the discipline, STFM needs to be seen as a leader in promoting research activities that have an impact and a place where faculty are inspired and learners are engaged in the generation of new knowledge.

To gain this presence, we need the right combination of scholars and resources, and, yes, communications about what we are doing. We have some brilliant scholars within our membership who work hard to review journal manuscripts, develop skill building research sessions at our conferences, and collaborate with CAFM Educational Research Alliance PIs.

For the resource piece, STFM invested more than $300,000 last year to advance scholarship through the following initiatives:

  • Family Medicine – Submissions continue to rise for STFM’s flagship journal.
  • Annals of Family Medicine – STFM is third largest financial contributor to Annals.
  • Grant Generating Project – STFM is one of three financial partners in the Grant Generating Project.
  • CAFM Educational Research Alliance – Currently six manuscripts have already been submitted for publication from CERA, and we anticipate several more within the next 2 months. This is all within the first year of existence of CERA. We’ve only scratched the surface of the potential of this initiative.
  • Fifty four podium presentations and 180 posters at our annual meeting – including skill building sessions and educational and clinical research findings. Every year, one of our four plenary slots is reserved for research. We also have dozens of research posters at our other conferences.
  • Best Research Paper Award – The list of research leaders on this list is impressive.
  • Research Advocacy – This is still in its infancy, but advocacy for increased research funding is now an advocacy priority for the family.
  • National Research Network – Our Conference on Practice Improvement is the home for presentations and meetings of the National Research Network. We see a great linkage between practice improvement and the translation of the research coming out of the network.
  • Family Medicine Research wiki – The Group on Research in Residency offers a great but relatively unknown resource to help build research capacity. Topics include: Getting Started with Family Medicine Research, Journal Clubs & Critical Appraisal, Scholarly Projects in Residency Training, IRB Issues and Participant Safety, Writing A Research Paper, Reviewing a Manuscript, and more.
  • Management Contract with the North American Primary Care Research Group – STFM provides the staff to run NAPCRG. We do this because we believe that NAPCRG can do things that STFM can’t to advance the generation of new knowledge.

There is much more that needs to be done to move forward the scholarship of our discipline. STFM should lead research initiatives that align with our educational mission and collaborate with others to develop our faculty and learners’ skills in educational research and innovation.

Please help us spread the word.

It IS Possible to Assess Competency

Dr. Cullison

Sam Cullison, MD

Anyone working in family medicine graduate medical education knows that the bar is being raised by the ACGME, as well as by society in general, to demonstrate that our residency graduates are truly prepared to show “sufficient competence to enter practice without direct supervision.” This is not a new standard for graduation, but the rigor with which we must prove residents’ ability is getting tougher.

Some of us (like me) were in the field when Dr David Leach first announced the six competencies in the late 1990s. We were warned that requirements would be progressively increased and that proving competence would require more than verifying time and clinical exposure, with faculty sitting around a table venturing abstract opinions based on recall and the group dynamics of the moment.

However, there is good news in all of this. We are being challenged to prove we know what we are talking about when we say a resident is ready to graduate. Being challenged to defend one’s beliefs is nearly always a good experience, since it requires reassessing assumptions and asking ourselves why we believe what we assert. And to build on that good news—assessing competency is not as tough to do as one might think. I am now a year into chairmanship of the Residency Competency Measurement Task Force, chartered by the Council of Academic Family Medicine and administrated by the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine. I came to the role with a lot of leadership experience but not much competency in competency measurement and tools. Fortunately, I have learned a lot from the other task force members and read tons of books and articles. I have decided that this can be done.

So, what is it going to take?

We have created a web-based Resident Competency Assessment Toolkit. I think it does a good job of walking faculty and directors through the tools available for competency assessment and how to use them.

A couple of general observations:

  • The tools can be simple to use.
  • One tool can be used to measure more than one competency. For example, I can use direct observation, (watching a resident care for a patient), to analyze medical knowledge, patient care, communication, and professionalism in one sitting.
  • You can decide how many tools you want to use to measure any given competency.
  • Multiple faculty watching a single resident provide care to different patients over different times accumulates a body of information on competency that is both valid and reliable, especially if forms are used to record findings and faculty have been trained together to create common standards.
  • Feedback is valuable when received from sources outside the faculty: staff, patients, peers, and students.
  • Learners love feedback, and more of it more often “normalizes” it and takes away the stress.
  • There is no perfect form; do not spend time searching for “the holy grail” of perfect forms. Find one already in use elsewhere, modify as you must, and then start using it—frequently and by many assessors.
  • Faculty need to work together to reach common definitions of competency. Otherwise, faculty assessing the same clinical events will reach very different conclusions.

GO FOR IT!!