What’s New and In the Queue for Academic Medicine

AM Rounds Slider Master-23

What’s New: A Preview of the February Issue
The February issue of Academic Medicine is now available! Read the entire issue online at academicmedicine.org or on your iPad using the Academic Medicine for iPad app. Highlights from the issue include:

Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship
Dumenco and colleagues share their experience with a group-peer review exercise and suggest expanded use of team reviews could enhance the quality of medical education scholarship. A podcast on this article is available in iTunes.

A Case Suspended in Time: The Educational Value of Case Reports
Packer and colleagues discuss how case reports can be an effective teaching tool with a broad range of benefits that include allowing students to contribute to the medical literature and learn useful scholarly skills.

Knowledge Syntheses in Medical Education: Demystifying Scoping Reviews
In this Perspective, Thomas and colleagues examine the nature, purpose, value, and appropriate use of one particular knowledge synthesis method: the scoping review. They present a brief description and explore the advantages and disadvantages of scoping reviews, and offer lessons learned and suggestions for those considering conducting scoping reviews.

Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia: Final-Year Medical Student Contributions to Wikipedia Articles for Academic Credit at One School
Azzam and colleagues describe how through a credit-bearing course, fourth-year medical students edited a health-related Wikipedia article. Students improved the articles, enjoyed the flexibility of the course, and gained a deeper respect for Wikipedia. A blog post on this article by a fourth-year medical student is available.

The Impact of Administrative Burden on Academic Physicians: Results of a Hospital-Wide Physician Survey
Rao and colleagues find higher administrative duties related to lower career satisfaction and higher burnout. Administrative burden occupied one-quarter of working hours, and most respondents reported negative effects on delivering high-quality care. A blog post on this article by a member of the Council of Faculty and Academic Societies administrative board is available.

What’s In the Queue: A Sneak Peek
Here’s a preview of an upcoming perspective by Bonham and Alberti.

From Inputs to Impacts: Assessing and Communicating the Full Value of Biomedical Research
Ann Bonham, PhD, and Philip M. Alberti, PhD

Assessing and communicating the full value of biomedical research is essential to answer calls from the government and the public for accountability for the spending of public funds. In academic settings, however, research success is measured, largely, in terms of grant funding received or the number of peer-reviewed publications produced. These credible and time-tested metrics miss the full picture of the scientific process that confers benefits to patients, communities, and the health care system in ways that accrue after a paper is published. In this context, in 2012 the Association of American Medical Colleges, in collaboration with RAND Europe, initiated a program to provide resources and guidance for medical schools and teaching hospitals interested in evaluating the outcomes and impacts of their research in novel ways complementary to traditional methods. This perspective provides context for this initiative and delineates the process through which researchers, evaluation experts, and other stakeholders—including legislators, health system leaders, and community members—identified and vetted novel “metrics that matter” in advance of a pilot test at the University of Wisconsin-Madison which sought to assess and communicate its community-engaged science and scholarship.

Related Posts

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: