133 The maturation of medical educators 5 Prior to the second interview, we discussed with the interviewees any changes in the demographic data that had been collected in 2008-2010, including their weekly workload for educational, patient-care, research, or administrative tasks. All interviews were conducted by the first author, and audiotaped and transcribed. We tested the interview procedures on a bilingual educator not included in the study. Participants and setting In Phase 1, we recruited exemplary physician-educators with a variety of educational roles from Stanford University School of Medicine (SUSM), USA, and Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), the Netherlands, both with learningcentred curricula. Of the 23 selected participants, five educators were involved in educational administration and were responsible for curriculum innovations. The other 18 participants were selected on the basis of their active educational involvement and excellent teaching, as reflected in student evaluations and receipt of teaching awards. The participants on average had 21 years of teaching experience, and most of them were responsible for preclinical curriculum content. Eight of the participants taught basic science topics; the other ten taught clinical topics in the preclinical curriculum. We chose these selection criteria because we expected that these faculty members would be ‘information-rich’ and that their experiences would be enlightening (critical case sampling). For each of the interviews, the first author invited the participants, emphasising that participation was voluntary and anonymous. In 2018, 21 of the 23 participants were still available, all of whom were willing to participate in the follow-up interviews for Phase 2. Two participants had left academia; one because of an administrative position elsewhere, and the other because of dissatisfaction with their work. This study was approved by the Netherlands Association for Medical Education (NVMO) Ethical Review Board (NERB number 834). It was deemed as a protocol not involving human subject research and approved as such by the Stanford Institutional Review Board (IRB). In the period between the first and second interviews (2008-2018) curriculum reform took place at LUMC. The curriculum maintained its learning-centred approach but placed more explicit emphasis on students’ active learning. In addition, an intensive faculty development programme was implemented in which almost all LUMC participants participated. At SUSM, which already had an extensive faculty development programme, no major changes had been made to the preclinical curriculum or to faculty development programmes during this interval.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw