A scoping exercise to explore the use of Web 2.0 and mobile technologies to support faculty development in postgraduate medical education across LP/LEP networks in London (original) (raw)

2013

Abstract

Executive Summary The nature of supervision of postgraduate medical trainees has changed significantly in recent years mainly in response to the European Working Time Directive (Swanwick, 2009). As part of supporting educational supervisors in dealing with this change, there is an interest in exploring the role technology in supervisory practice. However, investigation of Web 2.0 and mobile technologies has received scant attention. In December 2011, the Institute of Education was commissioned by the London Deanery to explore current and potential use of Web 2.0 and mobile technologies by educational supervisors in their personal and professional lives. The project involved scoping out the problem, undertaking a brief literature review and interviewing educational supervisors and trainees to identify current and future practice. This report details the keys issues and findings, identifies current practice and outlines scenarios and associated costs for future use. Recommendations are made about how these can be carried forward so that they address educational supervisors and trainee needs on the ground, in a participatory manner. Before summarizing our findings, we note that while advancements have been made regarding delineation of the role of the educational supervisors since the Academy of Medical Educators’ 2009 report, practice still varies widely with educational supervisors self-identifying with the role in different ways. Therefore, precisely defining the role of Web 2.0 and mobile technologies in educational supervision is problematic. Our research indicates that almost all the educational supervisors involved in our study had smartphones but used them in limited ways (e.g. work email). Some used medical apps (e.g. Medscape) but this was exclusively for reference and information retrieval. Web 2.0 as a concept is not well understood and the use of Synapse by educational supervisors and trainees was limited, although there were key exceptions to this. Educational supervisors view trainees as native users of mobile and social networking technologies. Web 2.0 and mobile technologies are not part of supervisory practice. The main technology used was the e-portfolio. However, it was viewed and used overwhelmingly as an assessment tool rather than a tool to support developmental learning. As evidence in the portfolio emerges from face to face interaction and because it needs to be transportable/generic and comprehensive, it becomes a tick box exercise. On the whole, educational supervisors felt that trainees viewed the e-portfolio negatively, seeing it as something they had to do rather than a tool to support their training and development. Although there were training opportunities for those new to educational supervision to learn about it, educational supervisors did not have opportunities to reflect on their own supervisory practice and development nor to explore the potential of technology in supervision. The key recommendations of this report are: • As the concept of ‘educational supervision’ is still being worked out, practice is currently very fluid. This implies that designing for educational supervision is premature but that designing solutions and interventions with participants is an appropriate next step. • There was strong interest amongst educational supervisors for exploring the design, implementation and use of Web 2.0 and mobile technologies in supervision. The learning scenarios (see Section 4) are a starting point for engagement in this process. • For many there remains a clear overlap between educational and clinical supervision. It may be that mobile technologies are best suited to the latter. • If designed appropriately, Web 2.0 and mobile technologies offer a route to moving away from a snapshot culture of recording trainee practice. • Trainees at different levels require different types of educational supervision. Therefore, any Web 2.0 or mobile intervention should be developed for specific years (Fx, STx) • Implementation would require appropriate local training schemes • Mobile technologies have the potential to be embedded in practice (see the scenarios in Section 4) but the specific details of how these will be developed should only be determined after detailed ethnographic studies of educational supervisory practice have been undertaken. • The implementation of Web 2.0 technologies are best suited to augmenting situations where face-to-face supervision and training is limited. • Imposing technical solutions in a ‘top-down’ mannerwill result in limited take up and wasted resources. Instead, working with educational supervisors and trainees to co-design solutions that address their needs is advocated. • Learn lessons from the implementation of the e-portfolio. It is used (outside of the GP specialty) primarily for assessment but has much stronger pedagogical potential. However, as it is already embedded in practice as a ‘tick-box’ tool, opportunities to support more developmental training have currently been lost. • Technical barriers to implementation remain, including weak WiFi and mobile phone coverage in hospitals • Privacy concerns are paramount and need to be addressed from the outset of any Web 2.0 or mobile technological intervention

Caroline Pelletier hasn't uploaded this document.

Let Caroline know you want this document to be uploaded.

Ask for this document to be uploaded.