Background: There is increasing interest in distributed medical campuses and engagement of physicians in these communities.  To date, there has been suboptimal recruitment of physicians to participate in medical education at distributed campuses.  The purpose of this project was to identify barriers to engagement in medical education by community physicians in the geographical catchment of the Waterloo Regional Campus of McMaster.Method: In-depth, semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with physicians not involved in teaching. Interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a closed-loop, iterative coding methodology and thematic analysis was performed.  Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved.Results: Six interviews were conducted and coded.  Nine key themes emerged: academic centre versus distributed sites, interest in teaching, financial considerations, administrative barriers, medical experience and knowledge currency, practice environment and schedule, training on teaching, setting up systems for learners in distributed campus settings, and student engagement and medical learner level.Conclusions: Barriers to engagement in teaching primarily focused on differences in job structure in the community, administrative barriers both at the hospital and through the medical school, and lack of knowledge on how to teach.  As medical schools look to expand the capacity of distributed campuses, misperceptions should be addressed and opportunities to improve engagement should be further explored.

No abstract

Early, if incomplete, research findings can help direct a strategy of considerable value in evaluation of nontraditional programs.

The McMaster University Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine’s undergraduate medicine curriculum is a concepts‐based curriculum with anatomy sessions, lectures and small group tutorials. Curriculum review revealed a paucity of radiology and procedural skills in the pre‐clerkship training. An interdisciplinary program of anatomy, radiology, and procedural skills was developed. Method: A 3‐hour curriculum was developed that integrated chest anatomy taught by an anatomist, radiology related to the chest taught by a radiologist, and the procedural skill of placing a chest tube by a general surgeon. The session revolved around a case that was part of their regular small group tutorials. Students rated their knowledge of chest anatomy, knowledge of placing a chest tube and their comfort with placing a chest tube pre and post session using a 10‐point Likert rating scale. Students were also asked to rate the experience on a number of dimensions. Results: 23 students participated in this workshop. All completed the pre and post questionnaires. Students reported an increase in self‐rated knowledge of chest anatomy (4.3 vs 6.4), knowledge in placing a chest tube (1.8 vs 7.7), and in comfort with placing a chest tube (1.4 vs 6.3 post. These results were analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed‐Rank Test and the differences were all statistically significant (p<0.001). The sessions were highly rated, with the mean value for organization/venue scale being 9.4 out of 10 (SD=0.6) and educational value scale (effective, appropriate) being 9.3 out of 10 (SD=0.07). Conclusion: RAP sessions are an innovative interdisciplinary curriculum integrating radiology, anatomy and procedural skills within the context of a concept based medical curriculum. Students reported an increase in knowledge and skills and highly rated the experience as a valuable teaching session for concept integration.