• Users Online: 97
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 233

Linking faculty development programmes with the intended outcomes and formulating measurable indices


1 Vice Principal Curriculum, Department of Community Medicine, Member of the Medical Education Unit and Institute Research Council, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Community Medicine, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission23-Jan-2019
Date of Acceptance11-Mar-2019
Date of Web Publication11-Nov-2019

Correspondence Address:
Saurabh RamBihariLal Shrivastava
3rd Floor, Department of Community Medicine, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, Ammapettai Village, Thiruporur-Guduvancherry Main Road, Sembakkam Post, Kancheepuram - 603 108, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/HMJ.HMJ_7_19

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava PS. Linking faculty development programmes with the intended outcomes and formulating measurable indices. Hamdan Med J 2019;12:233

How to cite this URL:
Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava PS. Linking faculty development programmes with the intended outcomes and formulating measurable indices. Hamdan Med J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Oct 31];12:233. Available from: http://www.hamdanjournal.org/text.asp?2019/12/4/233/270679



Dear Editor,

Faculty development programmes (FDPs) have been identified as the need of the hour in the current era of medical education.[1] These FDPs have an indispensable role in ensuring that how a teacher should teach and assess different medical competencies required for an undergraduate or postgraduate student. In addition, it helps to minimise the concerns with regard to the rising trend of error in patient care, which can be definitely correlated with the deficiencies in teaching–learning retrospectively.[2],[3] Further, the FDPs can help a physician to understand the entire system of medical education for the betterment of the patient care and well-being of the general population as a whole.[1],[2],[3]

There are no doubts that owing to all the above-mentioned facts, the conduction of a FDP across different medical colleges has become a common norm.[1] However, it is important to understand that the mere organisation will not serve any purpose unless we also formulate the outcome parameters as well.[2],[4] These parameters can range from the extent of awareness among faculty members about different recent developments in medical education, sustainment of the academic teaching in the medical college, adoption of innovative methods of teaching–learning for the benefit of the medical students, balance maintained between the relevance of medical education (or training of health professionals) and health needs of the local population, growth of the institution and development of leadership or mentoring skills among faculty members.[2],[3],[4]

After the formulation of these outcomes, they have to be measured as well; otherwise again, we are not linking the intended objectives of the FDP sessions with the ultimate objectives.[2],[3],[4] The measurement of the faculty development can be through various indices such as number of faculty members who adopted innovative methods while being engaged in large-group teaching or small-group teaching session or number of faculty members (who have undergone faculty development activities) and are occupying leadership roles, or the nature of feedback of students towards the sessions taken by a trained faculty member, or the number of research projects/publications in medical education done by individual faculty member after attending the session. In addition, indicators such as any change in the existing pattern of teaching–learning (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or sustainment (institutionalisation) of the proposed change (Kirkpatrick Level 4) can also be looked upon as intermediate or long-term outcomes.[2],[3],[4]

In conclusion, the FDPs are being carried out quite frequently in various medical institutions; nevertheless, the real impact of these sessions has to be assessed by listing out the intended outcomes and the indicators to measure these outcomes.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava PS, Ramasamy J. Faculty development program: A boost in medical education. Res Dev Med Educ 2013;2:1-2.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Chandran L, Gusic ME, Lane JL, Baldwin CD. Designing a national longitudinal faculty development curriculum focused on educational scholarship: Process, outcomes, and lessons learned. Teach Learn Med 2017;29:337-50.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Papa FJ, D'Agostino D. Faculty development directed at curricular reforms designed to improve patient outcomes. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2016;116:736-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Teruya SA, Bazargan-Hejazi S, Mojtahedzadeh M, Doshi M, Russell K, Parker-Kelly D, et al. A review of programs, components and outcomes in biomedical research faculty development. Int J Univ Teach Fac Dev 2013;4:223-36.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed399    
    Printed18    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded69    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal