ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0680-366X
Current Organisations
Sunnybrook Research Institute
,
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
,
University of Toronto
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-05-2021
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002625
Abstract: Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) in the United States are large in number and erse in purpose, activities, and contributions. Although each of these units shares a commitment to scholarship, there is no synthetic framework to accurately represent and evaluate their activities and contributions. This study aimed to provide such a framework. The authors examined data collected from 11 U.S. HPESU directors. Interviews occurred between April 2015 and February 2016. The research team used a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative techniques to analyze the interview transcripts. The deductive portion drew on Boyer’s four-part framework of scholarship the inductive portion produced a new conceptualization of scholarship at the HPESU level. The scholarly activities of HPESUs generally align with Boyer’s four types of scholarship—discovery, integration, application, and teaching. However, this categorization fails to capture the interconnectedness and variety of purposes served by these activities. Both are important when considering how best to represent the scholarly contributions made by HPESUs. From their analysis of interviews, the authors developed a three-part framework characterizing HPESU scholarly activities: supporting a scholarly approach to education, supporting educational scholarship within the institution, and supporting HPESU members’ scholarship. The authors contend that the three-part, unit-level framework for scholarship constructed in this study brings clarity and understanding to the purpose, activities, and contributions made by HPESUs in the United States. The proposed framework may allow unit directors to better justify and advocate for the resources needed to further promote the work of HPESUs.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 18-04-2017
DOI: 10.1111/MEDU.13334
Abstract: Although health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) share a commitment to the production and dissemination of rigorous educational practices and research, they are situated in many different contexts and have a wide range of structures and functions. In this study, the authors explore the institutional logics common across HPESUs, and how these logics influence the organisation and activities of HPESUs. The authors analysed interviews with HPESU leaders in Canada (n = 12), Australia (n = 21), New Zealand (n = 3) and the USA (n = 11). Using an iterative process, they engaged in inductive and deductive analyses to identify institutional logics across all participating HPESUs. They explored the contextual factors that influence how these institutional logics impact each HPESU's structure and function. Participants identified three institutional logics influencing the organisational structure and functions of an HPESU: (i) the logic of financial accountability (ii) the logic of a cohesive education continuum, and (iii) the logic of academic research, service and teaching. Although most HPESUs embodied all three logics, the power of the logics varied among units. The relative power of each logic influenced leaders' decisions about how members of the unit allocate their time, and what kinds of scholarly contribution and product are valued by the HPESU. Identifying the configuration of these three logics within and across HPESUs provides insights into the reasons why in idual units are structured and function in particular ways. Having a common language in which to discuss these logics can enhance transparency, facilitate evaluation, and help leaders select appropriate indicators of HPESU success.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 08-2017
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001576
Abstract: Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) are organizational structures within which a group is substantively engaged in health professions education scholarship. Little research investigates the strategies employed by HPESU administrative leaders to secure and maintain HPESU success. Using institutional entrepreneurship as a theoretical lens, this study asks: Do HPESU administrative leaders act as institutional entrepreneurs (IEs)? This study recontextualizes two preexisting qualitative datasets that comprised interviews with leaders in health professions education in Canada (2011–2012) and Australia and New Zealand (2013–1014). Two researchers iteratively analyzed the data using the institutional entrepreneurship construct until consensus was achieved. A third investigator independently reviewed and contributed to the recontextualized analyses. A summary of the analyses was shared with all authors, and their feedback was incorporated into the final interpretations. HPESU leaders act as IEs in three ways. First, HPESU leaders construct arguments and position statements about how the HPESU resolves an institution’s problem(s). This theorization discourse justifies the existence and support of the HPESU. Second, the leaders strategically cultivate relationships with the leader of the institution within which the HPESU sits, the leaders of large academic groups with which the HPESU partners, and the clinician educators who want careers in health professions education. Third, the leaders work to increase the local visibility of the HPESU. Practical insights into how institutional leaders interested in launching an HPESU can harness these findings are discussed.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 02-2017
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001367
Abstract: Health professions education scholarship (HPES) is an important and growing field of inquiry. Problematically, consistent use of terminology regarding the in idual roles and organizational structures that are active in this field are lacking. This inconsistency impedes the transferability of current and future findings related to the roles and organizational structures of HPES. Based on data collected during interviews with HPES leaders in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the Netherlands, the authors constructed working definitions for some of the professional roles and an organizational structure that support HPES. All authors reviewed the definitions to ensure relevance across multiple countries. The authors define and offer illustrative ex les of three professional roles in HPES (clinician educator, HPES research scientist, and HPES administrative leader) and an organizational structure that can support HPES participation (HPES unit). These working definitions are foundational and not all-encompassing and, thus, are offered as stimulus for international dialogue and understanding. With these working definitions, scholars and administrative leaders can examine HPES roles and organizational structures across and between national contexts to decide how lessons learned in other contexts can be applied to their local contexts. Although rigorously constructed, these definitions need to be vetted by the international HPES community. The authors argue that these definitions are sufficiently transferable to support such scholarly investigation and debate.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 13-10-2020
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003800
Abstract: The iconic Miller’s pyramid, proposed in 1989, characterizes 4 levels of assessment in medical education (“knows,” “knows how,” “shows how,” “does”). The frame work has created a worldwide awareness of the need to have different assessment approaches for different expected outcomes of education and training. At the time, Miller stressed the innovative use of simulation techniques, geared at the third level (“shows how”) however, the “does” level, assessment in the workplace, remained a largely uncharted area. In the 30 years since Miller’s conference address and seminal paper, much attention has been devoted to procedures and instrument development for workplace-based assessment. With the rise of competency-based medical education (CBME), the need for approaches to determine the competence of learners in the clinical workplace has intensified. The proposal to use entrustable professional activities as a framework of assessment and the related entrustment decision making for clinical responsibilities at designated levels of supervision of learners (e.g., direct, indirect, and no supervision) has become a recent critical innovation of CBME at the “does” level. Analysis of the entrustment concept reveals that trust in a learner to work without assistance or supervision encompasses more than the observation of “doing” in practice (the “does” level). It implies the readiness of educators to accept the inherent risks involved in health care tasks and the judgment that the learner has enough experience to act appropriately when facing unexpected challenges. Earning this qualification requires qualities beyond observed proficiency, which led the authors to propose adding the level “trusted” to the apex of Miller’s pyramid.
Location: United States of America
Location: United States of America
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Stanley Hamstra.