where she is part of the UCL Medical School Education Consultancy Department and has a background in primary care.

PurposeFree Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) is a worldwide social media movement designed to accelerate and democratise the sharing of medical knowledge. This study sought to investigate the content shared through FOAMed during the emerging COVID-19 pandemic.Study designTweets containing the #FOAMed hashtag posted during a 24-hour period in April 2020 were studied. Included tweets were analysed using the Wiig knowledge management cycle framework (building knowledge, holding knowledge, pooling knowledge and using knowledge).Results1379 tweets contained the #FOAMed hashtag, of which 265 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Included tweets were posted from 208 distinct users, originated from each world continent and were in five different languages. Three overarching themes were identified: (1) signposting and appraising evidence and guidelines; (2) sharing specialist and technical advice; and (3) personal and social engagement. Among 12 subthemes within these groupings, 11 aligned to one of the four dimensions of the Wiig knowledge management cycle framework, and the other focused on building and managing social networks. Almost 40% of tweets related directly to COVID-19.Conclusion#FOAMed tweets during the COVID-19 pandemic included a broad range of resources, advice and support. Despite the geographical, language and disciplinary variation of contributing users and the lack of organisational structure uniting them, this social media medical community has been able to construct, share and use emerging technical knowledge through a time of extraordinary challenge and uncertainty for the global medical community.

The World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) Recognition Programme was created to ensure the comparability of medical school accrediting agencies, so that the schools accredited by those agencies would have similar educational quality. WFME explicitly values transparency and has recognition criteria that relate to agencies making information publicly available. Our study examined 20 WFME-recognized agencies’ transparency by reviewing agency websites for 27 information elements related to accreditation standards, procedures, and processes. We contacted agencies as needed for information that we could not find on their websites. We were only able to retrieve additional information from 3 of the 12 agencies that we attempted to contact. We found that while 12 agencies had over 90% of expected information elements available, 6 agencies had less than 50%. Our findings illustrate barriers for those who wish to better understand medical school accreditation in some regions and raise questions about how comparable WFME-recognized agencies are.

Purpose: Although health professions education (HPE) scholarship has flourished in recent decades, the influence of HPE journals has received little attention. This study examines the editorial policies and priorities of leading HPE journals. Methods: Fourteen HPE journals with the highest impact factors were reviewed for their editorial aims, scope, intended readership, and priority topic areas. Text from journal websites was coded using thematic analysis. Results: 10/14 HPE journals included in this study were linked to regional or national education societies. Two focussed predominantly on medicine, one on dentistry, one on nursing, one on nutrition, and the remaining nine on general HPE. Although journals differed in their projected aims and proposed readerships, four overarching editorial themes were identified: (1) methodological and theoretical rigor; (2) impact on practice; (3) global relevance; (4) advancing knowledge. Conclusions: Leading HPE journals share a number of priority areas and principles, implying some cohesion and consensus amongst the HPE scholarly community. These journals prioritise impact at the level of individual practitioners. Given the importance of policy level change in the development and reform of HPE around the world, the relative lack of focus on policy impact in HPE journals is worthy of further exploration.

and teamwork. The small groups, which brought people with similar roles together across career stages, disciplines, and sites (e.g., main campus, affiliated research, and clinical centres), offered structured discussions, role-plays, and reflective practice on pre-set topics.Group members rotated through the moderator role to encourage reciprocal, nonhierarchical peer exchange. Each participant was expected to be both mentor and mentee, depending on the moment, the topic, and group members' needs. | WHAT LESSONS WERE LEARNED?From 2016 to 2021, three cohorts of 60-70 faculty members participated. Participant surveys at several time points and "exit interviews" were conducted. The program's structure, range of topics, and practical approach emphasising tangible advice and actions were appreciated. The collaborative nonhierarchical environment and collegial discussions were also valued. Many participants