Article Text

PDF
386 MEASURING THE IMPACT OF A CLINICAL VIGNETTE WORKSHOP: DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS BETWEEN FACULTY AND TRAINEES.
  1. L. L. Willett1,
  2. A. Castiglioni1,2,
  3. G. Heudebert1,
  4. S. Kertesz1,
  5. R. M. Centor1,
  6. C. A. Estrada1,2
  1. 1The University of Alabama at Birmingham and the
  2. 2Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL

Abstract

Background and Objective Scholarly productivity is an important criterion for promotion of clinician-educator medical faculty and is sufficiently important to training that the ACGME requires residents to have access to scholarly opportunities. Presenting a clinical vignette is one such way to demonstrate scholarly activity. Clinical vignettes can be drawn from patient care experiences, but formal training in writing a vignette is uncommon. We assessed learning outcomes from a clinical vignette skills workshop, and how outcomes differed between faculty and trainees.

Methods We conducted five workshops (national and local) on how to publish a clinical vignette. In a pre- and postdesign using a 5-point Likert scale, we compared faculty and trainees in their perceived (1) competence to write a vignette, (2) career benefit from sharing a vignette through a meeting or publication, and (3) likelihood of submitting to a meeting or publication.

Results The 106 participants were from 22 states and Canada. Participants were trainees (61%), faculty (33%), and others (6%). Forty percent of participants had never presented a vignette, and 72% had never published one. Competence for writing a vignette improved for both faculty and trainees. Faculty scores improved from 2.9 to 3.9 (a 0.92 change; 95% CI 0.7, 1.2, p < .001). As an example, the percentages reporting scores ≥ 4 (eg, moderate to high competence) rose from 22% of faculty (pre) to 65% (post). Similarly, trainee scores improved from 2.6 to 3.6 (a 0.98 change; 95% CI 0.7, 1.2, p < .001). As an example, the percentages reporting scores ≥ 4 rose from 12% of trainees (pre) to 49% (post). At the end of the workshop, only faculty had increased perception that presentation at a meeting or publication would help their professional career (a 0.33 and 0.22 change; p < .01, p = .02, respectively) and increased likelihood of submitting to a meeting or publication (a 0.31 and 0.31 change; p = .02, p = .08, respectively). Among trainees, the perceived career benefit of submitting to a meeting or publication did not change (all p > .05).

Conclusions Although the workshop increased competence for both faculty and trainees, the perceived value for producing scholarly activity was higher for faculty than for trainees. Improving trainees' competence may not have perceived value in their current role but may provide benefit later in their careers.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.