BEME Update reported by Linda Heun

Ron Harden, introduced the update from the three BEME working groups by referencing three points on a triangle which represent: doing the right thing, doing the thing right, and the right person doing it. He suggested that the hoped-for outcome of the current working groups who are producing systematic reviews in selected areas of medical education research was to provide the database from which we answer the following question: "How do we apply the evidence that is out there to how we teach medical students?". (Note: Go to http://www.bemecollaboration.org for a background on the BEME working groups.)

The following three (of the12) working groups gave progress reports: Simulators and Simulations ("what features of high fidelity simulation leads to the most effective learning"), Faculty Development ("does faculty development improve a person’s ability to be successful in his/her faculty role"), and Feedback in Assessment ("what are the characteristics of effective feedback")

Each group felt the need to adapt the coding sheet that had been mutually developed to guide all the systematic reviews. [Use this link (can we scan the document in, David?) to see coding sheet adapted by the Faculty Development Working Group.]

The Simulators and Simulations Group provided a framework within which to examine only high-fidelity simulation. They categorized simulators as either those that simulated a 1) patient, 2) process, or 3) person

The Faculty Development Group the following two questions were identified: 1) What makes for effective faculty development? And 2) Does faculty development have an impact on institutional climate and organizational structure? While acknowledging the multiple roles of teaching, research, administration and clinical care, this group is currently focusing on the teaching role. The group decided to review only research studies, not program descriptions, and only those research studies that went beyond ‘happiness outcomes’. Two preliminary findings are that evaluation of changes in student learning related to faculty development are rare and that studies are not linked to a theoretical framework or the current state of the art.

The main challenges to the group were virtual teamwork, finding time within their own professional responsibilities, financial support, and improving their inter-rate relationship.

The Feedback in Assessment Group was less far along and would provide a fuller report at the AIMEE conference in Lisbon. They reported that they would work in three areas: narrowing their focus, developing both a conceptual framework and a glossary of terms.