Author: Brian S McGowan, PhD

Introduction:
Minimal attention has been given to the intersection and potential collaboration among the domains of continuing education (CE), knowledge translation (KT), quality improvement (QI), and patient safety (PS), despite their overlapping objectives. A study was undertaken to examine leaders’ perspectives of these 4 domains and their relationships to each other. In this article, we report on a subset of the data that focuses on how leaders in KT, PS, and QI define and view the domain of CE and opportunities for collaboration.

Methods:
This study is based on a qualitative interpretivist framework to guide the collection and analysis of data in semistructured interviews. Criterion-based, maximum variation, and snowball sampling were used to identify key opinion leaders in each domain. The sample consisted of 15 individuals from the domains KT, QI, and PS. The transcripts were coded using a directed content analysis approach.

Results:
The findings are organized into 3 thematic subsections: (1) definition and interpretation of CE, (2) concerns about relevance and effectiveness of CE, and (3) opportunities for collaboration among CE and the other domains. While there were slight differences among the data from the leaders of each domain, common themes were generally reported.

Discussion:
The findings provide CE leaders with information about KT, QI, and PS leaders’ (mis)perceptions about CE that can inform future strategic planning and activities. CE leaders can play an important role in building upon initial collaborations among the domains to enable their strengths to complement each other.

via (Mis)perceptions of Continuing Education: Insights From Knowledge Translation, Quality Improvement, and Patient Safety Leaders – Kitto – 2013 – Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions – Wiley Online Library.

CONTEXT:
At the 100th anniversary of Abraham Flexner’s landmark report on medical education, critical reassessment of the direction of medical education reform evinced valuable interdisciplinary contributions from biomedicine, sociology, psychology and education theory. However, to date, philosophy has been absent from the discussion despite its long standing contribution to studies on education in other professions.
METHODS:
This discussion paper examines how the philosophical tradition can contribute to scholarship in medical education. It begins with an explanation of the scholarly tradition of philosophy of education and its role in thinking in education more generally. It then makes links between this tradition and the context of medical education in the Flexner era of education reform. The paper then argues that this tradition is necessary to the understanding of medical education reform post-Flexner and that doctors must benefit from an education derived from this tradition in order to be able to carry out their work.
DISCUSSION:
These foundations are characterised as a hidden, but always present, tradition in medical education. Two ways in which this ‘lost tradition’ can inform medical education theory and practice are identified: firstly, by the establishment of a public canon of medical education texts that express such a tradition, and, secondly, by the incorporation of a variety of ‘signature pedagogies’ exemplary of liberal education.

via Reconstructing a lost tradition: the philosophy of … [Med Educ. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI.