Faculty Support in Achieving
Scholarship
Simone Dahrouge, Clare Liddy,
& Douglas Archibald
Department of Family Medicine Retreat
Montebello, September 20, 2014
Disclosure
The following presentation is free from bias and the
presenters are not affiliated with any for-profit
organizations or parties. The presenters do not have
any conflict of interests to disclose and are not
affiliated with any commercial entities or
organizations that serve to profit from this
presentation.
Faculty/Presenter Disclosure
•
•
•
•
Faculty: Drs. Archibald, Dahrouge, Liddy
Relationships with commercial interests: None
Disclosure of Commercial Support: N/A
Mitigating Potential Bias: N/A
Click View then
Header and
Footer to change
Tentative Agenda
10 min introduction and quiz
5 min – What are the scholarship objectives?
30 min – Faculty Support
 Departmental support and tools
 CPD/Faculty Development
 Templates and Online Resources
30 min – Abstract Writing
1.
Which of the following are
components of the Scholar
role?
A. Maintain and enhance professional activities
through ongoing learning.
B. Critically evaluate information and its sources,
and apply this appropriately to practice decisions.
C. Facilitate the learning of patients, families,
students, residents, other health professionals,
the public, and others, as appropriate.
D. Contribute to the creation, dissemination,
application, and translation of new medical
knowledge and practices.
E. All of the above.
2.
Which of the following
statements describes you most
accurately?
A. Most of what I learned in my medical training still
applies.
B. Three quarters of what I learned during my
medical training still applies.
C. Half of what I learned during my training still
applies.
D. None of what I learned during my medical training
still applies.
3.
To facilitate the learning of patients,
families, students, residents, other
health professionals, the public and
others, you should have the following
skills:
A. Ability to identify the learning needs of the
audience.
B. Ability to select appropriate teaching strategies for
the audience.
C. Ability to prepare and deliver a clear presentation
that communicates the key messages.
D. Ability to provide feedback to the learners on their
progress.
E. All of the above.
4.
When evaluating the results of a
research study, all of the
following should be considered
EXCEPT:
A. The author’s qualifications and experience.
B. The design and methodology of the study.
C. The significance of the findings for clinical
practice.
D. The discussion of the results.
E. The recommendations for practice
5.
When appraising the statistical
results of a study, you need to:
A. Not worry about understanding the results, as the
researcher has analyzed them for you.
B. Assume that the appropriate statistical tests have
been used to answer the research question.
C. Just understand what the p-value means.
D. Understand the researcher’s rationale for the
statistical tests and results.
7.
The following activities can be
considered part of the Scholar
role:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Conducting a personal practice audit.
Attending a journal club.
Participating in a clinical research trial.
Presenting a research abstract.
9.
Systematic reviews involve a structured
process similar to that used in primary
research. For a successful systematic
review, the MOST important factor is
that:
A. Multiple databases and search engines are
available.
B. There is a clear and well-defined research focus
and question.
C. There is a large team with different expertise to
carry out the review.
D. Members of the team can be released to work on
the project.
10.
The following can be used to
evaluate a resident’s
competence in the Scholar role:
A. Clinical scenarios at the point of care to discover
scholarly questions.
B. A retrospective clinical practice audit on 10 cases
to determine consistency in medical
recommendations.
C. Synthesis of a literature review of a clinical topic.
D. A teaching session conducted with medical
students on the critical appraisal of medical
websites.
E. All of the above.
Defining the Scholar (2015)
As Scholars, physicians
demonstrate a lifelong
commitment to
excellence in practice
through continuous
learning, the teaching
of others, the
evaluation of evidence
and other resources,
and contributions to
scholarship.
Key Competencies (2015
Framework)
1. Engage in the continuous
improvement and
enhancement of their
professional activities through
ongoing learning
2. Facilitate the learning of
students, residents, other
health care professionals, the
public, and other stakeholders
3. Integrate best available
evidence, contextualized to
specific situations, and
integrate it into real-time
decision-making
4. Critically evaluate the
integrity, reliability, and
applicability of health-related
research and Literature
5. Contribute to the
dissemination and/or creation
of knowledge and practices
applicable
Key Competencies (FM
Framework)
Family physicians are able to:
1. Maintain and enhance professional
activities through ongoing self-directed
learning based on reflective practice
2. Critically evaluate medical
information, its sources, and its
relevance to their practice, and apply
this information to practice decisions
3. Facilitate the education of patients,
families, trainees, other health
professional colleagues, and the public,
as appropriate
4. Contribute to the creation,
dissemination, application, and
translation of new knowledge and
practices
What can I contribute?
Teacher







Program evaluation
Formal and informal curricula
Hidden curriculum
Learner and faculty assessment
Learning outcomes
Needs assessment
Optimization of the learning environment
What can I contribute?
Where to get help?
OPHCRG
Online Repository for Developing Scholarship
Faculty Development
CPD
DIME
DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
AND TOOLS
The Ottawa Primary Health
Care Research Group
(formerly CTLC)
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT
THE SCHOLAR ROLE?
Who we are
Clinician Scientists in your teaching unit
Bill Hogg (Winchester)
Simone Dahrouge (Pembrooke)
Doug Archibald
Robin MacLaren (Manager)
Liz Muggah
Montfort
MH Chomienne
& Jean Grenier
Bruyère
Kevin Pottie &
Barb Farrell
Bruyère Research Institute
Doug Archibald, Simone
Dahrouge, & Bill Hogg
Primrose
Sharon Johnston
Riverside
Clare Liddy &
Claire Kendall
Melrose
Lise Bjerre
OHRI
Doug
Manuel
Research & Scholarship Support
for DFM Clinician Teachers (CT)
In-Unit Clinician Investigator (CI) support1
•
Consultation: to develop a proposal,
methods etc (hallway or meetings)
•
Co-supervision / consultation: for research
& scholarship FMRSP projects that CT are
supervising
•
Mentorship & support of scholarship:
reviewing abstracts, papers, etc that CT
are submitting
Opportunities to Participate in Research
Invitations by CI to CT to join on funded
projects
•
Opportunities to pilot interventions at the
clinical sites
•
Opportunities to participate in recruitment
etc for projects
Support for Applications to PIME & DFM
Grants and for the funded grants
•
ProActive calls to all faculty
•
Targetted approach for interest
•
Discussion & mentorship in the
development of a LOI
•
Detailed committee feedback on LOI
•
Discussion & mentorship in the
development of a full proposal
•
Detailed committee feedback on
application
•
On-going support till end of grant and
beyond for publication & future funding
•
Central Scholarship learning opportunities
for all Faculty
•
RIP rounds
•
Faculty Development topics
•
Research / Scholarship presentations at
CRAG, DFM Retreat
Support for nonfunded & external
funded scholarship
and research:
Discussion &
mentorship in:
•
development of
projects (research
questions)
•
development of
grant applications
•
analysis of results,
•
dissemination via
publication and/or
presentation
•
in next steps
Research presence for
“chats” at:
• CaRMS, RIO day,
FMF,
In-Unit Clinician Investigator (CI) support
 Consultation: to develop a proposal,
methods etc. (hallway or meetings)
 Co-supervision / consultation: for research
& scholarship FMRSP projects that CT are
supervising
 Mentorship & support of scholarship:
reviewing abstracts, papers, that CT are
submitting
Opportunities to Participate in Research
 Invitations by CI to CT to join funded projects
 Opportunities to pilot interventions at the clinical
sites
 Opportunities to participate in recruitment for
projects
Support for Applications to PIME & DFM
Grants and for the funded grants
 ProActive calls to all faculty
 Targetted approach for interest
 Discussion & mentorship in the development
of a LOI
 Detailed committee feedback on LOI
 Discussion & mentorship in the development
of a full proposal
 Detailed committee feedback on application
 On-going support until end of grant for
publication & future funding
Support for non-funded & external funded
scholarship and research:
Discussion & mentorship in:
 development of projects (research questions)
 development of grant applications
 analysis of results,
 dissemination via publication and/or presentation
 in next steps
 Research presence at: CaRMS, RIO day, FMF,
Central Scholarship learning
opportunities for all Faculty
 RIP rounds
 Faculty Development topics
 Research / Scholarship presentations at
CRAG, DFM Retreat
Research & Scholarship
Support for DFM Residents
FMRSP (Research Projects)1
Supervision of FMRSP Research Projects
•
Mainly in-unit clinician Investigators (CI)
provide primary supervision on FMRSP
research project (agreed up to 2 projects per CI,
res may not be from that academic FHT)
•
Mainly in-unit co-supervision / consultation: for
research & scholarship FMRSP projects that CT
in that Academic FHT are supervising
Central mentorship & support of the research skills:
•
development of a research question,
•
how to do a literature review,
•
how to choose methods that will answer your
research question,
•
Support for ethics application
•
how to develop and validate surveys,
•
how to do analysis & interpretation
Central management of research projects
• Provision of “hotel space” for access to
researchers / staff / and research tools
• admin & supervision support for research
elective,
• evaluation and ranking of research projects
•
•
•
•
Recruitment of Residents
Research table at CaRMS
CI as interviewers
Excellent research portfolio is attractive
Research elective &PGY3 Clinical Scholar programs are
attractive
•
•
•
Interaction with UGME
Participation in FMIG events
Collaboration with FMIG for summer studentship applications
Employment of UGME students on research projects (with and
without scholarship)
•
•
In-Unit Teaching
Thursday morning teaching (as other Faculty)
Availability for consultation / methodological support in-unit
meetings or casual hallway conversations
•
Academic Day
Presentations of 10 minute research highlights (limited
availability)
Where to get help?
OPHCRG
Online Repository for Developing Scholarship
Faculty Development
CPD
DIME
Online Repository –
Tool Box
A Category in the Tool Box
Resource to Assist with
Writing a Manuscript
uOttawa Scholar Resources
Biostatistics Summer Courses, Epidemiology Department
 2013 General Information booklet
 Course Website
Events and Workshops (including critical appraisal), The University of
Ottawa Journal of Medicine
The Writing Centre, University of Ottawa
Health Services Library, University of Ottawa
Faculty Development Workshops, (including Teaching Skills), Faculty of
Medicine
Research Project Example, Department of Family Medicine
Free Ethics Tutorial, TCPS2:
Scholar Program Example, Department of Family Medicine
Conduct Literature
Searches and Reviews
University of
Toronto. (2010).
The literature
review: A few tips
on conducting it.
Critiquing Research Articles
Example: Educational RX
Centre for Evidence
Based Medicine
PowerPoint Presentations
Bates. (2011) Powerpoint: Presentation Tips.
Practical Links for Learning
University of Toronto. (2010). The literature
review: A few tips on conducting it.
Bates. (2011) Powerpoint: Presentation Tips.
Erren T, Bourne P. (2007). Ten Simple Rules for
a Good Poster Presentation
CEBM. (2013). Critical Appraisal
Abstract Guidelines for Papers, ACPI
List of Resources to Help
with Medical Writing
Events and Workshops (including critical
appraisal), The University of Ottawa Journal of
Medicine
The Writing Centre, University of Ottawa
Health Services Library, University of Ottawa
Where to get help?
OPHCRG
Online Repository for Developing Scholarship
Faculty Development
CPD
DIME
Faculty Development and
CPD
Everything you wanted to know about PubMed
Introduction to designing and developing CME activities
Introduction to CME accreditation
Medical education research - How do I get started?
Successful career transitions in medicine
Mentoring of young academics – common stressors faced
by junior faculty, postdoctoral fellows or residents
Creating an Academic Poster – What are your hang-ups?
Tips for Getting Started in
Research and Scholarship
•
•
•
•
•
•
Find a mentor
Join an existing research team
Start Small
Get Help
Put together a team
Be Persistent
Group activity – Writing a
Conference Abstract
Acknowledgement
UBC Family Practice
 Janusz Kaczorowski, Colleen Kirkham, Ian
Martin, Marisa Collins
What is an abstract?
A mini paper
One paragraph
Describes what you are going to discuss,
present or write about
Gives reader an overview of your project
Source of new ideas
Gets reader interested
Why abstracts are
important?
It is the only part of an article that many
people read (apart from your TITLE)
It is the only part of an article that many
journals will make freely accessible
through search engines (PubMed)
Why structured abstract?
To provide basic information that readers
need
To evaluate whether an article is
methodologically sound
To improve the retrieval of literature in
electronic searches
Elements of a structured
abstract
Depends on the discipline, journal or conference
Word limit (50 to 400 words)
Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusion
Background, Objective, Design, Setting,
Patients, Intervention, Measurements and Main
Results, Limitations, and Conclusion
Key words
Good title
Title
The most-read parts of a paper/article
Ideally 10–12 words long
Include the scope of the investigation, the study
design and the goal
A description of what was investigated -- not the
results or conclusions
Easy to understand
Avoid jargon or unfamiliar acronyms or abbreviations
Examples of good titles
(BMJ, Academic Medicine)
Birth order of twins and risk of perinatal death
related to delivery in England, Northern Ireland,
and Wales, 1994-2003: retrospective cohort
study
The State of Ultrasound Education in U.S.
Medical Schools: Results of a National Survey
Assessing Effective Teaching: What Medical
Students Value when Developing Evaluation
Instruments
Authors
The list of authors should be restricted to those
individuals who actually carried out the study,
conceived it, designed it, gathered and/or
analyzed the data, and wrote the abstract
The author who will present the abstract should
be listed first
Every listed author should read and approve the
abstract before it is submitted
Make sure that you put it in your CV!
Abstract: 5 key questions
Why did you start?
What did you try to do?
What did you do?
What did you find?
What does it mean?
Why did you start?
(introduction / background / context)
Summarize, in one sentence, the current state of
knowledge in relation to the work you are
presenting:
BACKGROUND: Exenatide therapy is effective in combination with
metformin or sulfonylureas for treating type 2 diabetes.
Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) also are commonly used, but the efficacy
of exenatide with a TZD has not been reported.
BACKGROUND: Faculty development programs have been
criticized for their limited assessment methods, focused only on the
learners and limited to satisfaction measures or self-reported
behavior changes. Assessment of organizational impact is lacking.
What did you try to do?
(Aims / Objectives/ Purpose)
State the aim of your study, purpose or question
(including hypothesis).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a
parenting program as a preventive intervention with
parents of preschool children considered to be at risk of
developing conduct disorder.
PURPOSE: To explore the impact of faculty education
fellowship graduates on their organization and how that
impact occurred.
What did you do?
(Methods I)
DESIGN: Describe the basic design of your
study. Use descriptors such as double blind,
placebo controlled RCT, cohort, case control,
survey, case series, cost-effectiveness analysis,
focus groups or interviews, etc.
DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial using a
block design with allocation by area.
DESIGN: qualitative study of 13 departments across
three institutions, partnered with the George Washington
University School of Medicine and Health Sciences.
What did you do?
(Methods II)
SETTING: Describe setting of your study
(academic or community family practice,
hospital, ED).
SETTING: Women's homes; antenatal and ultrasound
clinics in 13 maternity units in Wales.
What did you do?
(Methods III)
PARTICIPANTS: State key eligibility criteria and
provide numbers of participants and how they
were selected.
PARTICIPANTS:233 (exenatide group, n = 121; placebo
group, n = 112) patients with type 2 diabetes that was
suboptimally controlled with TZD treatment (with or
without metformin). Mean (±SE) baseline glycated
hemoglobin A1c level was 7.9% ± 0.1%.
PARTICIPANTS: In-depth interviews with 13 supervisors
and 25 peers of graduates were conducted in fall 2012.
What did you do?
(Methods IV)
INTERVENTION/INSTRUMENT: Describe key
features of your intervention (if applicable).
INTERVENTION: Subcutaneous abdominal injections of
10 µg of exenatide or placebo twice daily, added to a
TZD (with or without metformin) for 16 weeks.
INTERVENTION: Behavioral group counseling and 8
weeks of therapy with nicotine nasal spray or
transdermal nicotine.
What did you do?
(Methods V)
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES (if applicable):
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' views and
commonly observed responses during consultations and
interviews.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Form of response (eg,
answering machine), content of message, and physician
and practice characteristics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Triangulation, purposive
sampling, rich descriptions, and member checks
minimized bias and optimized transferability.
What did you find (Results)
RESULTS: Give main results of your
study. If research is in progress, state
anticipated results.
Results (RCT)
RESULTS: Exenatide treatment reduced hemoglobin A1c
level (mean difference, –0.98% [95% CI, –1.21% to –0.74%]),
serum fasting glucose level (mean difference, –1.69 mmol/L [–
30.5 mg/dL] [CI, –2.22 to –1.17 mmol/L {–40.0 to –21.1
mg/dL}]), and body weight (mean difference, –1.51 kg [CI, –
2.15 to –0.88 kg]). Sixteen percent of patients in the exenatide
group and 2% of patients in the placebo group discontinued
treatment because of adverse events. In the exenatide group,
40% (n = 48) of patients experienced nausea (mostly mild [n =
21] or moderate [n = 19]), 13% experienced vomiting, and
11% experienced hypoglycemia. In the placebo group, 15% of
patients experienced nausea, 1% experienced vomiting, and
7% experienced hypoglycemia.
RESULTS (Survey)
RESULTS: Of 514 after-hours messages from family physicians’ offices,
421 were obtained from answering machines, 58 were obtained from
answering services, 23 had no answer, 2 gave pager numbers, and 10
had other responses. Message content ranged from no AHC
instructions to detailed advice; 54% of messages provided a single
instruction, and the rest provided a combination of instructions. Content
analysis identified 815 discrete instructions or types of response that
were classified into 7 categories: 302 instructed patients to go to an
emergency department; 122 provided direct contact with a physician;
115 told patients to go to a clinic; 94 left no directions; 76 suggested
calling a housecall service; 45 suggested calling Telehealth; and 61
suggested other things. About 22% of messages only advised attending
an emergency department, and 18% gave no advice at all. Physicians
who were female, had Canadian certification in family medicine, held
hospital privileges, or had attended a Canadian medical school were
more likely to be directly available to their patients.
RESULTS (Qualitative)
RESULTS: A model of how graduates of a faculty
education fellowship transfer learning to peers and their
organizations emerged. Analysis of interview responses
showed that in the presence of environmental facilitators,
graduates exhibited enhanced confidence and five new
behaviors. Graduates raised peer awareness, which
leading to changes in individual and group practices and
development of shared peer understanding. Analysis
suggests they facilitated a culture of continuous learning
around teaching, scholarship, and leadership.
RESULTS (anticipated)
RESULTS: It is anticipated that the post MI
group will suffer significantly more guilt than the
risk factor group as a result of life style choices,
age, and sex.
What does it mean?
(Conclusions)
CONCLUSIONS: Report only those conclusions
that are directly supported by your results, along
with any implications for clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: This study enhances traditional
assessment of faculty education fellowship programs by
examining the impact that graduates had on peers and
work groups. A model is proposed for how graduates
interact with and impact work group processes and
practices. This model can facilitate more comprehensive
program assessments, which can demonstrate program
impact beyond the individual participant.
Some general advice
Follow the instructions!
Use simple sentences
Stay away from abbreviations, acronyms
and jargon
Have someone read your abstract
Hands-on clinic
Form groups of 3-4
Each group will be assigned 1-2 abstracts
Work as a group ~10-15 minutes on each
abstract
Present revised abstracts to the larger group