1. Seminars in step with the curriculum: Walking the curriculum talk

Participants gained a conceptual understanding of the unique New Zealand (NZ) delivery of seminars for vocational training in general practice; experience a seminar based on NZ curricular domains; learned how to construct vignettes and MATCH questions to grow professional judgment; explored linkages of seminar learning with in-practice learning, and developed role-play for acquisition of consulting skills.

Participants experienced a typical NZ seminar facilitated by the three presenters. Participants were prepared to share in small groups in three short sentences their life history, or a case where the outcome was poor, or a challenging ethical case. Participants were emailed a paper for discussion in small groups one month prior to the workshop. Video review, role-play and discussion took place in small groups.

Participants had enhanced appreciation of matching learning needs with curriculum. Access was provided to NZ resources, curriculum and seminar outlines on CD including vignettes, MATCH questions, and registrar audits. Participants contributed to further development of seminar delivery in New Zealand.

Facilitators: Jane Dancer, Jacqui Virtue & John Pearson, The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners.

2. Getting Published

Survival in academia and advancement in training depend, at least in part, on publication, publish or perish providing a mantra that is possibly more accurate now than ever before. The last few years have seen a significant increase in submissions to health professional education journals, making publishing ever more competitive. Adding further to the challenge is that such journals are slowly raising the bar in terms of standards for publication.

With this in mind the goals of this workshop were to:

Provide potential authors with a better understanding of what makes a good paper; develop strategies for planning and writing a paper for a medical education journal and selecting the right journal for the paper; give authors a better understanding of where the common pitfalls lie with respect to writing and submitting papers and maximizing chances of acceptance; improve understanding of what goes on behind the scenes of the publication process; responding to peer-review and editorial comments.

Although not designed to be primarily a conventional ’writers’ workshop’, participants discussed matters of style as well as content.

Workshop participants considered the following questions and issues through a series of short presentations, and group/individual exercises:

• What problems have you experienced/do you anticipate related to getting published?
• What makes a good paper? Why do papers get accepted or rejected?
• The review process — what happens to a paper? How to deal with advice received from editors
• Style matters
• Peer review — is it all it s cracked up to be?
• Some big issues including: authorship; ethical aspects of publication; salami slicing
• Discuss author guidelines, concepts of journal readership, impact and citation.

Specific attention was paid to ideas raised by the participants with respect to publication strategy. Participants were provided with copies of all Powerpoint slides used, sample articles from Medical Education and The Clinical Teacher, a bibliography listing relevant books and journal articles, and guidance/insights of four individuals who are actively engaged in the UK-based publication outlets relevant to health professional education research. The potential benefits include an increased understanding on the part of participants (and, in turn, others in their home institutions) regarding what it takes to publish in these journals specifically and the scientific literature more broadly. This has the potential to raise the stature of ASME by ensuring that its members become increasingly successful in publishing their research efforts. As editors, the primary value is increased awareness of issues of concern to authors, raising awareness of the journal, and receipt of feedback from the writing community.

Facilitators: Ed Peile, University of Warwick, UK, Kevin Eva, McMaster University, Canada, Sue Symons, Plymouth, UK, Steve Trumble, University of Melbourne, Australia

3. Making workplace based assessments work

This workshop explored the educational thinking behind the development and use of workplace based assessment (WBA) tools in medical and dental training and develop best practice in the summative use of WBA tools. It considered the ways in which the formative aspects of WBA can be enhanced and rehearse and develop skills in learning needs analysis, case based discussion and feedback.

The workshop had a practical emphasis and will therefore used a range of interactive strategies, with a focus on skill rehearsal (linked to best practice in the use of WBA tools). These included: rehearsal of questioning techniques; demonstrations of case based discussion techniques; purposeful observation and critique of WBA in practice (on DVD) and reverse role play linked to feedback tasks.

The use of WBA tools is widespread in medical and dental education and training.

The amount of support given to clinical teachers to ensure effective use of these tools has been variable and as a result the formative element of the tools is often overlooked and underplayed. Our experience of working with clinical teachers leads us to believe that Case Based Discussion in particular, has been widely misunderstood and is used instrumentally rather than developmentally. The workshop provides opportunities to revisit the value of WBA and to develop skills for their more effective use in practice. The workshop aims therefore to have immediate practical benefit to clinical teachers who use these tools but also to provide a space where the educational principles underpinning them can be critically examined. The workshop potentially appealed to other Faculty Developers who wished to explore new ways of working with clinical teachers to develop skills in this area.

Facilitators: Clare Morris & Mandy Platts, University of Bedfordshire, UK

4. Marginal yet core - enabling clinical tutors to integrate Ethics, Health Promotion and Public Health Education into  case-based learning

By the end of the session participants had:

• discussed approaches to students integrated learning about marginal but core subjects such as ethics, public health, and health promotion
• considered the challenges e.g. quality of materials, tutoring and assessment associated with these topics for specialist and non specialist/facilitator
• reviewed the feasibility of peer education
• identified barriers and opportunities

A presentation providing a brief outline of the concerns - from our experiences and the literature - about these marginal yet core subjects was followed by a description of how we have tackled these issues. Group work: We invited participants to address the four issues above from either their institutional perspectives/context or subject specialty. The feedback discussion focused on what could be valuable to other establishments, do we have recommendations, is there a research question and if so what is it?

Participants did have shared experiences and sought ways of improving their local arrangements, and disseminate our outcomes to a wider group. There may be a multi site research question to further develop. The facilitators will write up a workshop summary to share with participants.

Facilitators: Ann Wylie, King s College School of Medicine, London, Carolyn Johnson, London, UK

5. Mental health problems among medical students

This workshop aimed to raise awareness of the difficulties experienced by medical students with mental health problems and examined the literature relating to medical students with mental health problems. It looked at current practices for supporting medical students with mental health problems and also at fitness to practice procedures. It aimed to develop an action plan for medical schools to ensure that medical students with problems with their mental health receive appropriate advice as early as possible.

There was a 20-minute introductory presentation after which participants examined research papers on this subject in themed groups. Each group then presented a summary of their findings. By bringing these summaries together a consensus of findings from the current literature will be developed.  After a short break there was a discussion of the challenges in meeting the needs of students with mental health problems. Finally, using the nominal Group technique, a set of guidelines will be developed.

Outcomes may include guidelines for medical schools in supporting students with mental health problems; opportunity for participants to identify colleagues in other institutions involved in supporting students with mental health problems.

An on-line discussion group will be set up for participants to communicate after the workshop.

Facilitator: Andy Grant, Cardiff University, Wales, UK

6. Peer Tutor Programmes: Potential pitfalls and how to avoid them

Participants generated a prioritised list of key challenges faced in using students as faculty ( Peer Tutors ), transferrable to a wide range of approaches to Peer Assisted Learning (PAL). Strategies were designed for overcoming these challenges, both in terms of generic approaches and specific examples appropriate for a range of contexts.

This workshop was useful to those interested in building new, or expanding existing, Peer Tutoring Programmes. Although the workshop facilitators expertise relates to building, developing and maintaining a large peer tutoring programme relating to clinical skills, the workshop was of relevance to those interested in wider applications of peer assisted learning.

Peer tutor programmes and peer assisted learning are popular innovations in Medical Education and cover a wide range of initiatives and approaches. This workshop helped participants explore the common problems and pitfalls that arise in peer tutoring and PAL programmes and facilitate the development of strategies to overcome them.

The workshop was heavily interactive and exploratory. It involved a brief introductory plenary followed by large group task (modified NGT) to identify the key issues in introducing and developing a peer assisted learning or peer tutoring programme. This generated a prioritised list of challenges, which was worked on by small groups, followed by a period of feeding back and final summary. Purposive sampling will ensure that each group has as broad a representation as possible, and the groups were encouraged to report back generic advice with examples of specific application to their local contexts. This list of problems and potential solutions with examples will be disseminated to all workshop participants.

In this workshop, participants and facilitators explored the issues listed above and other core issues, to generate a list of generic issues and potential solutions for addressing them. This will be disseminated to the participants and may provide a basis for wider publication of benefit to the wider healthcare education community. We hope that this workshop generated the start of a network of academics involved in and interested in Peer assisted learning and peer tutoring.

Facilitators: Dason Evans, Robert Nagaj, Scarpa Schoeman, Kerry Boardman, Deborah Horton, Janet Porter, St George's, University of London, UK

7. Simulation & Team Training: Team Performance Assessment

The aim of this workshop was to explore the potential for simulation to enhance an individuals performance within a team. Participants were able:

• To identify a set of portable team skills applicable in the healthcare setting
• To apply a validated framework to enhance feedback on team performance

Participants were introduced to the concept of non-technical skills. Non-technical skills are the behavioural aspects of performance which underpin medical expertise, use of equipment and drugs. They are cognitive and social skills which support clinical and technical skills. Participants were shown dvd material depicting in theatre performance and asked to make comment on behaviour that could be changed to enhance individual or team performances. Participants were then introduced to a nontechnical skills feedback matrix, asked to review a second dvd of team performance and formulate a plan for feedback to individuals within the team. This second experience generated more focussed, appropriate and useful feedback.

Participants received an on-line link to the Non-technical skills documents for prereading. They also received a handout on the day with Powerpoint slides reproduced from the presentation. Team performance and team training is high on all medical specialties/colleges agendas at present - especially when those institutions are aligned to simulation or technology enhanced learning. This workshop highlighted how challenging this activity can be and illustrated the practical application of techniques and tools to enhance team performance in multi-disciplinary working.

Facilitators: Simon Edgar & Nikki Maran, Scottish Clinical Simulation Centre, Stirling, Scotland, UK

8 Leadership and Governance of Medical Curriculum Change

Objectives of this workshop included:

• Developing a shared understanding of leadership, management and governance
• Exploration of models of leadership and governance of curriculum change in medical programmes
• Developing a set of strategies with which to implement curriculum change, including overcoming barriers

Participants were required to pre-read selected articles and texts (including Fullan M, Leadership in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Boss 2001).  A short presentation of case studies was followed by small group work on pre-reading plus readings related to achieving objectives.

A short summary document will be generated for participants. Depending on the outputs of the group, the facilitators will prepare a discussion paper for an educational journal on behalf of the group. Benefits relate mainly to professional development of the participants (and presenters), with flow-on effects to their own institutions and the wider community through more effective leadership and governance.

Facilitators: Barbara O'Connor & Phillippa Poole, The University of Auckland, New Zealand