1. From Idea to Implementation: Moving your Educational Project from Brain to Bedside Timothy Farrell, MD, Utah; Deb Simpson, PhD, MCW; Manuel Eskildsen, MD, MPH, Emory; Cherie Brunker, MD, Utah; Kathryn Denson, MD, MCW; Gary Blanchard, MD, UMass; & Kathryn Eubank, MD, UCSF 2012 Annual Reynolds Grantee Meeting – St. Louis MO / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 2:45-4:15 PM [Lindell B]

2. Goals & Objectives Educational Product Development (EPD) 1.To introduce best practices in EDP – Objective: Gain familiarity with Glassick’s 6 criteria for the approach to and assessment of scholarship. 2. To increase participants’ abilities to apply a scholarly approach to their educational endeavors – Objective: Apply Glassick criteria to examples (successes & challenges in EPD processes to avoid pitfalls. – Objective: Generate common themes framed by the Glassick criteria associated with the processes of EPD. 3. To apply the concepts learned in the workshop to participants’ own educational product ideas – Objective: To identify barriers in own educational products. – Objective: Share strategies for overcoming barriers to product development, implementation and presentation.

3. Why do I care @ Sharing Educational Work? Long-Term Goal Improve Health through Education  Value and advance our educational missions through recognition (e.g., award and reward) of educators  Advance education by sharing & building on our work  Educators as scholars Susan Dorothea WhiteSusan Dorothea White - Reinventing the Wheel 2001 Mixed Media Sculpture – US $5,000

4. Why Sharing Work = Scholars? What is scholarship? What does it mean to be scholarly? Advance or transform knowledge within their community of peers (researchers, educators) – through the application of one’s intellect in an informed, disciplined and creative manner Boyer EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professoriate. Princeton University Press 1990

5. Glassick Criteria C LEAR G OALS Adequate Preparation Appropriate Methods Significant Results Effective Presentation Reflective Critique Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. SF: Jossey-Bass 1997.

6. Glassick For Educators  Clear Goals  Adequate Preparation  Appropriate Methods  Significant Results  Effective Presentation  Reflective Critique = Objectives = Current in educ + subject matter = Select methods = obj/comp = Evaluation = Dissemination to Peers = Revise Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. SF: Jossey-Bass 1997.

7. Summary Report & Findings AAMC GEA Consensus Conference on Educational Scholarship (July 2007) Summary Report & Findings – Educator Activity Categories, Criteria and Evidence 1.Teaching 2.Learner Assessment 3.Curriculum Development 4.Mentoring and Advising 5.Educational Leadership & Administration https://services.aamc.org/Publicationshttps://services.aamc.org/Publications go to “Faculty” Simpson D et al. Medical Education 2007:41(10): 1002–1009

8. https://www.mededportal.org/download/190392/data/educational_scholarship_guide.pdf

9. Task Force on Educator Evaluation Jonathan Amiel Columbia University Brian Mavis Michigan State University Suzanne Rose University of Connecticut Constance Baldwin University of Rochester Kathe Nelson University of Alabama Deb Simpson Medical College of Wisconsin Latha Chandran SUNY Stony Brook Lois Nora Commonwealth Med Col Henry Strobel UT-SoM- Houston Rhee Fincher GHSU/MCG Jamie Padmore MedStar Health Craig Timm University of New Mexico Nancy Lowitt University of Maryland Pat O’Sullivan UCSF Tom Viggiano Mayo Medical School Maryellen Gusic – Task Force Chair Indiana University - mgusic@iupui.edumgusic@iupui.edu 9 FOCUS: Evaluating the 5 Educational Domains

12. Glassick Criteria C LEAR G OALS Adequate Preparation Appropriate Methods Significant Results Effective Presentation Reflective Critique Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. SF: Jossey-Bass 1997.

13. Can You Swallow This? Kathryn Denson, MD Associate Professor of Medicine/Geriatrics Program Director, Med-Ger Residency Program Medical College of Wisconsin

14. Clear Goals What’s the problem? Is it “fixable” through education? Define the goal What do you want your Learners to DO? Create objectives – Link to ACGME competencies – Link to Milestones

15. Adequate Preparation Current in topic: Literature review for best practices Current in education: On-line search and check for resources Adopt Adapt Author

16. Appropriate Methods

17. Significant results Evaluation of: Session– standardized eval form organization/session content/teacher effectiveness/impact on ability to provide care (“so what?”) Learners– An assessment gap here!

18. Effective Presentation Dissemination to peers: Here! Clearly room for improvement

19. Can You Swallow This? Clear Goals: “Why, what” at start Adequate Preparation: Strong practice gap Appropriate Methods: Interactive, small group Needs more time! Apply to current patient Significant Results: Needs learner (KSA) eval Effective Presentation: Pogo-e, MedEd PORTAL ? Reflective Critique: A lot better after creating this presentation!