Exploring the Great Divide: Comparing Professional Development Satisfaction and Opportunities of Program Coordinators at Academic Medical Centers and Community-Based Programs.

IF 1.6 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Lauren Anderson, Kathleen Rowland, Megham Twiss, Jory Eaton, Mackenzie Krueger, Katherine Wright
{"title":"Exploring the Great Divide: Comparing Professional Development Satisfaction and Opportunities of Program Coordinators at Academic Medical Centers and Community-Based Programs.","authors":"Lauren Anderson,&nbsp;Kathleen Rowland,&nbsp;Megham Twiss,&nbsp;Jory Eaton,&nbsp;Mackenzie Krueger,&nbsp;Katherine Wright","doi":"10.1097/CEH.0000000000000430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Program coordinators (PCs) need to maintain flexibility and evolve professionally with rapid changes in accreditation, specialty requirements, and policies. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recommends professional development for PCs. This mixed-methods study explored professional development opportunities and current practices of PCs at community and academic programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was administered to the Chicago Area Medical Education Group members to elicit attitudes and opinions regarding professional development availability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 109 participants (eligible = 178) completed surveys. 97.2% (n = 105, N = 108) of respondents indicated that development is necessary for being a great coordinator. PCs at community-based programs report lower attendance at national conferences and less satisfaction with professional development opportunities than their academic-based institution counterparts. 28.5% of the community-based coordinators are dissatisfied with opportunities compared with 7% of the academic-based coordinators. 37.7% of the community coordinators (compared with 2.9% academic) report a lack of development activities by their program or graduate medical education. Only half of the PCs report discussing professional development with their program director. However, institutional supports were regarded as facilitators to satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite recommendations for regular professional development, this study finds only half of the PCs regularly discuss professional development and finds disparities in opportunities between those in community versus academic settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","volume":"43 2","pages":"139-142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Program coordinators (PCs) need to maintain flexibility and evolve professionally with rapid changes in accreditation, specialty requirements, and policies. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recommends professional development for PCs. This mixed-methods study explored professional development opportunities and current practices of PCs at community and academic programs.

Methods: A survey was administered to the Chicago Area Medical Education Group members to elicit attitudes and opinions regarding professional development availability.

Results: A total of 109 participants (eligible = 178) completed surveys. 97.2% (n = 105, N = 108) of respondents indicated that development is necessary for being a great coordinator. PCs at community-based programs report lower attendance at national conferences and less satisfaction with professional development opportunities than their academic-based institution counterparts. 28.5% of the community-based coordinators are dissatisfied with opportunities compared with 7% of the academic-based coordinators. 37.7% of the community coordinators (compared with 2.9% academic) report a lack of development activities by their program or graduate medical education. Only half of the PCs report discussing professional development with their program director. However, institutional supports were regarded as facilitators to satisfaction.

Conclusions: Despite recommendations for regular professional development, this study finds only half of the PCs regularly discuss professional development and finds disparities in opportunities between those in community versus academic settings.

探索巨大的鸿沟:比较学术医疗中心和社区项目协调员的专业发展满意度和机会。
简介:项目协调员(pc)需要保持灵活性,并随着认证、专业要求和政策的快速变化而专业发展。研究生医学教育认证委员会推荐个人电脑的专业发展。这个混合方法的研究探索了pc在社区和学术项目中的职业发展机会和当前实践。方法:对芝加哥地区医学教育集团成员进行问卷调查,了解他们对专业发展可获得性的态度和意见。结果:共有109名参与者(符合条件的178名)完成了调查。97.2% (n = 105, n = 108)的受访者认为发展是成为优秀协调者的必要条件。与以学术为基础的机构相比,社区项目的个人电脑在全国会议上的出席率较低,对专业发展机会的满意度也较低。28.5%以社区为基础的协调员对机会不满意,而以学术为基础的协调员则为7%。37.7%的社区协调员(与2.9%的学术协调员相比)报告说,他们的项目或研究生医学教育缺乏发展活动。只有一半的个人电脑报告与他们的项目主管讨论过专业发展。然而,机构支持被认为是令人满意的促进因素。结论:尽管建议定期进行专业发展,但这项研究发现,只有一半的pc定期讨论专业发展,并发现社区与学术环境之间的机会差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Continuing Education is a quarterly journal publishing articles relevant to theory, practice, and policy development for continuing education in the health sciences. The journal presents original research and essays on subjects involving the lifelong learning of professionals, with a focus on continuous quality improvement, competency assessment, and knowledge translation. It provides thoughtful advice to those who develop, conduct, and evaluate continuing education programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信