EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGE:Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has rapidly emerged as a potentially transformative tool in education. Faculty development (FD) programs, particularly in curriculum development (CD), are ideal settings for incorporating GenAI to benefit faculty and their learners. However, concerns about accuracy, bias, and ethical implications necessitate structured and responsible integration. SOLUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION:We incorporated GenAI across five CD programs at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in 2023-2024. We developed structured exercises using customizable prompts aligned with each step of the Six-Step Approach for Curriculum Development in Medical Education and encouraged learners to critically engage with GenAI during required exercises and assignments. LESSONS LEARNED AND NEXT STEPS:Structured exercises encouraged experimentation, critical evaluation, and innovation. Participants reported increased efficiency and creativity. Role modeling, balanced messages about GenAI's capabilities and limitations, and multidisciplinary teamwork were key enablers of success. This pilot offers an example of integration of GenAI into existing FD programs without requiring additional time or sacrificing rigor in CD processes. By sharing our findings globally, we hope to democratize FD and contribute to the responsible, scalable adoption of GenAI in diverse educational contexts.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming health professions education (HPE), yet structured guidance for HPE faculty development remains limited. We propose a milestone-based approach for integrating AI competencies into faculty development. This approach builds on the UNESCO framework for general educators and the IACAI AI integration recommendations for medical education. We used the ACGME Milestones format to define five progressive levels, from basic AI literacy to global leadership, across six competency domains. The goal is to support faculty development in effectively evaluating and teaching with AI while also addressing ethical concerns and impacts on educator and learner well-being.

OBJECTIVE:To systematically define humanizing health care to guide systems improvements that better meet patient and health care workers' needs. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS:We conducted group concept mapping at Johns Hopkins Medicine, a large academic health system with five hospitals in Maryland and Washington, DC, outpatient practices, telemedicine, and homecare services. From October 2023 to May 2024, we recruited participants who brainstormed to the focus prompt: "One thing that can be done to more fully humanize healthcare experiences is:" The study team synthesized ideas for participants to sort them. Group concept mapping software generated cluster maps, which were interpreted by the study team to generate the concept map. RESULTS:In brainstorming, 63 individuals participated, including those with the perspectives of patients (n=40, 63%), caregivers (n=25, 40%), physicians (n=23, 37%), other types of health care professionals (n=14, 22%), health professions educators (n=28, 44%), and health care researchers (n=25, 40%). The 395 statements from brainstorming were synthesized into 207 ideas for sorting, which was completed by 13 participants. The final concept map included eight domains and 32 subdomains. Domains addressed: (1) effective communication, (2) health care worker attitudes, (3) health care culture, (4) health care worker community, (5) institutional policies and health care value, (6) physical and digital systems and access to care, (7) time and attention for patients, and (8) embedding patient perspectives throughout health care. CONCLUSION:Health care is fundamentally about human experiences. This concept map, generated by individuals representing the perspectives of a variety of individuals involved in health care, offers guidance for interventions and measures to make health care more humanizing.

Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Section of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA Geriatric Medicine, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Towson, Maryland, USA Division of Colorectal Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Online curricula can make high-quality health professions education accessible in virtually any setting. They can enhance teaching and learning by both standardizing curricular resources and individualizing curricular experiences. Despite growing demand for and institutional interest in online curricula for medical education, many medical educators lack a framework for online curriculum development. Without rigorous and thoughtful development, online curricula can waste opportunity and resources by leading to education that is inferior to traditional methods. In this article, the authors describe a systematic approach to online curriculum development based on the Six-Step Approach for Curriculum Development for Medical Education, a widely used method that has led to successful implementation of a variety of traditional and online curricula. In each step, special considerations for curricula with larger and more diverse learner audiences-characteristic of many online curricula-are highlighted. Four common online curricular formats are also discussed: blended curricula, instructor-led fully online curricula, self-paced modules, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). The authors emphasize factors that differentiate one online format from another, including the budgetary, technical, and human resource requirements for each. The article concludes by urging medical educators to pursue opportunities to study and disseminate online curricular work.

Este libro es la traducción al español de la tercera edición de la obra Curriculum Development for Medical Education: a six-step approach, publicada por Johns Hopkins University Press. El objetivo de esta publicación es beneficiar a los educadores médicos con un aprendizaje de un enfoque práctico, genérico y atemporal para el desarrollo curricular que aborde las necesidades actuales y futuras. Los editores de esta obra editores eligieron tres temas que se destacan en la última revisión del libro: la educación basada en competencias, que incluye los hitos y las actividades profesionales confiables (APROC) como herramienta de evaluación, la educación interprofesional y la tecnología educativa.

PURPOSE:Across various health conditions and geographic regions, there remains a dearth of clinicians with the expertise and confidence to identify and manage children with disabilities. At the front line of this crisis are clinician-educators, who are tasked with caring for these unique patients and with training the future workforce. Balancing patient care and clinical instruction responsibilities is particularly challenging when trainees of varied educational levels and specialties report simultaneously. The lack of a standard curriculum further compounds the clinician-educator's teaching demands and threatens the consistency of trainees' learning. Recognizing these challenges in their work in a neonatal follow-up clinic, the authors sought a solution through an established curriculum development process.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A needs assessment survey was conducted to gauge medical trainees' knowledge, skills, and experiences. Applying needs assessment findings, the authors developed a curriculum, which was administered online to several trainee cohorts just prior to rotations in the neonatal follow-up clinic.RESULTS:After completing the curriculum, trainees scored significantly higher on neonatal follow-up knowledge tests.CONCLUSIONS:Providing advance exposure helped to ensure that trainees arrived with comparable basal knowledge, which served as a foundation for more advanced instruction. This curricular approach may be useful across teaching venues, especially those with multi-level or multi-discipline learners.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the perceived effectiveness of surgical subspecialty training programs in teaching and assessing the 6 ACGME core competencies including research. DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey. SETTING:ACGME approved training programs in pediatric urology and colorectal surgery. PARTICIPANTS:Program Directors and recent trainees (2007-2009). RESULTS:A total of 39 program directors (60%) and 57 trainees (64%) responded. Both program directors and recent trainees reported a higher degree of training and mentorship (75%) in patient care and medical knowledge than the other core competencies (p<0.0001). Practice based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication, and professionalism training were perceived effective to a lesser degree. Specifically, in the areas of teaching residents and medical students and team building, program directors, compared with recent trainees, perceived training to be more effective, (p = 0.004, p = 0.04). Responses to questions assessing training in systems based practice ubiquitously identified a lack of training, particularly in financial matters of running a practice. Although effective training in research was perceived as lacking by recent trainees, 81% reported mentorship in this area. According to program directors and recent trainees, the most effective method of teaching was faculty supervision and feedback. Only 50% or less of the recent trainees reported mentorship in career planning, work-life balance, and job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS:Not all 6 core competencies and research are effectively being taught in surgery subspecialty training programs and mentorship in areas outside of patient care and research is lacking. Emphasis should be placed on faculty supervision and feedback when designing methods to better incorporate all 6 core competencies, research, and mentorship.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how programs are teaching and assessing procedural skills, and their perceived success.DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.SETTING: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved training programs in pediatric urology and colorectal surgery.PARTICIPANTS: Program directors and recent graduates (2007-2009).RESULTS: Thirty-nine program directors (60%), and 57 graduates (64%) responded; 89.5% of graduates and 94.9% of program directors felt training occurred successfully for the procedures that trainees were performing in their present practice. Nearly 90% of trainees and all program directors reported that there was no formal assessment of procedural competency at the beginning of training, although 66.7% of program directors reported that trainees were assessed "informally." Both program directors and trainees reported dialogue with faculty was the most frequent method used in preparing for operative procedures. Other methods (textbook/atlas, journals, web-based programs, videos) were used less frequently. Program directors with shorter tenure were more likely to use web-based and video methods; younger trainees were less likely to use textbooks/atlases. Faculty feedback on clinical decision-making and postprocedural review were perceived by both program directors and trainees as the most effective assessment methods for improving performance; however, trainees were more likely than program directors to report that postprocedure reviews were not included in their training (15.8% vs 9%, p = 0.045). Patient outcomes, written feedback from peers, and self-assessment were included in most programs, but valued less. Simulation was used in only about half the programs and was valued more highly by trainees than program directors (p = 0.011).CONCLUSIONS: Training in procedural proficiency was viewed as successful by both program directors and graduates. Dialogue with, assessment by, and feedback from faculty were frequently used and most valued; stressing the importance of the facilitator role of faculty in the education of the trainee. These findings provide guidance for the development of newer methods of teaching and assessment. (J Surg 69:521-528. (C) 2012 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

OBJECTIVE:Pediatric urology training has traditionally been based on an apprenticeship model. As part of our curriculum re-development, we surveyed recent graduates (2007-2009) regarding the teaching of clinical/surgical skills and medical knowledge during their training. METHODS:44 pediatric urologists who completed 2 years of ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education)-accredited programs and had been practicing for at least 18 months were anonymously surveyed. An IRB-approved survey was developed by a team of educators at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health. RESULTS:31 of 44 responded to 100% of the questions; 90% of the respondents felt their fellowship successfully prepared them for discussing surgical options and performing the procedures that they are now doing; 74% felt well trained to manage perioperative complications and 65% felt well trained to manage non-surgical problems. Faculty feedback/supervision, independent reading, and conferences were rated as a very effective method of teaching (87%). Top three procedures they wished they had learned: laparoscopic/robotic surgery, hypospadias repair, and augmentation/Mitrofanoff. Top three non-surgical topics: urinary tract infection, voiding dysfunction, and billing/coding. CONCLUSION:It is reassuring that ACGME fellowship-trained pediatric urologists feel prepared in commonly performed procedures and perioperative care. Faculty supervision/feedback is highly valued.