Although several types of programmes have been shown to subjectively improve the teaching skills of undergraduate medical students, characterisation of the objective outcomes of these initiatives is lacking and requires further study.

BackgroundSeveral medical schools have implemented programs aimed at supporting clinician-educators with formal mentoring, training, and experience in undergraduate medical teaching. However, consensus program design has yet to be established, and the effectiveness of these programs in terms of producing quality clinician-educator teaching remains unclear. The goal of this study was to review the literature to identify motivations and perceived barriers to clinician-educators, which in turn will improve clinician-educator training programs to better align with clinician-educator needs and concerns.MethodsReview of medical education literature using the terms “attitudes”, “motivations”, “physicians”, “teaching”, and “undergraduate medical education” resulted in identification of key themes revealing the primary motivations and barriers involved in physicians teaching undergraduate medical students.ResultsA synthesis of articles revealed that physicians are primarily motivated to teach undergraduate students for intrinsic reasons. To a lesser extent, physicians are motivated to teach for extrinsic reasons, such as rewards or recognition. The key barriers deterring physicians from teaching medical students included: decreased productivity, lack of compensation, increased length of the working day, patient concerns/ethical issues, and lack of confidence in their own ability.ConclusionOur findings suggest that optimization of clinician-educator training programs should address, amongst other factors, time management concerns, appropriate academic recognition for teaching service, and confidence in teaching ability. Addressing these issues may increase the retention of clinicians who are active and proficient in medical education.

ObjectivesThe objective of the CAEP Global Emergency Medicine (EM) panel was to identify successes, challenges, and barriers to engaging in global health in Canadian academic emergency departments, formulate recommendations for increasing engagement of faculty, and guide departments in developing a Global EM program.MethodsA panel of academic Global EM practitioners and residents met regularly via teleconference in the year leading up to the CAEP 2018 Academic Symposium. Recommendations were drafted based on a literature review, three mixed methods surveys (CAEP general members, Canadian Global EM practitioners, and Canadian academic emergency department leaders), and panel members’ experience. Recommendations were presented at the CAEP 2018 Academic Symposium in Calgary and further refined based on feedback from the Academic Section.ResultsA total of nine recommendations are presented here. Seven of these are directed towards Canadian academic departments and divisions and intend to increase their engagement in Global EM by recognizing it as an integral part of the practice of emergency medicine, deliberately incorporating it into strategic plans, identifying local leaders, providing tangible supports (i.e., research, administration or financial support, shift flexibility), mitigating barriers, encouraging collaboration, and promoting academic deliverables. The final two recommendations pertain to CAEP increasing its own engagement and support of Global EM.ConclusionsThese recommendations serve as guidance for Canadian academic emergency departments and divisions to increase their engagement in Global EM.