Evaluations of clinical faculty typically incorporate comments from rotating medical students and residents regarding their teaching ability. In the Emergency Department (ED), how do you balance your pressing clinical responsibilities with teaching?
Have you heard of the RIME method of evaluating learners on their clinical rotation? Dr. Lou Pangaro (Vice Chair for Educational Programs in the Dept of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University) published a landmark article in 1999 on his simple yet effective approach in evaluating medical students and residents. I had the pleasure of briefly meeting Dr. Pangaro when he gave CDEM’s keynote speech in 2008.
Reflective journals and electronic portfolios are becoming increasingly popular within undergraduate and graduate medical education. I’m starting to be a believer in this learning approach, which teaches learners about professional development and life-long learning principles. Academic Medicine just published a great qualitative paper proposing a conceptual model for reflection.
What is a mentor?
It is a person who supports and guides a junior colleague (junior faculty member, residents, or medical student) in his/her professional development.
Do you remember the sheer terror you felt, when you first started your medical school clinical rotations? Your first two years were probably spent in classrooms and small-group labs discussing anatomy, pharmacology, pathology, etc.
Then BAM! You are thrown into the deep end of the pool. You are now on a clinical team of medical professionals taking care of actual patients!
This article essentially states that how the nation addresses ED crowding will define the future of EM. Currently, Emergency Departments are at a breaking point where overwhelming demands are commonly placed on under-resourced practices.
“Medical Education in the United States and Canada in 1910” was a landmark article, published by Abraham Flexner (shown in photo) in 1910. It’s commonly referred to as the Flexner Report. It revolutionized medical education in its call for higher quality and standardization.
In summary the report advocated for the improvement of medical education and medical schools in 4 areas: