The authors have no conflict of interest to declare for this work.This work was presented at the plenary session of the annual Society of General Internal Medicine Meeting, May 2004, Chicago, IL
The Impact of the Stanford Faculty Development Program on Ambulatory Teaching Behavior
Article first published online: 25 APR 2006
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 21, Issue 5, pages 430–434, May 2006
How to Cite
Berbano, E. P., Browning, R., Pangaro, L. and Jackson, J. L. (2006), The Impact of the Stanford Faculty Development Program on Ambulatory Teaching Behavior. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21: 430–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00422.x
- Issue published online: 25 APR 2006
- Article first published online: 25 APR 2006
- Manuscript received April 21, 2005Initial editorial decision November 4, 2005Final acceptance January 23, 2006
- faculty development;
- medical teaching;
- medical education
CONTEXT: Faculty development has received considerable investment of resources from medical institutions, though the impact of these efforts has been infrequently studied.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the impact of the Stanford Faculty Development Program in Clinical Teaching on ambulatory teaching behavior.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eight internal medicine faculty participating in local faculty development.
INTERVENTION: Participants received 7 2-hour sessions of faculty development. Each session included didactic, role-play, and videotaped performance evaluation.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Before and after the intervention, faculty were video-taped during a case presentation from a standardized learner, who had been trained to portray 3 levels of learners: a third-year medical student, an intern, and a senior medical resident. Teacher and learner utterances (i.e, phrases) were blindly and randomly coded, using the Teacher Learner Interaction Analysis System, into categories that capture both the nature and intent of the utterances. We measured change in teaching behavior as detected through analysis of the coded utterances.
RESULTS: Among the 48 videotaped encounters, there were a total of 7,119 utterances, with 3,203 (45%) by the teacher. Examining only the teacher, the total number of questions asked declined (714 vs 426, P=.02) with an increase in the proportion of higher-level, analytic questions (44% vs 55%, P<.0001). The quality of feedback also improved, with less “minimal” feedback (87% vs 76%, P<.0005) and more specific feedback (13% vs 22%) provided.
CONCLUSIONS: Teaching behaviors improved after participation in this faculty development program, specifically in the quality of questions asked and feedback provided.