UNASSIGNED: Accreditation of medical education programs can be observed from different perspectives. Regulatory/accreditation agencies consider it vital to assure a certain level of quality. Other stakeholders may perceive the accreditation process as a negative experience, draining resources, and efforts. Although accreditation may improve the program\'s governance and administration, its direct or indirect impact on students must be further investigated. This study explores the relationship between the occurrence of accreditation site visits and student satisfaction rates at Avalon University School of Medicine.
UNASSIGNED: A comparison study was conducted with retrospective satisfaction data from two accreditation cycles at AUSOM. We used the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions (CAAM-HP) student surveys for data collection, and data from 2017, 2019, and 2022 were used. The response rate was 70% (n = 71), 72% (n = 47), and 60% (n = 56) for basic science students and 80% (n = 111), 82% (n = 115), and 70% (n = 76) for clinical students in 2017, 2019, and 2022, respectively. The survey for basic sciences students included 37 questions/items, and the survey for clinical students included 39 questions/items. The responses for the questionnaire were on the five-point Likert scale. The retrospective data were evaluated using the unpaired Wilcoxon-rank sum test.
UNASSIGNED: The ratings for the basic science students\' survey increased from 2017 to 2019 (first accreditation cycle) only for 11 items/questions and they were increased from 2019 to 2022 for all items/questions. The ratings for clinical science students\' surveys increased from 2017 to 2019 (the first accreditation cycle) for all items/questions with a statistically significant p-value. They increased for 28 questions/items from 2019 to 2022, and two items (availability and adequacy of career counseling) showed statistically significant p-values.
UNASSIGNED: The pre-accreditation preparation and the self-evaluation process while correcting the program\'s deficiencies are essential triggers for the quality improvement process associated with accreditation.

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.

BACKGROUND: Case-based clinical reasoning (CBCR) is the proposed method to improve clinical reasoning. This brief report aimed to evaluate CBCR effectiveness to improve clinical reasoning via an online course.
METHODS: This study is a brief report of a before-after quasi-experimental study to evaluate CBCR in medical students of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.
METHODS: Ten online weekly 2-hour sessions of CBCR presentations were instructed to medical students. Each session started with an illness script, and then, the instructor posed the students\' five clinical questions in five steps according to the CBCR approach. The clinical reasoning ability of students was evaluated before and 2 weeks after the online courses using four types of standard clinical questions.
METHODS: A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to assess the difference between pretest and posttest examination scores.
RESULTS: This brief report revealed that twenty-one medical students participated in all ten sessions of the CBCR online course and were evaluated in pretest and posttest examinations. A significant improvement in the clinical reasoning total scores in the posttest examination compared with the pretest examination was observed (P = 0.001). In terms of specific types of clinical questions, the mean posttest scores for clinical reasoning problem (CRP) and key feature (KF) examinations were higher than the pretest scores (P = 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Applying the CBCR approach improved the total clinical reasoning score of medical students during the course. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether this improvement would persist in workplace settings or not.

Changes in digital technology, increasing volume of data collection, and advances in methods have the potential to unleash the value of big data generated through the education of health professionals. Coupled with this potential are legitimate concerns about how data can be used or misused in ways that limit autonomy, equity, or harm stakeholders. This consensus statement is intended to address these issues by foregrounding the ethical imperatives for engaging with big data as well as the potential risks and challenges. Recognizing the wide and ever evolving scope of big data scholarship, we focus on foundational issues for framing and engaging in research. We ground our recommendations in the context of big data created through data sharing across and within the stages of the continuum of the education and training of health professionals. Ultimately, the goal of this statement is to support a culture of trust and quality for big data research to deliver on its promises for health professions education (HPE) and the health of society. Based on expert consensus and review of the literature, we report 19 recommendations in (1) framing scholarship and research through research, (2) considering unique ethical practices, (3) governance of data sharing collaborations that engage stakeholders, (4) data sharing processes best practices, (5) the importance of knowledge translation, and (6) advancing the quality of scholarship through multidisciplinary collaboration. The recommendations were modified and refined based on feedback from the 2022 Ottawa Conference attendees and subsequent public engagement. Adoption of these recommendations can help HPE scholars share data ethically and engage in high impact big data scholarship, which in turn can help the field meet the ultimate goal: high-quality education that leads to high-quality healthcare.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. McMaster University has introduced the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in medical education over half a century ago. Since then, hundreds of reviews and study reports have identified many critical issues affecting the success of the PBL unit. Nonetheless, we are still debating the efficacy and success of the PBL program. Over half of all medical schools globally have introduced various versions of PBL pedagogy in their medical education program achieving assorted modifications of outcomes. In this paper, I have reviewed from many scholars and through their publications; I have identified eight important Fundamental Roots for a successful PBL program. The success of any PBL program must be evaluated as a whole from the perspective of Standardization, Reliability and Validity working synchronously between these fundamental roots and not the individual PBL unit. The importance of Standardization must consider all the critical issues identified in many reviews and study reports. These issues are one of many factors when incorporated into the fundamental framework of a PBL program will regulate all PBL units in a unified outcome. The educational objective principles will guide the reliability of a PBL program by meeting the institutional mission and students\' career success goals. The \"Assessment as Learning\" should incorporate the \"Holistic and Divergent Approach\" and the longitudinal \"Progress Testing\". These are the principle methods of evaluation to achieve a reliable and valid outcome assessment in a successful PBL program.

Background: Mentorship is an important component for young students interested in pursuing a career in medicine. In medically underserved areas, such as rural areas, mentorship can be sparse due to the lack of access to healthcare professionals. The purpose of this project was to gain an understanding of the mentorship received by practicing medical students. Methods: The authors conducted structured, one-on-one interviews with 10 current medical students about their perceptions and experiences with mentorship. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for themes and subthemes. Results: Our findings revolve around three time periods of mentorship: 1) Before Obtaining a Mentor; 2) During the Mentorship; and 3) After the Mentorship.  In our findings we describe key characteristics such as professional development, personal qualities of the mentor, and professional and personal guidance as important components in guiding the mentee starting from the undergraduate level and continuing to their current level of education.  Conclusion: Interviewees\' experiences with and perspectives on the mentorship they received were generally positive, though it was evident there are some aspects of the mentee-mentor relationship that can be improved. Building on the results obtained, setting expectations, providing mentor training, and pairing mentors/mentees from similar backgrounds are what we propose to create fulfilling and meaningful relationships between a mentee and mentor.

Selection is the first assessment of medical education and training. Medical schools must select from a pool of academically successful applicants and ensure that the way in which they choose future clinicians is robust, defensible, fair to all who apply and cost-effective. However, there is no comprehensive and evidence-informed guide to help those tasked with setting up or rejuvenating their local selection process. To address this gap, our guide draws on the latest research, international case studies and consideration of common dilemmas to provide practical guidance for designing, implementing and evaluating an effective medical school selection system. We draw on a model from the field of instructional design to frame the many different activities involved in doing so: the ADDIE model. ADDIE provides a systematic framework of Analysis (of the outcomes to be achieved by the selection process, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving these), Design (what tools and content are needed so the goals of selection are achieved), Development (what materials and resources are needed and available), Implementation (plan [including piloting], do study and adjust) and Evaluation (quality assurance is embedded throughout but the last step involves extensive evaluation of the entire process and its outcomes).HIGHLIGHTSRobust, defensible and fair selection into medical school is essential. This guide systematically covers the processes required to achieve this, from needs analysis through design, development and implementation, to evaluation of the success of a selection process.

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.