Tuesday, April 28, 2009 – Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel
11:00 am – 5:00 pm Registration
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm Pre-Conference Workshops (please see program for descriptions)
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm New Member Reception
6:00 pm – 9:30 pm Executive Committee Meeting
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 – Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel
7:30 am – 8:00 am Continental Breakfast
8:00 am – 10:00 am Welcome by Meeting Hosts; COMSEP Business Meeting; President’s Address
10:00 am – 10:15 am Break
10:15 am – 12:15 pm Workshops Choice of One (A1-A8)
12:15 pm – 1:15 pm Networking Lunch
1:30 pm – 3:00 pm Workshops Choice of One (B1-B8)
3:00 pm – 6:00 pm Research Grant Support Meeting
3:00 pm – 6:00 pm PUPDOC Meeting
3:30 pm – 5:30 pm 1st Annual Richard Sarkin 5K Fun Walk
7:00 pm – 9:00 pm COMSEP Dinner at hotel
Thursday, April 30, 2009 (COMBINED with APPD): ALL sessions will all be held at the Baltimore Convention Center
7:00 am – 8:00 am Continental Breakfast
8:00 am – 10:00 am Combined Session with APPD Miller/Sarkin Lectureship: Dr. Kenneth Roberts
10:00 am – 10:30 am Break
10:30 am – 12:00 pm Workshops (combined with APPD); Choice of one (C1-C14)
12:15 pm -2:00 pm Research Presentations with boxed lunch (combined with APPD)
2:15 pm – 4:15 pm Combined Task Forces
5:00 pm – 7:00 pm Combined Poster Session and Reception
Dinner on your own.
Friday, May 1, 2009 – Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel
7:00 am – 8:15 am Executive Committee Meeting #2
7:15 am – 8:15 am Continental Breakfast
7:15 am – 8:15 am New Clerkship Directors Wrap-up
8:30 am – 9:30 am COMSEP Wrap-up Session
9:30 am – 11:00 am Task Force Meetings
9:30 am – 11:00 am PUPDOCC Wrap-up Session

Program subject to change.

The COMSEP Annual Meeting provides a formidable menu of continuing education topics for pediatric educators. While learning activities are often relevant to all levels of medical education, including resident education and continuing medical education, the conference is focused on medical student education. Formal presentations by the organization’s leadership, plenary session speakers on state-of-the art topics, poster sessions, interactive workshops, task force meetings, scientific platform presentations, and informal networking comprise the annual program. Attendees participate fully in these sessions and attend relevant organizational committee meetings held in conjunction with the scientific program.

This meeting has been organized by COMSEP members from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the University of Maryland.

Members of the Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics and others interested in pediatric education, including pediatrics course/clerkship directors, Department Chairs or Vice-Chairs for Education, Residency Program Directors, and medical educators with an interest in pediatrics.

After successfully completing this program, participants should be able to: 1) support the personal and professional development of medical student and resident trainees who choose a career in pediatrics, 2) begin initiatives at their institutions and on a national level which enhance the collaboration between clerkship directors and residency program directors, 3) incorporate new technology into their existing pediatric clerkship curriculum, 4) advance their academic careers by capitalizing on the scholarship opportunities provided by the pediatric clerkship, 5) develop novel curricula and assessment techniques to enhance the pediatric clerkship at their institution, 6) create a more meaningful fourth year curriculum for students intending to match into a pediatrics residency, and 7) meet further educational goals based on workshop selection.

Includes course materials, two continental breakfasts, two lunches, poster reception, one dinner, and transportation to off-site events. Excludes guest fees and pre-conference options.

COMSEP member $450.00 prior to March 27, 2009; $475.00 after March 27, 2009 or on-site
NON-COMSEP member $500.00 prior to March 27, 2009; $525.00 after March 27, 2009 or on-site
GUEST for Wednesday dinner $75.00
Preconference Workshop $60.00
PUPDOCC $25.00

Please Note: Checks must be made in US Funds. We do not accept credit cards.

In the event of cancellation by a registrant, a refund will be given less a $100 administrative fee provided written notice is received by March 27, 2009. No refunds will be made thereafter. In the event of cancellation or rescheduling of this conference by the Planning Committee due to unforeseen circumstances, a full refund of tuition paid will be provided.

COMSEP only sessions of the annual meeting will be held at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel, 700 Aliceanna Street, Baltimore, MD – Telephone Number: 410-385-3000. COMSEP/APPD combined meeting day on April 30th will be held at the Baltimore Convention Center. Transportation will be provided or you may choose to walk. The pre-conference workshop “Practical Use of Simulation to Address the COMSEP Curriculum will be held off-site. Transportation will be provided to the lab at Johns Hopkins University.

The Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel is approximately 30 minutes from Baltimore-Washington Airport; you will be responsible for your own transportation to and from the airport. Taxis are readily available at the airport, or you may use Super Shuttle. The approximate taxi fare is $30.00.

This educational activity received no commercial support.

CME Credits
CME credits will not awarded for this meeting. For the combined day with APPD, you may apply for credits with the APPD for April 30, 2009.


Please Note: There are three pre-conference workshops this year.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009, Pre-Conference Workshop 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm
(Note: There is a $60 fee for pre-conference workshops)

Leading the Clerkship in Pediatrics: A Workshop for New Clerkship Directors
Presenters: Jennifer Koestler, MD; Anton Alerte, MD; Julie Byerley, MD; Glen Medellin, MD

This workshop is designed for new clerkship directors and other faculty with clerkship responsibilities who would benefit from a broad introduction to a variety of topics related to their position. If you have questions about getting started, clerkship organization and administration, curriculum development and implementation, problem solving strategies, and your own career development, then this is the workshop for you! These issues and those raised by participants will be explored; strategies that have worked for others will be highlighted. Workshop leaders will share challenges and solutions including “lessons I wish someone had taught me when I started this job,” “how do I keep my eye on the ball while managing the minutiae,” and “what should I be doing that I don’t even know about”? Please join us for an informative, real world, and FUN workshop designed to give you a jump-start and help you succeed in this new role. Workshop Learning Objectives: 1. Outline the responsibilities of the clerkship director; 2. Assemble a model for curriculum design to utilize for analysis or development in your clerkship; 3. Understand objectives and competencies; 4. Understand various teaching methodologies; 5. Compare and contrast different feedback and evaluation methods and determine the feasibility of implementation in your clerkship; 6. Understand LCME requirements; 7. Compile resources to further enhance your clerkship and your academic success as an educator.

Leading the Way; Developing Ideas and Using Tools for Successful Leadership (Limited to 25 participants)
Presenters: Robin Deterding, MD; Maryellen Gusic, MD

Successful clerkship directors provide leadership in education through developing a vision, managing change, motivating and enabling others to succeed, and communicating effectively with all stakeholders: students, faculty and administration. Yet, most clerkship directors have had little formal leadership instruction to help them develop these skills and to apply tools that can assist them in effectively accomplishing their work . The Americian Academy of Pediatric’s Pediatric Leadership Alliance (PLA) has successfully conducted leadership training for AAP member pediatricians across the US using evidence-based leadership concepts and tools. Key components of this training will be presented in this interactive workshop by PLA members. The participant will: 1. Discuss and apply the evidence – based leadership model proposed by Kouzes and Posner; 2. Reflect and analyze your preferred leadership and communication style; and 3. Develop an action plan to address a leadership challenge in your leadership position. The workshop will include a mix of brief didactics, individual and small group application exercises with tools, and small group discussion with large group debriefings around theses topics. Each participant completes the workshop ready to successfully address at least one leadership issue in their role as a leader.

Practical Use of Simulation to Address COMSEP Curriculum (Limited to 25 participants)
Presenters: Robert Dudas, MD; Carmen Coombs, MD; Michael McCrory, MD; Nicole Shilkofsky, MD: Barry Solomon, MD; Kristen Nelson, MD; Michael Barone, MD

We will meet off-site at the Johns Hopkins University campus. Transportation will pick the group up at the Marriott at 12:30 pm to arrive on the Johns Hopkins campus and be ready to begin the workshop at 1 pm. We will depart by 5:00 back for the Marriott. INTRODUCTION: The use of simulation modalities in medical education is expanding worldwide. Simulation exercises at our institution and others are playing an increasing role in medical education because they provide an environment for experiential learning and reflective practice. Simulation provides uniform exposure to clinical scenarios and allows for flexible learning in a dynamic environment. Pediatric educators now face the challenge of designing and integrating simulation exercises that complement existing curricula, particularly the core pediatric curriculum of COMSEP. This off-site workshop will take place in the recently opened Johns Hopkins Medicine Simulation Center. Participants will be transported to and from the campus. METHODS: The workshop begins with an introduction to simulation as an educational method. We will then discuss the essential components of effective simulation curriculum design. Participants will rotate through stations which demonstrate various simulation modalities. 1) Using standardized patients, we will address the complexities of creating pediatric scenarios and demonstrate novel ways to overcome case development barriers within our discipline. 2) Through the use of high-fidelity simulation mannequins we will demonstrate how to teach students a team management approach to a scenario involving a child in respiratory distress. 3) Using partial-task trainers and virtual reality trainers, we will demonstrate an interactive session on the workup of a neonate with a fever, including lumbar puncture, urinary catheterization and phlebotomy. Workshop leaders will also demonstrate the use of an audience response system as an interactive teaching tool to cognitively engage students in active learning processes. The workshop will conclude with a discussion on effective debriefing and its importance as a reflective teaching tool in simulation. Participants will be asked to share their prior experiences with simulation and are encouraged to bring their ideas.


WORKSHOP DESCRIPTIONS: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, Choice of Attending One Workshop, 10:15 pm – 12:15 pm

A1 (316)

Robin Deterding, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO; Angela Sharkey, MD, Dept. of Pediatrics, St. Louis, MO

Development of expertise in diagnostic reasoning, diagnostic test interpretation and procedure performance requires consistent deliberate practice over many years. In fact, some believe that the most critical element in clinical reasoning is deliberate practice with multiple examples. Without applying the principles of deliberate practice to medicine, exceptional expertise may never develop and gains in expertise can even be lost over time. These concepts have significant implications across the spectrum of medical education for the learner and the teacher. This workshop will include brief didactic periods to introduce the literature around key concepts. Didactics will be limited and intermixed with small group work around video cases and opportunities to experience the SNAPPS oral presentation. SNAPPS is a learner centered oral presentation tool that incorporates concepts of deliberate practice into clinical teaching. Rich small group and large group discussions with enhance the session. At the conclusion of the workshop participants will be asked to make a deliberate practice plan for their teaching.

A2 (130)

Michael S. Dell, MD, Case Western Reserve, Cleveland, OH; Norman B. Berman, MD, Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH; Sherilyn Smith, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Kimberly A. Gifford, MD, Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH; David A. Levine, MD, Morehouse, School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Lisa E. Leggio, MD, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA; Jerold C. Woodhead, MD, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; Leslie H. Fall, MD, Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH

This workshop is designed for both novice and experienced CLIPP users, as well as those who are interested in effectively integrating other computer-assisted learning (CAL)innovations into their clerkship. The workshop will begin with a short didactic and discussion session on published models for diffusion of innovation and known barriers to computer-assisted learning integration into the traditional curriculum. Using the Computer-assisted Learning in Pediatrics Program (CLIPP) cases as a model, workshop participants will then self-select into groups of novice and experienced CAL users. For novice users, members of the CLIPP Editorial Board will demonstrate resources available in the CLIPP Instructors’ Area (including case summaries, final exam questions and student use log data), discuss effective strategies for use of the cases within the clerkship, answer frequently asked questions and allow for discussion among participants. Experienced CLIPP and other CAL users will break out to identify common barriers and share novel and effective methods for adopting CAL in their clerkship. Clerkship directors who are experienced in using CLIPP and other CAL tools at a variety of institutions will lead the discussion, using published innovation dissemination models as a framework. A list of best practices will be developed and made available to all participants through the CLIPP Instructors’ Area. The workshop will conclude with experienced users joining novices to share their innovative approaches. All participants will be encouraged to share locally developed tools and strategies.

A3 (217)

Michael A. Pelzner, MD, Erin K. Balog, MD, Virginia Randall, MD, Kit Kieling, MD, Janice L. Hanson, PhD, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD

Literature on faculty development provides evidence that experiential learning, feedback, learning with peers and multiple instructional strategies are all important to effective learning. (Steinert et al. A Systematic Review of Faculty Development Initiatives Designed to Improve Teaching Effectiveness in Medical Education: BEME Guide no. 8). This workshop will implement these principles as well as equip participants to apply them when developing their own teaching sessions. This workshop is geared to increase attendees’ versatility as teachers, highlighting ways to move beyond PowerPoint slides and deliver content more effectively by incorporating activities that engage the learners. OBJECTIVES: Participants will choose a topic for a talk and then 1) use workshop tools to write goals and objectives, 2) identify an optimal teaching strategy for those goals and objectives and 3) devise an assessment tool to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching strategy. WORKSHOP OUTLINE: The workshop will open with introductions and a short didactic about goals, objectives, and assessment. Participants will then individually choose a topic for a talk and work in pairs to write a goal and 2-3 objectives for their topics. After an overview of assessment techniques appropriate for one-hour talks, they will work in small groups to devise assessments for their talks. After a short debrief, they will return to small groups to choose teaching strategies. By the end of the workshop, each attendee will have completed a worksheet with topic, goal, objectives, teaching strategy and assessment: an effective lesson plan for their topic. Wrap-up will include brief sharing of ideas in the large group.

A4 (188)

Miriam E. Bar-on, MD, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV; Maryellen E. Gusic, MD, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA; Lyuba Konopasek, MD, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY

Faculty participate in numerous activities in multiple mission areas. These activities of daily living (ADLs) must be pursued in a scholarly manner and if the work is disseminated and subjected to peer review, it can and should lead to promotion. This workshop will help faculty understand and apply Glassick’s criteria for scholarship by participating in a practical, hands-on exercise as well as applying the criteria to their own activities. Participants will develop a practical roadmap to integrate their ADLs into a plan for scholarly success. The recent AAMC consensus report emphasizing the importance of the scholarly approach to educational activities will be a focus for case based small group discussion. Participants will leave the session able to apply these principles to their own professional lives and with tools to operationalize the process.

A5 (200)

Gwen C. McIntosh, MD, MPH, Patricia K. Kokotailo, MD, MPH, John G. Frohna, MD, MPH, Daniel J. Schumacher, MD, MPH, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, WI

The learner in difficulty presents a unique set of challenges to clerkship and program directors. Without early recognition of the learner’s difficulties, the learner’s performance in the clinical setting can be significantly impaired. If the learner’s individual issues are not correctly identified, significant time and resources may be spent attempting to remediate the learner ineffectively. This interactive and fun workshop will help educators improve their early recognition of learners who are struggling to meet clinical performance expectations. Through dynamic discussion and brainstorming activities, participants will learn to correctly classify the types of learner difficulty and to identify remediation strategies appropriate to address the area of concern. Using real life scenarios, participants will work together to develop remediation plans suitable for different types of learner problems. Participants are encouraged to bring challenging cases to the session for discussion and remediation planning. We will also examine similarities and differences in addressing the needs of students and residents who are experiencing difficulty. The workshop will conclude with an interactive critique of resources available for working to assist the learner in difficulty. A resource list generated by workshop leaders and participants will be developed for distribution to the APPD and COMSEP members.

A6 (273)

Michael A. Barone, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Angela P. Mihalic, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX; Robert P. Drucker, MD, Duke University, Durham, NC; Lori A. Bowers, MD, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

Students often approach clerkship and residency directors seeking advice on matching in pediatrics. At most institutions, the Dean’s office of Student Affairs serves as the nerve center for residency application. Pediatric educators may feel limited in their capacity to give effective advising to students. Both students and faculty may feel overwhelmed by the alphabet soup of ERAS, NRMP, ROL and MSPE. This interactive workshop will be presented by a group of clerkship directors, residency program directors, and student affairs deans; some of whom are actually the same people. We plan to demystify the matching process, give insight into issues that worry your students, and convey the necessary information to make any educator an accomplished match advisor. Participants will gain skills to navigate the basics of complex matching situations such as the military and couples match. We will also discuss the components of the MSPE and ways to collaborate with the office of Student Affairs to improve student advising. Participants will achieve the objectives through various teaching modalities. Brief mini-lectures will introduce content. Participants will then go through group exercises including the following: 1) Card sorting exercise demonstrating key steps and important dates along the match process. 2) Advising case vignettes for the following students: i. Cameron and Carrie couples match; ii. Molly military match; iii. Louise low Step I score; iv. Michael mediocre clerkship performance. For the case scenarios, participants will be asked to consider the viewpoint of various stakeholders such as medical students, residency directors, clerkship directors, and student affairs deans. Finally we will deconstruct and decipher some of the sections of the MSPE and discuss good interviewing practices for your students. We may even use some references to the 1970’s hit game show, Match Game, and ask our participants to …”fill in the BLANKS.”

A7 (206)

Patricia M. Joyce, MD, Anton M. Alerte, MD, Christine M. Skurkis, MD, University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT

At many institutions, a small number of faculty are responsible for providing both medical students and residents with community-based service-learning experiences. This workshop will examine successful examples of how such experiences can and have been integrated across medical student and resident education. Participants will determine the similarities and differences in the educational goals of the undifferentiated medical student versus the pediatric resident, and will work in small groups to develop sample cross-educational experiences for their own institutions. The objectives are: 1)To identify similarities and differences in educational goals for service-learning experiences for medical students and residents; 2)To identify types of service-learning experiences that can be integrated across both medical student and resident education; 3) To identify methods of integration of such experiences. Workshop presenters will offer examples of successful integration of medical student and pediatric resident service-learning experiences. In small groups, workshop participants will identify reasonable objectives for medical students and residents, as well as practical methods of integration for both block and longitudinal experiences, didactics and community-based service-learning opportunities. Participants will gain practical suggestions on how to implement such experiences in their home institutions.

A8 (319)

Julie S. Byerley, MD, MPH, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Skyler Kalady, MD, Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio; Jenny G. Christner, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Even for talented faculty, there are many ongoing challenges to effectively teach small groups of residents, medical students, and other learners. These include managing learners who have differing levels of expertise, maintaining focus on topic, and assuring that participants who tend to be either dominant or more reticent are appropriately drawn into discussion. Despite obstacles, small group teaching is both appealing and already integrated into medical education with bedside rounds, pre-clinic conferences, interactive seminars, and countless other examples. The goal of this workshop is to enhance our participants’ skill set so that small group sessions will be more effective and enjoyable for learners and facilitators alike. To accomplish our objectives, we will review adult learning theory and its application to small group teaching. Next, we will highlight the relevant, diverse literature on the topic. We will emphasize thoughtful preparation for sessions in order to assure that curricular objectives are addressed in the small group setting. We will interactively illustrate many different instruction techniques useful to address common challenges. Throughout the session we will be modeling a wide variety of small group teaching techniques including video critique, buzz groups, role play, anonymous comment, and brainstorming. Participants will be actively involved throughout, and will be expected to identify several new techniques to apply in their own teaching setting.

Workshop Descriptions: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, Choice of Attending One Workshop, 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm

B1 (120)

Terry Kind,MD, MPH, Children’s National Medical Center; Katherine Chretien, MD, Washington VA Medical Center; Linda Raphael, PhD, Medical Humanities, The George Washington University, Washington, DC

Patients and families have stories that can enhance their care if told to an attentive member of the health care team anywhere along the continuum from medical student to attending. Including reflective methods in curricular efforts (through narrative medicine, for example) helps trainees learn to “read” patients and listen to their stories unfold. Both attention and reflection are important aspects of reading patients. In medical school, reflection through reading and writing exercises, if included, is usually a component of a preclinical or an elective course rather than as part of a core third year clinical clerkship. Yet, one objective in the pediatric training curriculum is for the learner to demonstrate the development of humanistic attitudes in dealing with well, acutely ill, and chronically ill children and their families. Reflection is a process that can be implemented in many different ways, each with challenges and strengths. Feedback strategies to enhance reflection can promote professional development. Workshop participants will discover the pros and cons of different narrative medicine exercises and other strategies for enhancing reflection among themselves and trainees. We will consider issues pertaining to “required” versus voluntary reflective exercises, the sharing of written reflections among student groups (i.e within a clerkship), the facilitation of such groups, evaluation challenges, and the involvement of residents, chief residents, and faculty in narrative medicine in education. Finally, we will highlight the use of technology for sharing reflective writing, including logistical and substantive issues pertaining to online tools such as web logs (“blogs”) and discussion groups. Workshop participants will have the opportunity to practice brief reflective writing, in order to enhance the use of this method as an educator. This workshop will position participants to lead and integrate reflective reading and writing exercises into the medical education curriculum.

B2 (161)

Karen J. Marcdante, MD, Sajani Tipnis, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Janice L. Hanson, PhD, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; Sherilyn Smith, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Miriam Bar-on, MD, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV; Linda R. Tewksbury, MD, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY; Nasreen Talib, MD, MPH, Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO; Benjamin Siegel, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Joseph Gigante, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN; Lynn M. Manfred, MD, EdD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; Mitch Harris, MD, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN

Clerkship directors often create new curriculum, evaluation tools or other educational products but may not develop them into scholarly products or paper. The lack of dissemination creates several problems: under-recognition of the productivity of these educators and slowing the dissemination of effective educational interventions. Thus, making these useful products public in formats beyond journal publication advances your academic record as well as advancing the field of medical education by allowing others to use and build on these works. Formal peer review adds value to the work by establishing recognition for promotion decisions. MedEdPortal, an educational product repository developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, now provides peer review and dissemination of products such as OSCEs and teaching cases that may be languishing in the files of clerkship directors. Objectives: Participants will 1) identify a product to prepare for submission to MedEdPortal, 2) draft an instructor guide, and 3) create a timeline to complete their submission. Workshop Methods: This hands-on workshop, led by faculty who have already prepared a submission for MedEdPortal, will briefly review key features of educational scholarship. Participants will then select a product that has already been developed and implemented at their own institution. Facilitators, working with 1-2 participants on participants laptops, will guide them through a step-by step approach to recrafting their products into valuable submissions for MedEdPortal or other peer reviewed repositories. By the end of the workshop participants will create the first draft of an Instructors Guide, including identification of the appropriate audience, objectives, a detailed plan of the session and evaluation options. In addition, the participants will create a timeline for completion of the submission upon their return home and commit to submitting a product within 4-6 months of the session.

B3 (187)

Harold E. Bland, MD, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida; Joan Y. Meek, MD, MS, RD, Arnold Palmer Medical Center, Orlando, Florida

This workshop is designed to address methods by which innovative teaching practices by clinical faculty members at distant sites from the home campus can be identified and incorporated into the overall clerkship curriculum. The session will consist of examples of teaching tools which are currently being utilized in the FSUCOM curriculum which have been “adopted” from practicing pediatric clinical faculty. The session will also include “break-out” focus groups in which ideas will be exchanged about ways to “uncover” the hidden teaching talents and successful teaching methods being utilized by the individual pediatric practitioner. The break-out sessions will then include discussion of how to incorporate these innovative teaching practices into the overall clerkship curriculum. Specific examples that will be presented/discussed by the facilitators include: role-playing of a breast-feeding mother; the incorporation of a breast-feeding module; sample slides from a Dermatology PowerPoint; specific evaluation forms developed by a faculty member that assess a student’s history and physical exam skills, and student PowerPoint presentations initiated by faculty. The introduction of the topic and presentations by the facilitators will take about 30 minutes, with the remainder of the time being utilized for the “break-out” sessions. The participants in each break-out focus group will choose a member to report the group’s ideas to the entire group at the end of the session. The group discussions will include incorporation of innovative faculty ideas into the curriculum in a way that will satisfy LCME requirements regarding comparability across sites. The workshop facilitators will include an established member of COMSEP, a Pediatric Program Residency Director,and a new member of COMSEP.

B4 (243)

Constance M. McAneney, MD, MS, Corinne Lehmann, MD, MEd, Leslie A. Deckter, BS, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio

In Pediatrics, as with all specialties, we wish to attract the best, brightest, and most enthusiastic medical students into our specialty. A medical student’s experience in medical school certainly influences that choice. It is important to allow highly-motivated students the option of exploring a Pediatric-related topic in-depth throughout their four years in medical school and to provide strong mentorship in Pediatrics. Many medical schools are faced with this challenge as the medical students’ first intense exposure to any specialty is in the clinical years. One method of meeting this need of early and in-depth experience is to provide a program (more indepth than the Pediatric Club) which engages the most interested and motivated medical students in the first year and continues that experience throughout the four years of their medical education. The goal of this workshop is to explore the basic design elements of a program that attracts highly motivated, enthusiastic medical students and exposes them to clinical and academic Pediatrics, as well as mentorship, for the four years of medical school. During this workshop the participants will: (1) Identify the needs of a medical student interested in an early immersion program including perceived deficiencies and needs, learning styles, preferred experiences, and barriers; (2) Define educational strategies including content and methods; (3) Identify resources and the support necessary for the success of the program; (4) Define anticipated barriers and possible strategies to overcome such barriers. After an initial introduction the workshop members will form small groups. Each group will work on one of the design elements. The group will reconvene and share ideas from the small groups with the end product being twofold: a sample program structure for an in-depth early emersion program and a curriculum development process methodology. The workshop leaders will include two medical students who are part of a Pediatric Medical Student Scholars Program at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

B5 (148)

Antoinette C. Spoto-Cannons, MD, Lori A. Bowers, MD, Sharon Dabrow, MD, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida; Patricia M. Joyce, MD, Anton M. Alerte, MD, University of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut; Maria L. Cannarozzi, MD, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, Florida, Kira K. Zwygart, MD, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida

Since faculty demands are increasing, it is important to perfect ways to incorporate teaching techniques into a busy clinical setting. When providing feedback you are expected to deal with specific performance, decisions, or actions rather than assumed intentions. The Brief Structured Observation allows the feedback to be well timed, limited in quantity, and based on first-hand subjective data. Direct observation provides the learner with constructive feedback, reinforcing appropriate clinical skills and correcting deficiencies. This technique gives you a better understanding of the learner’s skills and allows the preceptor to focus your teaching. Additionally, direct observation permits the preceptor to provide more formative evaluation of medical students and residents. Objectives: 1. Learn the steps of the Brief Structured Observation and be able to: a. Effectively and efficiently observe and record learners performing segments of the patient encounter including introduction, history of present illness, past medical history, past surgical history, social history, diet history, developmental milestones, HEADSS assessment, review of systems, physical examination, anticipatory guidance, and patient discharge diagnosis and instructions. b. Skillfully debrief the learner on the segment observed c. Proficiently review the observed segment/script with the learner d. Successfully conclude the encounter 2. Determine ways to make the Brief Structured Observation work at your institution. Methods: Participants will learn how to incorporate a modified Brief Structured Observation, originally developed by Kenneth Pituch, Mitch Harris, and Stephen Bogdewic in 1999, into busy inpatient and outpatient practices. This workshop will utilize an interactive format that includes small group discussions, audience participation and role playing. Participants will practice using the Brief Structured Observation in small groups, and will develop a framework with which to establish faculty, resident and/or medical student development workshops at their home institution.

B6 (256)

Melissa Held,MD, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Hartford, CT, Eve Colson, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, Rachel Chapman, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

After completing this workshop, participants will be familiar with the general concepts of curriculum development as outlined by Kern and colleagues including problem identification and general needs assessment, needs assessment of the targeted learner and developing goals and objectives. The participant can then apply concepts to developing curricula at their own institutions. The activities will be matched to the workshop objectives. 1. Program leaders will present an overview of Kern’s six-step approach to curriculum development. There will be emphasis on the first 3 steps covered in the workshop: Problem identification and general needs assessment, needs of the targeted learner and developing specific goals and objectives for a curriculum 2. As part of conducting a general needs assessment, leaders will present an overview of professionalism including information about various organizational initiatives to promote professionalism in medical education such as the ABIM physician charter and work by the ABP. Leaders will then facilitate small groups to define the problems and general needs to be addressed by the curriculum. 3. As an example of a way to conduct needs assessment of the targeted learner, leaders will present qualitative research data which they have systematically gathered from focus groups (consisting of medical students, residents and faculty) about defining, teaching and evaluating professionalism. This data was presented at last year’s COMSEP meeting. We will then break out into small groups where leaders will facilitate identification of needs of targeted learners as described by the focus group data. 4. Leaders will review Bloom’s taxonomy and as a final activity, participants will develop specific goals and measurable objectives for their curriculum using Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework. Leaders will emphasize the different levels of learner objectives as well as the domains of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning.

B7 (156)

Paola A. Palma Sisto, MD, Sajani Tipnis, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI; Miriam B. Schechter, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York

As educators, we often face the challenge of teaching “required” topics that are considered by some to be lessons in rote memorization or too complicated for a simple lecture format. One such example is teaching about developmental milestones in a way to facilitate retention. Through utilization of audience response system (ARS) technology, we have developed an interactive method of reviewing developmental milestones that has been well rated by our 3rd year medical students. The session will begin with a brief review of the current literature on the use of ARS systems in education with a focus on outcomes. Following a brief demonstration of how we use this teaching method (via digitalized video), session leaders will “teach” the participants using ARS technology on a topic of interest to the group. The participants will then create small groups charged with developing a teaching session. Each group will identify topics they find difficult to teach. One will be selected based on the perception that presentation of the topic may be enhanced by the use of an interactive ARS presentation. After creating 3-5 objectives, the group will develop the basic content and potential questions for application of the ARS. In order to validate the questions, the created drafts will be exchanged between groups. A validation tool will be applied and suggestions for revision and feedback on the overall plan will be provided. The original small group will finalize their questions and objectives, submitting the final product to the workshop leaders. Following return home, the drafts will be transcribed and a single file will be sent back to the workshop participants for use in their own institutions. The mailing will include a feedback postcard to be completed if a participant uses any of the sessions. Any results following use of the drafted questions/presentation will be shared with the participants.

B8 (250)

Kenya McNeal-Trice, MD, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Chapel Hill, NC; Suresh Nagappan, MD, Kenneth B. Roberts, MD, Moses Cone Pediatric Teaching Program, Greensboro, NC; Julie S. Byerley, MD, MPH, University of North Carolina School of Medicine Department of Pediatrics, Chapel Hill, NC; Jennifer Koestler, MD, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York; Lisa Leggio, MD, Medical College of Georgia Department of Pediatrics, Augusta, GA

Fourth year students contemplating a career in pediatrics often ask their advisors how they can ensure that they are fully prepared before the start of internship. Clerkship directors can address this by recommending specific electives (e.g., pediatric heme/onc), discussing skills that should be mastered during existing rotations, or by creating a specific rotation to prepare future pediatric residents. This workshop will help participants develop objectives for a transition rotation for fourth year medical students matching in Pediatrics. Workshop leaders will briefly present their transition electives and then break into small groups to help participants design their own curriculum. Program Directors will list the knowledge and skills they want incoming interns to have before entering residency Student educators will list the knowledge and skills, beyond the scope of the core pediatrics clerkship, they want their graduating students to take to residency programs. Once small groups generate lists of essential skills for beginning pediatric interns, we will discuss teaching strategies as well as evaluation methods. Though our transition electives were developed as curricula separate from the AI (Acting Internship) experience, we recognize other institutions may implement this during the AI or as a longitudinal experience during the fourth year. We especially encourage all those who have already created a transitional curriculum to attend and share their ideas.

Back to Schedule

Workshop Descriptions: Thursday, April 30, 2009, COMSEP/APDD Combined Workshops Choice of Attending One Workshop, 10:30 am – 12:00 pm


Robin English,MD, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA; Su-Ting T. Li, MD, MPH, Lavjay Butani, MD, UC Davis, Sacramento, CA; Jocelyn H. Schiller, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Sherilyn Smith, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Carrie A. Phillipi, MD, PhD, OHSU, Portland, OR; Joseph Gigante, MD, Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Nashville, TN; April O. Buchanan, MD, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, SC; Linda Tewksbury, MD, NYU School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, New York, NY; Susan Guralnick, MD, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY; Ben Siegel, MD, Boston University, Boston, MA; Lynn M. Manfred, MD, EdD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; Robert S. McGregor, MD, St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children, Philadelphia, PA; Heather McPhillips, MD, MPH, Richard P. Shugerman, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

From Ideas to Scholarship Academic faculty are increasingly faced with the challenges of balancing their time between patient care, teaching, administration, and research. Unfortunately, for many educators, this means traditional research becomes a low priority because of the time demands involved in teaching future health care providers. Lack of this type of scholarly activity is a major obstacle to academic promotion. In 1990, Ernest Boyer addressed the changing climate in higher education institutions and outlined definitions of scholarship that expand beyond traditional research. With an understanding of the criteria for effective scholarship, academic faculty members can approach their educational ideas and responsibilities with the components of scholarship in mind. The resultant innovations, products, and projects can then be recognized as scholarly activities. Objectives: By participating in this workshop, attendees from COMSEP and APPD will: 1) Learn the basic types of scholarship as they apply to medical education 2) Understand the criteria for developing and disseminating quality scholarship 3) Apply these criteria to their own educational activities Methods: Workshop facilitators will begin by reviewing the types of scholarship, the attributes of quality scholarship, and potential venues for dissemination of scholarly work. Numerous examples will be reviewed to enhance attendees’ understanding of the possibilities for scholarship. Workshop attendees will then work with small group facilitators to consider their own educational activities and ideas with respect to the attributes of scholarship. Participants are encouraged to bring examples of their questions or ideas. Participants are also encouraged to attend this workshop with another faculty member from their institution (e.g., the clerkship director and the residency program director) with the intent to develop ideas for collaborative projects within their institutions.


Hans B. Kersten, MD, Nancy D. Spector, MD, E. Douglas Thompson, MD, St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children, Philadelphia, PA; John G. Frohna, MD, MPH, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Erin Giudice, MD, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; Susan Guralnick, MD, MPH, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY; Rani S. Gereige, MD, MPH, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

Educators are faced with the challenge of developing a comprehensive curriculum and evaluation system for Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) for learners across the continuum of medical education. Currently, most medical schools, residency and fellowship programs have EBM curricula. However, a more coordinated approach is needed to teach and evaluate EBM knowledge, skills, and behaviors. The facilitators have created a library of portable case-based EBM scenarios built on their collective experiences teaching medical students, residents, fellows and faculty. Each case-based scenario has an accompanying evaluation tool, which can be used to teach and assess EBM proficiency at each educational level, and is linked to the EBM goals and objectives from the APA Educational Guidelines. The companion evaluation tools assess searching skills, EBM knowledge, oral EBM presentations, and Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) and can be used in a variety of venues. A framework to evaluate EBM skills along the continuum of medical education will be provided: from medical school through residency and fellowship to faculty level. The workshop will emphasize interactive, small-group sessions where participants will discuss how to successfully teach and evaluate an EBM curriculum for different levels of learners. Participants will have the opportunity to work through and evaluate several cases in order to illustrate how they can be incorporated into different teaching programs. Finally, participants will have the opportunity to develop their own cases and will also be provided with a CD-ROM containing EBM cases, curricular material, and evaluation tools.


Tara S. Williams, MD, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Lorain, OH; Phyllis Nsiah-Kumi, MD, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska; Larrie Greenberg, MD, George Washington University School of Medicine, Potomac, MD; William V. Raszka, MD, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT

Pediatric providers often care for children whose caregivers have limited English proficiency (LEP). Providing culturally and linguistically effective care for children with LEP caregivers requires that trainees successfully utilize professional medical interpreters. Measuring effective interpersonal and communication skills in encounters with pediatric LEP caregivers provides unique challenges. Designing an effective curriculum to address these challenges will benefit both trainees and patients. This interactive workshop will expose participants to a variety of tools designed to improve trainee competence in managing linguistic and cultural barriers. Participants will review a successful multi-modal curriculum that incorporates professionalism, patient care, interpersonal and communication skills and systems-based practice and discuss means by which this curriculum or portions of it can be implemented in their own institution. We will discuss methods to assess trainee competence and the effectiveness of the curriculum. OBJECTIVES: At the end of this workshop participants will be able to: 1.Recognize barriers to providing culturally and linguistically effective care. 2.Describe curricular tools and programs that enhance the ability of learners at all stages of training to provide appropriate care to LEP patients. 3.Implement a variety of methods to assess trainee competence and curriculum effectiveness. METHODS: 1.In large group format, we will briefly review the current literature addressing trainee competence in providing culturally and linguistically appropriate care and barriers to improving care for LEP patients. We will demonstrate several tools that have been developed to improve skills in this area. 2.In small groups, participants will discuss mechanisms to implement tools and assess trainee competence and curriculum effectiveness. 3.In an interactive large group session participants will practice using assessment tools.


Jennifer G. Christner, MD, Hilary M. Haftel, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Faculty development is an important function of medical education leadership. Ideally, we want our faculty to understand our curricula, participate in the teaching process and contribute new ideas to their own teaching environment as well as to the program at large. However, leading faculty along this path has numerous pitfalls and frustrations. This workshop is intended to both guide and equip medical educators with the ability to implement a vigorous faculty development program. Through a mixture of audience participation and small group breakout sessions, we plan to accomplish the following objectives: 1) Discuss process details of how to implement a faculty development program, 2) Identify appropriate topics for both a core and advanced faculty development curriculum and 3) Formulate unique and innovative strategies to maintain faculty enthusiasm for teaching. At the end of our workshop, each participant will leave with a hard copy of faculty development resources (sample needs assessments, curricula and newsletters, listings of articles etc) in addition to those they develop during the workshop itself. We encourage participants to email us ahead of time at jchristn@med.umich.edu with specific faculty development challenges they have had in the past. We will incorporate these into our workshop to make it as relevant as possible for the participants.


Linda O. Lewin, MD, Carol L. Carraccio, MD, MA, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland

We will introduce participants to the concept of developmental acquisition of clinical competence by comparing it to the predictable developmental milestones of children. We will present three developmental assessment models that can be used to document professional development: the R.I.M.E. evaluation method, the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, and the Kegan model of identity development. We will also introduce the work of the National Portfolio Collaborative which, based on these models, created competencies for medical education, with benchmarks that describe the stages of development starting with medical school and continuing through residency and practice. Participants will work in small groups and practice applying the developmental models to specific competencies that are critical to medical learners and physicians across the entire medical education continuum from UME through CME. The large group will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each model and how each might be best used in creating useful teaching and assessment tools. Clerkship and program directors will work together in small groups to review two to four competencies developed by the Collaborative and define the point along the educational continuum (i.e., first two years of medical school, before graduation, during internship) that learners should be expected to meet each benchmark. The large group will discuss the challenges to defining the timing of benchmark acquisition and any discrepancies between the expectations of clerkship directors and those of program directors. Take home materials will include the models and benchmarks created by the Collaborative. The latter represent an integration of the ACGME and Medical School Objectives Project competencies to better address the educational continuum.


Robert P. Drucker, MD, Duke University, Durham, NC; Glen A. Medellin, MD, Univ. of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, San Antonio, TX; Pradip D. Patel, MD, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY

Audience Response Systems (ARS) are frequently utilized in undergraduate education, but use in medical education has been far more limited. This workshop will demonstrate and allow active exploration of ARS technology for pediatric education. Much of the use of ARS has been to promote interaction between a speaker and students in large, lecture-based classes. However, these systems can be just as, or more, effective in smaller group settings, such as the size of a clerkship or residency program. The first part of the workshop will introduce participants to the ARS technology available and allow hands-on use. Examples of how the ARS are already being used at several medical centers will be shared. These include: 1) team based learning; 2) distance learning; 3) pre- and post-clerkship testing; and 4) facilitating discussion of sensitive topics such as mistreatment or barriers to compliance with duty hour requirements. Participants will work in teams to discuss and develop their own ideas for uses of ARS and will have an opportunity to use the equipment in the workshop to try some of their ideas. Sponsored by the COMSEP Learning Technologies Task Force.


John Kunzer, MD, Jerry L. Rushton, MD, MPH, Mary R. Ciccarelli, MD, Indiana University Pediatrics, Indianapolis, IN

Medical students and residents routinely begin their training with aspirations to practice humanistic medicine. Burnout, decreased empathy, and cynicism often occur as learners progress through their medical training. Clerkships and residency programs must create a learning environment that recognizes these emotional changes in learners and then promotes personal growth. Goal: Provide participants a “tool kit” to nurture a medical trainee’s commitment to practice humanistic medicine. Objectives: 1. Describe standardized tools to measure burnout, empathy, mindfulness, and personal growth. 2. Discuss and practice strategies to promote humanism. 3. Identify opportunities within clerkships and residency programs to implement curricula to “rekindle” humanism in trainees. Methods The workshop is designed to promote interaction and the exchange of information amongst participants. Workshop leaders, who cover all aspects of the educational continuum (students-residents-faculty), will present specific tools that can be used to help measure the more abstract concepts of humanism, professional empathy, and burnout. Participants will complete one of these instruments the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Individual reflection and group discussion will focus on how these tools can be used in retreats, lectures, and other educational sessions to identify needs and begin to address individual and systems issues to intervene. Participants will then be divided into small groups to do a “fly-on-the-wall” professionalism exercise. Participants will view a vignette and discuss how subtle displays of cynicism can impact daily work activities, interactions with others, and teamwork. Additional exercises and workshop ideas to promote humanism will then be presented. The workshop will conclude with a review of some of the multiple methods to approach interventions at a program/institutional level. Large group discussion will focus on identifying key times to institute these curricular changes in clerkships and residency programs.


Dawn S. Tuell, MD, East Tennessee State University; Martin P. Eason, MD, JD, Center for Experiential Learning, Quillen College of Medicine; Kristen T. Farr, MD, East Tennessee State, Johnson City, TN

Pediatric simulation has been demonstrated to be a valid tool to improve training. Nevertheless, many institutions do not use simulation in their pediatric curriculum. Our institution has used simulation in pediatric training for residents and third year clerks for three years using a substantial library of cases. The training sessions are run on a regular basis and are considered to be a positive aspect of training. To aid those interested in incorporating simulation into their curriculum, we propose an interactive workshop designed for novices that demonstrates the basics of creating a simulation scenario for pediatrics. The goal is to help the participants gain both competence and confidence in creating and implementing pediatric simulation in their program by taking the participants through the steps for developing a simulation. The participants will then run a trial of some of the designed scenarios. Workshop Format: 1. First 30 minutes: a discussion with the moderators and participants as to the steps necessary for successful scenario creation; including: choosing the right cases, developing learning objectives, deciding on participants, determining needed assets, scenario design and implementation, and debriefing. The discussion may also include the choice of simulation platforms. 2. Second 30 minutes: Using our simulation template, the participants will break into groups and each group will create a simulation scenario. The goal of this section is to have the participants use the knowledge learned in the first section to create their own scenarios and improve confidence in scenario development. The facilitators will work with the groups to assist and resolve any difficulties. 3. We will choose one or two of the simulations created by the groups and run the scenario. The entire group will then debrief the components of the scenario itself. This will provide the participants with feedback to improve their scenario design skills. At the end of the workshop the participants will be able understand the process of scenario design for pediatric simulation and be able to design and implement their own scenarios.


Stacey E. Bernstein, MD FRCPC, Paediatrics, Toronto, Ontario; Diane M. Moddemann, MD FRCPC, Pediatrics, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Anne E. Drover, MD, FRCPC, Memorial University of NL, St. John’s, NL

Self-assessment involves the ability to reflect on strengths and weaknesses in one’s performance in order to identify learning needs and reinforce skills and behavior to improve performance. “Nowhere is self-directed learning and therefore self-assessment more essential than in the professions whose self-regulating autonomy is based on the competent exercise of self-assessment” (Gordon, 1991). However the literature shows that trainees often have difficulty in self-assessing. Methods exist for faculty to teach and evaluate this critical skill in trainees. Participants will have the opportunity to review the use of self-assessment as a method as providing effective feedback. This dialogue will highlight “the double you” of self-assessment- How do You think that You did. The importance and the challenges of fostering and incorporating self-assessment into feedback will be discussed with reflection on the relevant medical education literature. Finally the relative ranking model will be presented. This very innovative model provides a framework for providing feedback that includes self-assessment. Participants will have an opportunity to apply and practice the model in an engaging, creative activity using mangoes! Evidence of the application of the relative ranking model will be discussed. Methods employed in this highly interactive workshop will include small group discussion, audience participation and role play. There will be a focus on practical, relevant material that participants will be able to try out in their home institutions. This workshop will be of interest to all who provide feedback to undergraduate and postgraduate trainees.


Miriam E. Bar-on, MD, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, Maryellen E. Gusic, MD, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA

Mentoring and being mentored are critical in the academic environment. The literature demonstrates very clearly that successful faculty at all levels have or have had mentors. This workshop will focus on the key components of the mentoring relationship: identifying and selecting the right mentor, defining the tasks involved in the relationship, strategies of negotiating a successful relationship, and problem solving potential issues that may occur. This workshop has been designed using a train the trainer methodology so that participants will be able to reproduce some or all of the workshop at their home institutions if desired. Participants will leave with a framework for planning and implementing an instructional session at their institutions as well as with tools for use in their own session. The workshop will start with facilitated brainstorming during which the whole group will establish a definition of what a mentor is and what mentoring encompasses. The audience will be challenged to differentiate mentoring from teaching, and from role modeling and advising. Once the definition has been established, the larger group will divide into four small groups: two representing mentors and two representing mentees. The small groups will describe the tasks and expectations involved in the mentoring relationship. Next the small groups will address selecting and inviting an individual to be one’s mentor, and establishing boundaries, and reviewing expectations. The final part of this workshop will focus on solving potential problems in a mentoring relationship. Small groups will have the opportunity to select one of several potential problems and describe for the group strategies to address the selected issue.


Jon A. Courand, MD, FAAP, Glen A. Medellin, MD, FAAP, Michelle M. Arandes, MD, Noemi E. Adame, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas

The institution of new program requirements and duty hour regulations has made it challenging for Clerkship and Program Directors to incorporate important didactic elements of their curriculum in typical conference format. In addition, students and residents are increasingly drawn to self-directed education programs that allow them to learn on their own schedules. Web-based curriculum managers provide educators with a powerful platform for asynchronous teaching and learning while providing them with opportunities to interact with learners and evaluate their acquisition of key concepts. Advanced features can address many educational needs from routine competency-based assignments and quality improvement exercises to podcasts and video review. Objectives Workshop participants will be able to: 1) Demonstrate the basic and advanced features of online curriculum management software in providing self directed learning opportunities. 2) Design and develop modules applicable to a wide spectrum of learners, with an emphasis on interactivity and assessment. 3) Reflect on how a web-based curriculum may help enhance their own educational offerings, and share ideas on how to assess learners competencies, provide quality improvement exercises and prepare learners for future examinations. The 2 hour workshop will include: 15 minutes Introduction and needs assessment. 15 minutes Overview of BlackboardTM. 30 minutes Small groups, Components of an effective module and “Interactivity and assessment”. 15 minutes Demonstration of an active module with interactive components for medical students and residents. 25 minutes Small groups, BlackboardTM in your curriculum, advanced applications. 10 minutes Our experience and some preliminary data. 10 minutes Questions and answer period.


Mark Vining,MD, Angela Beeler, MD, Susan Starr, MEd, David Keller, MD, UMassMemorial Children’s Medical Center, Webster MA

Difficult learners are a challenge to teach in the clinical setting. Most medical students and residents have succeeded in their prior educational efforts, and have trouble accepting the need for help. It can be quite challenging to sort through the affective issues, inadequate preparation, learning disorders, dyslexia and/or preceptor mismatch that can affect learner performance. Preceptors need tools to assess the nature of the problem, and strategies to allow them to help learners overcome these obstacles to clinical training. In this workshop, we will share the approach to the difficult learner developed by the UMass Community Faculty Development Center over the last 15 years. This practical approach can be used by generalist and sub-specialty faculty to improve medical student and resident performance in a variety of settings. 1) Interactive lecture: Using a case-based approach, we will outline an approach to the assessment of problem learner in a clinical setting, introducing a variety of assessment tools. 2) Small group role-play: Participants will use case-vignettes to practice using the tools 3) Large group discussion: Participants will debrief the small group discussions and discuss barriers and solutions to the use of these methods in their own programs. 4) Interactive lecture: Using a “train-the-trainers model, participants will develop a plan for introducing similar faculty development program to their home institution. Participants will receive handouts on disc that can be adapted to their home institutions for faculty development.


Tracy N. Bumsted, MD, MPH, Jennifer A. Gilhooly, RN, MS, CPNP, Joseph Gilhooly, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR

A typical academic medical center has great generational diversity in its workforce and learners. This diversity can lead to significant conflict when the values shared by each generation are incongruent. Understanding generational attributes, behaviors and values is only the first step toward a more successful work and educational environment. Far more difficult is the task of translating this into practice by offering effective solutions to generational challenges that arise in everyday situations. By viewing conflicts that arise through a generational lens, pediatric medical educators at all levels will be better equipped to actively design productive and satisfying educational and work experiences for every member of the multigenerational team. Goal: To understand and respect the values of the four generations present in a typical academic medical center in order to improve the educational and work environment for multigenerational learners at every level. Methods: This interactive workshop will begin with an overview of the common characteristics and values of the four generations, followed by small group breakouts where participants will engage in a discussion of generational conflicts that have arisen in their educational or work environment. Trigger tapes will also be used to facilitate small group discussion. Participants will practice developing solutions to these challenges, designing generationally-friendly curriculum, and identifying effective ways to improve collaboration amongst faculty. Large group discussion will highlight successful solutions as well as common pitfalls and ensure participants will leave with practical tools to improve the academic environment.


Laura Smals,MD, Nancy D. Spector, MD, Paul S. Matz, MD, Robert S. McGregor, MD, Michael Blair, MD, Raj Munshi, MD, St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children, Philadelphia, PA

The advances in technology in recent years have revolutionized medical education and changed the methods of communication in the medical community. While these advances have increased access to the newest data, they also have created new challenges in professional behavior for medical students, residents and faculty. The use of e-mail, text messaging, blogs, smart phones, and social networking sites have changed the speed and ease of communication between members of the medical community but have the potential to create conflicts not previously encountered. The questions of how to monitor, instruct and remediate behavior with these electronic interfaces is a new challenge to the medical educator. In this workshop, the presenters will review some of the current technology and its potential pitfalls. They will discuss the unique aspects of these methods of communication including topics such as: content, language, tone, timing, distribution, rate of response and appropriate mode utilized. Real-life examples will be used for discussion and a curriculum developed by the presenters will be shared with the group. The participants will have the opportunity to discuss issues in “electronic professionalism” and to create guidelines and develop possible solutions. The participants will leave with an understanding of the current issues in electronic professionalism and have resources to address these issues and anticipate conflicts in the future.