General Info
Excellent Medical Education Joint ASME/GMC Awards 2019
#excellentmeded2019
The “Excellent Medical Education” Programme is a set of national prizes established jointly by ASME and the GMC for the first time in 2015 and they are intended to fund high-quality medical education research, development and innovation.
This is in response to recognition of the need for further research-based evidence related to medical education and training, through supporting capacity building and increasing the volume of high-quality medical education research. Applications using quantitative or qualitative, established or innovative methods will be welcome.
All ASME members who are based in the UK will be eligible to apply, provided their organisation is capable of fulfilling the role of a research sponsor (e.g. an NHS organisation, academic institution). The deadline for 2019 applications will be noon, 18th June 2019
ASME and the GMC do not intend to name specific topic areas and welcome applications on a wide range of issues, across the continuum of medical education:
- Undergraduate
- Postgraduate
- Continuing Professional Development.
Applications up to the value of £5,000 and up to 12 months in duration will be considered. FEC, HEI and NHS Indirect Costs, and NHS Treatment costs will not be supported.
Three prizes will be available, one linked to each of these stages of medical education outlined above. The programme is intended to support research which is related to the innovation, development, implementation and sustainability of excellent medical education which has an impact at either the individual (medical students, doctors in training, SAS doctors and consultants, and/or patients) or systems level (e.g. informing or leading to organisational change).
Applications will be assessed against the following criteria:
· Evidence that the project links directly with GMC education priorities
· Clarity as to the aims and objectives of the work
· Coherence between the aims and objectives, and the approach or methods used to measure and/or report outcomes
· Demonstrated outcomes/outputs for medical students, doctors, education and training programmes, including identification of key drivers for success/failure. Potential trajectory to patient benefit will also
be considered as an outcome criterion.
· Targets/outcomes, and if reached/achieved
· Evaluation of process as well as outcome(s) (i.e. why it worked as well as "it worked")
· Evidence as to whether or not the work has maintained momentum, or details of how successful candidates would use the prize funding to further extend the project.
Please click here to view the assessment form used by the assessors
What's required in my application?
The application should contain the following information
The following information will be requested on the submission form:
- Project title
- Category (UG/PG/CPD)
- Name, job title and institution/organisation of the Primary Investigator (PI)
- Name, job title and institution/organisation of all co-applicants (no more than 5 allowed)
- Specify role of the PI and each applicant in the project including %FTE commitment
- Host organisation (which will administer any award), and Administrative Contact Information (note that this person is not usually a co-applicant)
- Start date and the expected length of the proposed project in months
- Enquiry Goals (Aims, objectives, research questions etc.)
- Research Summary:
- Has this application, or part of this application, has previously been submitted to this or another organisation? If so who? Please indicate why it was unsuccessful.
- Where a previous, related application was made to this scheme, please indicate how this research application differs from the previous application
- Justification for enquiry: (total word count 3,000 words excluding references, with no more than 2 tables or graphs)
- Background and rationale
- What is the problem being addressed and why is it important?
- Detail on design and methodology, including justification of sample size, sample selection (power calculations and exclusion criteria where applicable) and analysis
- Success criteria and barriers to proposed work
- Ethics requirements and procedures
- A Gantt chart indicating a schedule for the completion of work, including the timing of key milestones and deliverables
- Projected outputs and Dissemination
- Expected Outputs of Research/Impact
- Relevant expertise and experience – please provide details of why the group is considered well qualified to do this research.
In addition, a one page CV for each applicant should be provided
* highlighting relevant educational expertise and experience, plus relevant concurrent grants and details of up to 10 publications over the last five years (
*in addition to the overall total 3,000 word count)
Research management arrangements
Finances
- The finance section (200 words maximum in addition to the overall total 3,000 word count) should provide a detailed budget/breakdown of costs associated with undertaking the research as described in the proposal.
- Payments will be made to the contracted organisation only and the contracted organisation will be responsible for passing on any money due to their partner organisation(s).
- Appropriate sub-contracts and/or collaboration agreements must be put in place for any element of the research which is to be paid to another organisation.
- The fund will not support more than one fifth of the total amount of the application for conference attendance.
- Any equipment costs must exclude VAT.
- A representative of the sponsoring body must sign off the application.
Suggested Reviewers
- Please suggest three potential peer reviewers who have the relevant expertise to provide appropriate peer review for your application
- These reviewers should be independent (i.e. not have worked with you directly in the recent past) and should have no competing/conflicting interests with your application (such as being from your own institution/university). Your suggestions will be used as only one source of peer reviewers and these individuals may not be approached to undertake a review.
Declarations and Signatures
Assessment Criteria
ASME/GMC Excellent Medical Education Award 2019
Assessment Criteria
Your submission will be assessed using the form available here
Past Recipients
Joint ASME/GMC awards in Excellent Medical Education
Details of 2018 winners will be posted here soon
Congratulations to the 2017 winners:
- Winner UG category: Dr M Bartlett, Keele University Whole simulated consultations in primary and secondary care; an exploration of their impacts on final year students’ self-efficacy
-
Winner PG category: Kenneth Walker, NHS Highland Process evaluation of a “take-home” laparoscopic deliberate practice programme for core surgical trainees
-
Winner CPD category: Dr C Morris, Institute for Health Sciences Education, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London Life beyond workshops: building sustainable approaches to faculty development through peer observation of teaching.
Congratulations to the 2016 winners:
- Winner UG category: Susan Law, University of Dundee. To investigate and evaluate a one year immersive community based medical educational programme in rural Scotland
- Winner PG category: Stephanie E Wells, Cardiff University. Roles Reversed: FY1s experiences of the Student Assistantship as Supervisors
- Winner CPD category: Jo Hart & Lucie Byrne-Davis, Manchester Medical School. Developing a coding framework to understand the Behaviour Change Techniques used in CPD
Congratulations to the 2015 winners:
- Winner CPD category: Mandy Moffat, Aberdeen. Educational development in context: Developing a regional community of practice (CoP) in Psychiatry
- Winner PG category: Jeremy Brown, Edge Hill University. An investigation into Specialty Trainee engagement with e-learning in Health Education North West
- Winner UG category: Janet Lefroy, Keele University. Authentic UG placements in GP: a recruiting force for generalists? A realist evaluation of how the UG learning environment influences career choices.
