Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 8951333

Faculty development for community practitioners.

Abstract

Developing the academic skills of the individuals who will serve as educators and role models in the community is critical to pediatric resident education in community settings. The main focus of any faculty development program must be on teaching, although for a subset of individuals, the development of research skills should also be a consideration. The three key elements that must be considered for an effective faculty development program include: (1) creating a culture of mutual respect between full-time and community faculty; (2) basing the program on sound principles of education theory, especially adult learning theory, using appropriately trained faculty; and (3) establishing ongoing institutional financial and philosophical support. Effectively addressing these elements should create a faculty development program that will help the community practitioner become an effective role model and practitioner- preceptor-educator.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T G DeWitt. 1996. Faculty development for community practitioners.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8951333/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Eight years of "Prostate Cancer Awareness Week": lessons in screening and early detection. Prostate Cancer Education Council.

BACKGROUND: Prostate Cancer Awareness Week began in 1989 to raise public awareness of the disease and impact on its clinical dynamics. Prior to 1990, prostate carcinoma was usually diagnosed in symptomatic men as advanced and ipso facto incurable. METHODS: A 5-year longitudinal study of screening and early detection was initiated in 1992, involving 250 centers that tested over 50,000 men annually. The study analyzed the following: 1) the efficacy of digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests for the early detection of prostate carcinoma, 2) the impact of serial screening on stage of disease at diagnosis and cancer detection, 3) age and race specific reference ranges for PSA, 4) prostate carcinoma risk factors, and 5) psychosocial variables that influence the appropriateness and acceptability of both screening and treatment. RESULTS: Community-based screening for prostate carcinoma is as effective as programs conducted at academic centers, but annual testing may not be necessary for all men. Participants in community screening programs may require more prescreening information and education regarding the potential risks and benefits of screening, and also regarding the cascade of diagnostic and treatment decisions that follow an abnormal digital rectal examination or an elevated PSA finding. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based prostate carcinoma screening programs have contributed to the shift in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma at an earlier stage. They provide data that are useful in studying the natural course of prostate carcinoma and in designing studies of the effect that prostate carcinoma screening has on mortality from the disease.

Community Medicine