UNASSIGNED: Mandatory training is considered fundamental to establishing and maintaining high standards of professional practice. There is little evidence however, of the training either achieving its required learning outcomes, or delivering improvement in outcomes for patients. Whist organisations may be hitting their compliance target for mandatory training, is the purpose missing the point? This systematic review aims to synthesize and evaluate the efficacy of statutory and mandatory training.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, EMBASE, CNAHL, ERIC and Cochrane Central registers were searched on 23rd May 2023. All research designs were included and reported training had to specify an organisational mandate within a healthcare setting. Data was coded using a modified Kirkpatrick (KP) rating system. Critical appraisal was undertaken using the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Studies checklist and Mixed Methods Assessment Tool.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-five studies were included, featuring 9132 participants and 1348 patient cases audited. Studies described evaluation of mandatory training according to Kirkpatrick\'s outcomes levels 1-4b, with the majority (68%) undertaken in the UK and within acute settings. Training duration varied from 5 min to 3 days. There is a lack of consensus regarding mandatory training rationale, core topics, duration, and optimum refresher training period. Currently, mandatory training does not consistently translate to widescale improvements in safe practice or improved patient outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Due to the lack of international consensus regarding the need for mandated training, most papers originated from countries with centrally administered national health care systems. The rationale for mandating training programmes remains undefined. The assumption that mandatory training is delivering safe practice outcomes is not supported by studies included in this review. The findings of this review offer a basis for further research to be undertaken to assist with the design, facilitation, and impact of mandatory training.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses.
PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance.
One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing \'fit.\' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel.
The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

Health professions education is failing to prepare students to practice sustainable healthcare despite the climate crisis an urgent provision of educational opportunities is required. This systematic review aimed to synthesise educational approaches applied to sustainable healthcare education within health professions curricula and critically evaluate their impact.
Databases searched: APA PsycInfo, BEI, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, BASE, DART-Europe, EThOS and ProQuest. Secondary searching techniques were also utilised, with searching conducted October 2021. Eligible studies included healthcare professional students/trainees, exposed to sustainable healthcare education, and evaluated through impact on knowledge, attitudes or skills. Empirical studies of any publication status were included. Non-English language studies were excluded. Eligible studies were quality assessed using JBI (2022) critical appraisal checklists and synthesised narratively.
Twenty-three studies were included, comprising 3343 participants and seven health professions. Studies primarily adopted a quasi-experimental design and demonstrated variable quality. Most common educational approaches were workshops and clinical skills sessions, though eight different approaches were observed. Positive impacts were achieved for knowledge, attitudes and skills.
Diverse approaches have been applied to sustainable healthcare education, though no superior approach is evident. Instead, many effective approaches are outlined, to be adopted in alignment with the learning outcomes.

Prior reviews investigated medical education developments in response to COVID-19, identifying the pivot to remote learning as a key area for future investigation. This review synthesized online learning developments aimed at replacing previously face-to-face \'classroom\' activities for postgraduate learners.
Four online databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO, and PubMed) and MedEdPublish were searched through 21 December 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. The PICRAT technology integration framework was applied to examine how teachers integrated and learners engaged with technology. A descriptive synthesis and outcomes were reported. A thematic analysis explored limitations and lessons learned.
Fifty-one publications were included. Fifteen collaborations were featured, including international partnerships and national networks of program directors. Thirty-nine developments described pivots of existing educational offerings online and twelve described new developments. Most interventions included synchronous activities (n Fif5). Virtual engagement was promoted through chat, virtual whiteboards, polling, and breakouts. Teacher\'s use of technology largely replaced traditional practice. Student engagement was largely interactive. Underpinning theories were uncommon. Quality assessments revealed moderate to high risk of bias in study reporting and methodology. Forty-five developments assessed reaction; twenty-five attitudes, knowledge or skills; and two behavior. Outcomes were markedly positive. Eighteen publications reported social media or other outcomes, including reach, engagement, and participation. Limitations included loss of social interactions, lack of hands-on experiences, challenges with technology and issues with study design. Lessons learned highlighted the flexibility of online learning, as well as practical advice to optimize the online environment.
This review offers guidance to educators attempting to optimize learning in a post-pandemic world. Future developments would benefit from leveraging collaborations, considering technology integration frameworks, underpinning developments with theory, exploring additional outcomes, and designing and reporting developments in a manner that supports replication.

UNASSIGNED: The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an abrupt transition away from in-person educational activities. This systematic review investigated the pivot to online learning for nonclinical undergraduate medical education (UGME) activities and explored descriptions of educational offerings deployed, their impact, and lessons learned.
UNASSIGNED: The authors systematically searched four online databases and conducted a manual electronic search of MedEdPublish up to December 21, 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. A third author resolved discrepancies. Findings were reported in accordance with the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting in healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement and BEME guidance.
UNASSIGNED: Fifty-six articles were included. The majority (n = 41) described the rapid transition of existing offerings to online formats, whereas fewer (n = 15) described novel activities. The majority (n = 27) included a combination of synchronous and asynchronous components. Didactics (n = 40) and small groups (n = 26) were the most common instructional methods. Teachers largely integrated technology to replace and amplify rather than transform learning, though learner engagement was often interactive. Thematic analysis revealed unique challenges of online learning, as well as exemplary practices. The quality of study designs and reporting was modest, with underpinning theory at highest risk of bias. Virtually all studies (n = 54) assessed reaction/satisfaction, fewer than half (n = 23) assessed changes in attitudes, knowledge or skills, and none assessed behavioral, organizational or patient outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: UGME educators successfully transitioned face-to-face instructional methods online and implemented novel solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although technology\'s potential to transform teaching is not yet fully realized, the use of synchronous and asynchronous formats encouraged virtual engagement, while offering flexible, self-directed learning. As we transition from emergency remote learning to a post-pandemic world, educators must underpin new developments with theory, report additional outcomes and provide details that support replication.

COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research.
The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O\'Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts.
One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement).
This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. This rapid systematic review synthesised published reports of medical educational developments in response to the pandemic, considering descriptions of interventions, evaluation data and lessons learned.
The authors systematically searched four online databases and hand searched MedEdPublish up to 24 May 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included articles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. A descriptive synthesis and outcomes were reported.
Forty-nine articles were included. The majority were from North America, Asia and Europe. Sixteen studies described Kirkpatrick\'s outcomes, with one study describing levels 1-3. A few papers were of exceptional quality, though the risk of bias framework generally revealed capricious reporting of underpinning theory, resources, setting, educational methods, and content. Key developments were pivoting educational delivery from classroom-based learning to virtual spaces, replacing clinical placement based learning with alternate approaches, and supporting direct patient contact with mitigated risk. Training for treating patients with COVID-19, service reconfiguration, assessment, well-being, faculty development, and admissions were all addressed, with the latter categories receiving the least attention.
This review highlights several areas of educational response in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifies a few articles of exceptional quality that can serve as models for future developments and educational reporting. There was often a lack of practical detail to support the educational community in enactment of novel interventions, as well as limited evaluation data. However, the range of options deployed offers much guidance for the medical education community moving forward and there was an indication that outcome data and greater detail will be reported in the future.

Purpose: The primary objective was to inventory what is currently known about faculty development (FD) for competency-based medical educations (CBME) and identify gaps in the literature.Methods: A scoping review methodology was employed. Inclusion criteria for article selection were established with two reviewers completing a full-text analysis. Quality checks were included, along with iterative consultation on data collection and consensus decision making via a grounded theory approach.Results: The review identified 19 articles published between 2009 and 2018. Most articles (N = 15) offered suggestions as to what should happen with FD in CBME, but few (N = 4) adopted an experimental design. Six main themes were identified with three main features of FD noted across themes: (1) The importance of direct and timely feedback to faculty members on their teaching and assessment skills. (2) The role of establishing shared mental models for CBME curricula. (3) That FD is thought of longitudinally, not as a one-time bolus.Conclusion: This work illustrates that there is limited, high quality research in FD for CBME. Future FD activities should consider employing a longitudinal and multi-modal program format that includes feedback for the faculty participants on their teaching and assessments skills, including the development of faculty coaching skills.