Finding their voices

Writing enhancement program

At Memorial University, we conducted a multifaceted needs assessment that allowed our team to focus our faculty development efforts.

We began by identifying the core research competencies of academic family physicians through formal discussions with an expert group of experienced researchers in family medicine. The list of topics generated was distributed to all family medicine faculty members by e-mail. They were asked to reflect on their present educational needs in relation to conducting scholarly research work and dissemination. They were asked to rank or prioritize the topics that were most relevant to their individual learning needs. This list was simultaneously distributed to a national list of established family medicine scholars for input.

Next, a systematic literature search guided by 2 librarians was conducted, and 37 relevant articles were identified. Information collected through the literature search and from scholars and faculty was used to refine the priority topics list.

Writing for publication was identified as the top priority for both external experts and participating faculty. We created a Writing for Publication faculty development program designed to address the self-identified barriers associated with writing. The curriculum was built using several strategies:

• “5-minute interventions” or “writing blitzes” to kick-start faculty’s thinking about research ideas and writing;

• a workshop on writing;

• a visit from a journal editor who provided one-on-one support and consultation for interested faculty; and

• individual consultations with experienced researchers within the faculty.

Each aspect of the curriculum was evaluated using a questionnaire to determine faculty members’ confidence, knowledge, and satisfaction as they progressed through the program. The questionnaire also asked faculty members to identify the most and least effective aspects of each session, as well as further related topics that would be of interest to them. These results informed each step in an iterative process.

Although this program was in its infancy, this approach resulted in positive feedback from the faculty. There was evident and refreshing engagement by the faculty participants in the process. Members felt both stimulated and supported in their writing. This had previously been a substantial barrier. High attendance rates of faculty at writing sessions attested to this engagement. In spite of the success, we did struggle to adequately address the additional barriers that our distributed faculty members experienced at a distance from the medical school. Their participation was limited.

What are measures of long-term success? These will obviously take time to identify. Over the next 3 to 5 years, we plan to enumerate active writing projects, grant applications, oral presentations, posters, workshops at academic meetings, and publications as some of the key outcome measures of this curriculum initiative.

Eighteen months after program implementation, there has been an increase in writing activity among our faculty, including daily writing in journals, increased grant application submissions, and increased acceptance of articles in peer-reviewed journals. Whether this is related to our Writing for Publication faculty development initiative cannot be definitively known. Reduced negativity and increased confidence about writing have been reported, both of which are indicators of an engaged faculty.