Blog and podcast use is rising among learners in the health professions. The lack of a standardized method to assess the quality of these resources prompted a research agenda aimed at solving this problem. Through a rigorous research process, a list of 151 quality indicators for blogs and podcasts was formed and subsequently refined to elicit the most important quality indicators. These indicators are presented as Quality Checklists to assist with quality appraisal of medical blogs and podcasts.

Boyer’s framework of scholarship was published before significant growth in digital technology. As more digital products are produced by medical educators, determining their scholarly value is of increasing importance. This scoping systematic review developed a taxonomy of digital products and determined their fit within Boyer’s framework of scholarship. We conducted a broad literature search for descriptions of digital products in the medical literature in July 2013 using Medline, EMBASE, ERIC, PSYCHinfo, and Google Scholar. A framework analysis categorized each product using Boyer’s model of scholarship, while a thematic analysis defined a taxonomy of digital products. 7422 abstracts were found and 524 met inclusion criteria. Digital products mapped primarily to the scholarship of teaching (85.4%) followed by integration (7.6%), application (5.5%), and discovery (1.5%). A taxonomy of 19 categories was defined. Web-based or computer assisted learning (41%) was described most frequently. We found that digital products are well described in medical literature and fit into Boyer’s framework of scholarship and proposed a taxonomy of digital products that parallel traditional forms of the scholarship of teaching and learning. This research should inform the development of tools to examine the impact and quality of digital products.

Purpose: Leaders in academic health sciences centres (AHCs) must navigate multiple roles as an inherent component of their positions. Changing accountabilities, varying expectations, differing leadership competencies required of multiple leadership roles can be exacerbated by health system disruption, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. We need improved models that support leaders in navigating, so they can better handle the complexity of multiple leadership roles.Method: This integrative conceptual review sought to examine leadership and followership constructs and how they intersect with current leadership practices in AHCs. The goal was to develop a refined model of health care leadership development. The authors used iterative cycles of divergent and convergent thinking to explore and synthesize various literature and existing leadership frameworks. The authors used simulated personas and stories to test the model and, finally, the approach sought feedback from knowledge users (including health care leaders, medical educators, and leadership developers) to offer refinements. Results: After five rounds of discussion and reformulation, the authors arrived at a refined model: the LEADS+ Developmental Model. The model describes four nested stages, organizing progressive capabilities, as an individual toggles between followership and leadership. During the consultation stage, feedback from 29 out of 65 recruited knowledge users (44.6% response rate) was acquired. More than a quarter of respondents served as a senior leader in a health care network or national society (27.5%, n=8).  Consulted knowledge users were invited to indicate their endorsement for the refined model using a 10-point scale (10=highest level of endorsement). There was a high level of endorsement: 7.93 (SD 1.7) out of 10. Conclusion: The LEADS+ Developmental Model may help foster development of academic health centre leaders. In addition to clarifying the synergistic dynamic between leadership and followership, this model describes the paradigms adopted by leaders within health systems throughout their development journey.

AbstractThe persistence of a gender gap in academic medicine has been documented in thousands of studies in the last decade. Notable disparity between representation by men and women is present in leadership positions, invited keynote speakers, and publication counts. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an additional context for this disparity; while many journals continue to experience rapid increases in manuscript submissions, these submissions are disproportionately from men. The results of efforts aimed at raising awareness and advocating for women have been underwhelming. Allowing this disparity to continue significantly limits the diversity and quality of vision in leadership and research. We can—and must—do better. How do we bridge the gaps between intention, interpretation, and results? How can advocates ensure that they aren’t unintentionally creating situations that undermine the very women they seek to empower? Until these questions are answered, the goal of ending gender discrimination risks being unattainable. In this critical review we argue that the gender gap is a symptom of a much larger issue. Specifically, the power of social expectations, culture and gender stereotypes remains a resistant force against calls for action. The power of stereotypes shapes the decisions that men and women make about their careers. In turn, these decisions impact the amount of time that women can dedicate to leadership, self-promotion, and research. Drawing on our combined lived experiences and a rich multidisciplinary literature, we offer a practical guide to allies in the fight against the gender gap.

STUDY TITLE: Faculty Feedback NeedsAUTHORS: Parnian Pardis, Vanessa Munford, Yusuf Yilmaz, Teresa M. ChanTIME COMMITMENT FOR FIRST PHASE: The interview will run for approximately 30-60 minutes.

Appendix 1. Interview Guide

Rationale, aims, and objectives: The complexity of healthcare systems makes errors unavoidable. To strengthen the dialogue around how physicians experience and share medical errors, the objective of this study was to understand how experienced generalist physicians make meaning of and grow from their medical errors. Methods: This study used a narrative inquiry approach to conduct and analyze in-depth interviews from 26 physicians from the generalist specialties of emergency, internal, and family medicine. We gathered stories via individual interview, analyzed them for key components, and rewrote a ‘meta-story’ in a chronological sequence. We conceptualized the findings into a metaphor to draw similarities, learn from, and apply new principles from other fields of practice. Results: Through analysis we interpreted the story of an elite athlete (physician) who is required to make numerous decisions in a short period of time within the construct of a chaotic sports field (clinical environment) among spectators (the patient’s family) whilst abiding by existing rules and regulations. Through sharing stories of success and failure, the team coach (clinical mentor) helps optimize the players’ professional and psychological development. Similarly, through sharing and learning from stories, team members (colleagues) and junior team members (trainees) also contribute to the growth of the protagonist’s character and the development of the overall team (clinic/hospital) and sport (healthcare system). Conclusion: We draw parallels between the clinical setting and a generalist physician’s experiences of a medical error with the environment and practices within professional sports. Using this comparison, we discuss the potential for meaningful coaching in medical education.

Purpose This paper aims to elucidate the factors that play into physicians’ experience of receiving practice data and to subsequently develop a model that describes how individuals may interact with the data they receive. Methods In a prior study, we conducted a needs analysis of 105 physicians in the Hamilton-Niagara area in order to understand which data metrics were most valuable to physicians. Using these results, we designed an interview guide to study physicians’ perspectives on audit and feedback. By intentional sampling, we recruited 15 physicians amongst gender groups, types of practice (academic vs community), and duration of practice. The interviews were conducted by a single author and transcribed without identifiers. We then began with an open coding analysis for all of the transcripts, and thereafter conducted axial coding to group the data into larger themes. Results Several environmental and personal attributes were identified as either enabling or counterproductive attributes for participant improvement. The final proposed model identifies different zones of engagement on the basis of both the individual practitioner’s growth mindset and the quality of the existing data system. In the highest engagement zone, the mindset of the collective leadership is one of growth. Systemic supports are in place which potentiates learning that may come from an individual motivated to use their own data. Conclusion Our model shows how data feedback systems and individual growth-oriented mindsets interact to augment or hinder clinical practice improvement. This model provides important guidance to academic and administrative structures looking to develop appropriate performance feedback systems with clinicians.