To understand the impact of the educational collaborative, the faculty leadership at each site participated in a semistructured 45-minute interview that covered four domains: (1) impact on individual career development, (2) impact on curricular development, (3) impact on the program, and 4) future directions. Interviews were conducted by a research assistant via Skype Internet phone calls. Calls were recorded and transcribed. A subset of faculty reviewed relevant sections for theme identification using grounded theory. A codebook was created through the process of identifying, organizing, and reconciling themes independently and then as a group. Two research assistants with no direct involvement with the project coded the transcripts using Nvivo 8 software (QSR, Victoria, Australia) untilno additional themes were identified.
All 13 sites obtained their institutions’ IRBs’ approval, and verbal consent for audio taping interviews was received from all participating faculty.
The 13 institutions (see Table 1) completed the program survey between October 2009 and March 2010. Results indicated that the Collaborative increased the number of programs adopting components of an advocacy curriculum (69% precollaborative to 92% postcollaborative; see Table 2). Advocacy training activities most commonly reported to increase were letter-writing campaigns (7–11 programs, 54%–85%), advocacy contacts with legislative officials (6–10 programs, 46%–77%), and bringing expert speakers to the program (5–10 programs, 38%–77%). Participation in the Collaborative strengthened advocacy training activities across six of seven program activities measured (see Table 3), with the largest impact achieved in “Meet with/make calls to elected officials (state and federal),” ranked as “strong” by 0 programs beforeand 8 programs after (0%–62%; P < .0001), and “Add advocacy topics and activities to morning reports and/or grand rounds,” ranked as “strong” by 1 program before and 6 programs after (8%–46%; P < .0001).
The two research assistants interviewed the 13 PIs, one from each of the participating programs, to assess the impact of the Collaborative, focusing on four domains: (1) faculty career development, (2) program curricular development, (3) residency program change, and (4) future directions needed. If the PI was not directly involved in resident training, one additional faculty member from that institution was also interviewed (a total of four). Themes identified are presented by domain in Table 4.
Impact on individual career development.
A recurring theme of faculty isolation in doing advocacy work emerged. This appears to have been mitigated through Collaborative participation, as educators in the various content domains met others facing similar challenges, leading to a sense of being part of a larger movement, which some members described as “validating” their work. Many interviewees expressed “being inspired” by their newfound colleagues and by the curricula that many programs had developed. Furthermore, participation in the Collaborative strengthened the academic developmentof some Collaborative participants.
Impact on curricular development.
Nearly every program participating in the Collaborative developed an advocacy curriculum by July 2009. Participation in the Collaborative helped faculty members to identify their programs’ curricular deficiencies, learn from colleagues with more advocacy expertise, and develop new knowledge and resources for curricular approaches. In-person meetings were important for shared expertise and disseminating “curricular modules” that Collaborative members developed. Most faculty, because of sharing of the curricular modules, reported more structured curricula after participation. Having access to teaching modules via the Collaborative’s social networking Web site, Groupsite, allowed faculty to develop more robust curricula and clearer didactics. However, this led to a barrier that some members expressed: moving from a paper-based, in-house curriculum to a digital form. Although the Web site was an important source for curricular material sharing, some found transitioning to electronic versions cumbersome. Some caution is needed in interpreting the Collaborative’s impact. Each program had a unique curriculum, therefore making it difficult to evaluate the impact of specific aspects of the curriculum.
Impact on the programs.
Having a shared source of funding available to protect faculty time was a large and positive impact of the Collaborative. However, interviewees expressed that even with the funding provided by the Collaborative, faculty time was scarce. One approach to limited faculty time was to engage new faculty who had expressed interest in residents’ education but had not previously participated. The barrier of scant availability of residents’ time was mentioned by some faculty, and others found it difficult to fit new teaching materials into the rotations. Another theme that arose from the interviews was that faculty had differing abilities to implement changes based on their faculty rank and institutional culture.
Sustainability was the primary concern of faculty, and most interviewees reported that further funding would be important for continuing the Collaborative. Faculty needed more time to work on the curricula and to apply for grants. Conversely, some Collaborative participants stated that now that initial relationships and a collaborative structure had been established, the Collaborative was sustainable with minimal financial support. Several suggested that ongoing face-to-face meetings coupled with Groupsite would be enough to sustain the Collaborative. Many Collaborative faculty stated that one aspect of sustained impact was the curricular change they had made and that would remain. Interestingly, a few faculty expressed interest in expanding the Collaborative beyond California. Others described their support for strengthening and continuing the statewide linkages for policy engagement.
This multi-institutional, medical education collaborative amplified resources, rapidly disseminated faculty expertise, and increased advocacy training activities across California in an era when medical educators are challenged with declining resources and increasing educational demands. Our experience demonstrated the feasibility of developing and maintainingan educational collaborative despite the inherent difficulty of sustaining grant-funded endeavors. Even after funding stopped, the participating faculty have reported sustained impact through the curricular changes, and the Collaboratives’ members have continued to meet occasionally. (A subsequent grant was awarded to a Collaborative member[S.W.] to support improvingchild coverage in Southern California.)
The Collaborative provides a model for building capacity in emerging areas of curricular need such as quality improvement, disaster preparedness, and environmental health. The Collaborative achieved rapid change: In two years, legislative advocacy training was in place across 92% of training programs in California, contrasted to the 17 years often cited for innovation to translate into medical practice.28
Advocacy allows physicians to participate in improving the health of populations, effectively working beyond the walls of the clinical environment. Because advocacy is a relatively new content area in medical education, there are few evidence-based approaches and a paucity of trained faculty—challenges shared by other emerging fields. The knowledge and skills required to practice population-based medicine via community or legislative engagement are in increasing demand.29 Specific to pediatrics, there is a pressing need to engage in advocacy, as child health disparities are increasing, and many of the challenges facing the health and well-being of children, such as obesity and exposure to violence, are deeply rooted in social and environmental contexts.30 The Collaborative was able to overcome many of the barriers of novel curriculum introduction through mentorship and by providing program faculty access to educational and financial resources.
The expansion of educational collaboratives focused on training in pediatric advocacy could be transformative. To our knowledge, this article is the first to describe an educational collaborative across multiple medical institutions as a strategic instrument for policy change. The Collaborative mobilized faculty and residents to act with a unified voice, bringing evidence to the health policy discussion on state-level legislation such as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program31 and support for poison control centers.32 Some of the success of this collaborative may be due to the fact that California is large, allowing all 13 programs to focus on one state legislative agenda in child health, producing considerable cohesion. This cohesion may not emerge in regional collaborations, and thus it may be difficult to generalize this experience to smaller states.
Even so, we believe that regional or interprofessional collaboratives could be developed to address pressing state or regional child health issues in other states. Indeed, the Collaborative’s program leaders have been approached by pediatric training programs in New Jersey and Ohio, requesting assistance with developing similar statewide collaboratives.33 A second collaborative, funded in 2011 by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, links five national “coaches” who have expertise in community pediatrics and advocacy training with 10 pediatric training programs that have strong interest but need additional support to further develop pediatric advocacy training programs. The aim is for each “trainee” site to then reach out to and partner with other programs in the programs’ state or region, in a train-the-trainer model, thus expanding the network of physicians and programs active in community and policy engagement. The coalescence of this and other existing training programs nationally, under the leadership of overarching national pediatric organizations, could provide a novel and coherent voice to speak in the interest of improved child health.
Multi-Institutional Educational Collaboratives Are Beneficial
Our experience suggests that multi-institutional educational collaborations can be beneficial to faculty and programs, creating a supportive network for faculty and enhancing each individual program’s curricula. Given the rapidly changing landscape of medical education and increasing demands on faculty, collaborations may offer an effective mechanism with which to cultivate innovation and efficiently disseminate novel curricula.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the members of the California Collaborative for Community Pediatrics and Legislative Advocacy Training: Alexandra Roche, MD; Maria Tupas, MD, Children’s Hospital Orange County; Kelly Clancy, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Diane Halberg, MD, Children’s Hospital and Research Center Oakland; Marti Baum, MD, Loma Linda University Medical Center; Grant Christman, MD; Julie Noble, MD, Harbor UC Los Angeles Medical Center; Elizabeth Baca, MD, MPA; Janine Bruce, MPH, Stanford University School of Medicine; Kathleen Heilpern, MPH, Navy Medical Center San Diego; Elizabeth Miller, MD, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, formerly UC Davis; Elizabeth Sterba, MS, UC Davis; Katherine Wu, MD; Lynn Hunt, MD, UC Irvine; Alice Kuo, MD, PhD; Victor Perez, MD, MPH; Alma Guerrero, MD, UC Los Angeles; Frank Silva; Ashley Maier, MSW, UC San Diego; Amy Whittle, MD, UC San Francisco. The authors also wish to thank Alec Swinburne, Thomas Mullen-Hevey, Ashley Lau, and Garrick Lee, research assistants associated with this work. The authors appreciate the critical review of Sarah Horwitz. Finally, none of this would have been undertaken without the intellectual insights and tremendous foresight of Ignatius Bau, former program officer at the California Endowment.
Other disclosures: The program described in this article was funded by the California Endowment.
Ethical approval: IRB approval was obtained from all participating institutions of the California Collaborative for Community Pediatrics and Legislative Advocacy Training: Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Children’s Hospital of Orange County; Children’s Hospital and Research Center at Oakland; Kaiser Los Angeles; Loma Linda University; Navy Medical Center San Diego; Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (Stanford); University of California, Davis; University of California, Irvine; University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, San Diego; University of California, San Francisco. Also from University of California, San Diego (UCSD) which includes trainees at UCSD and Navy Medical Center San Diego.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
1. Schonlau M, Mangione-Smith R, Chan KS, et al. Evaluation of a quality improvement collaborative in asthma care: Does it improve processes and outcomes of care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:200–208
2. Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, Davis C, et al. Quality improvement in chronic illness care: A collaborative approach. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001;27:63–80
3. Bonello RS, Fletcher CE, Becker WK, et al. An intensive care unit quality improvement collaborative in nine Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals: Reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia and catheter-related bloodstream infection rates. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34:639–645
4. Tanabe P, Artz N, Mark Courtney D, et al. Adult emergency department patients with sickle cell pain crisis: A learning collaborative model to improve analgesic management. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17:399–407
5. Douglass AB, Douglass JM, Krol DM. Educating pediatricians and family physicians in children’s oral health. Acad Pediatr. 2009;9:452–456
6. Kimball HR, Young PR. Educational resource sharing and collaborative training in family practice and internal medicine. A statement from the American Boards of Internal Medicine and Family Practice. JAMA. 1995;273:320–322
7. Sargeant J. Theories to aid understanding and implementation of interprofessional education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29:178–184
8. Schmitt M, Blue A, Aschenbrener CA, Viggiano TR. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Reforming health care by transforming health professionals’ education. Acad Med. 2011;86:1351
9. Kelly JV, Larned FS, Smits HL. Graduate medical education consortia: Expectations and experiences. Acad Med. 1994;69:931–943
10. Kochar MS, Cooper RA. A medical school-basedGME consortium in Milwaukee. Acad Med. 1996;71:238–242
11. Libby DL, Cooney TG, Rieselbach RE. The feasibility of consortia for internal medicine graduate medical education: Perspectives from a survey of residency directors. Acad Med. 1997;72:301–304
12. Zweifler J, Blossom HJ. The importance of consortia: A case study. Acad Med. 1998;73:120–122
13. Bennett I, Johnson M, Wu JP, et al. A family medicine training collaborative in early abortion. Fam Med. 2007;39:164–166
14. Neale AV, Pieper D, Hammel E. A consortium-based research education program for residents. Acad Med. 2000;75:298–301
15. Gjerde CL, Hla KM, Kokotailo PK, Anderson B. Long-term outcomes of a primary care faculty development program at the University of Wisconsin. Fam Med. 2008;40:579–584
17. American Board of Internal Medicine. . Medical professionalism in the new millennium: A physician charter. Ann Intern Med.. 2002;136:243–246
18. DeWitt T, Roberts KB Pediatric Education in Community Settings: A Manual.. 1996 Arlington, Va: National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health
19. Hufford L, West DC, Paterniti DA, Pan RJ. Community-based advocacy training: Applying asset-based community development in resident education. Acad Med. 2009;84:765–770
20. Michener JL, Yaggy S, Lyn M, et al. Improving the health of the community: Duke’s experience with community engagement. Acad Med. 2008;83:408–413
21. Rezet B, Hoffman BD, Kaczorowski J. Pediatrics in the community: Integrating community pediatrics into residency training. Pediatr Rev. 2010;31:159–160
22. Minkovitz CS, Chandra A, Solomon BS, Sanders LM, Grason HA, Carraccio C. Factors influencing community pediatrics training in residency. J Pediatr. 2007;150:119–120, 120.e1
23. Quraishi SA, Orkin FK, Weitekamp MR, Khalid AN, Sassani JW. The Health Policy and Legislative Awareness Initiative at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine: Theory meets practice. Acad Med. 2005;80:443–447
24. Solomon BS, Minkovitz CS, Grason HA, Carraccio C. Community pediatrics: A consistent focus in residency training from 2002 to 2005. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7:321–324
25. Solomon BS, Minkovitz CS, Mettrick JE, Carraccio C. Training in community pediatrics: A national survey of program directors. Ambul Pediatr. 2004;4:476–481
26. Minkovitz CS, O’Connor KG, Grason H, et al. Pediatricians’ involvement in community child health from 1989 to 2004. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:658–664
28. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research—“Blue Highways” on theNIH roadmap. JAMA. 2007;297:403–406
30. Palfrey JS, Tonniges TF, Green M, Richmond J. Introduction: Addressing the millennial morbidity—The context of community pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4 suppl):1121–1123
31. Szilagyi PG, Schuster MA, Cheng TL. The scientific evidence for child health insurance. Acad Pediatr. 2009;9:4–6
32. Spiller HA, Griffith JR. The value and evolving role of the U.S. Poison Control Center System. Public Health Rep. 2009;124:359–363
© 2013 by the Association of American Medical Colleges
33. Schwartzberg PCatch Corner:. . New Jersey Residency Advocacy Program. N J Pediatrician. Summer 2010;12