Interactive Teaching Strategies for Accreditation Success: Insights From a Canadian Residency Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, all postgraduate medical education programs are required to undergo regular accreditation reviews conducted by the Canadian Residency Accreditation Consortium. These reviews can result in accreditation statuses of “Accredited Program” and “Accredited Program on Notice of Intent to Withdraw Accreditation.” Programs placed on Notice of Intent to Withdraw Accreditation must undergo an external review within 24 months, risking the loss of accreditation if they fail to meet standards.This was the situation faced by Queen’s University’s Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry residency program, a small program in Kingston with 2 to 3 residents and 11 associated faculty/allied health professions. During their regular accreditation review, the program was placed on notice of intent to withdraw, necessitating thorough preparation for the upcoming external review.The leadership team recognized the need to prepare all stakeholders effectively. Given the small size of the program, it was expected that most stakeholders were already familiar with the relevant information. However, the leadership team wanted to ensure comprehensive preparation without redundancy.Previously, preparation for internal reviews involved lecture-based sessions lasting approximately one hour, led by the Educational Consultant with support from the leadership team. These sessions, while informative, were perceived as repetitive by stakeholders who were already knowledgeable about the content.To address this, the leadership team decided to revise the format of the teaching sessions. They introduced an interactive, question-based approach to present the material. This intervention aimed to refresh known information, introduce new knowledge, and verify stakeholders’ understanding efficiently. Although active learning is not a new pedagogy, in the experience of the leadership team, using it as an engagement strategy for faculty virtual learning has not been widely adopted.The new format involved creating specific questions tailored to each stakeholder group. See the Table for examples of questions.This approach allowed for a more dynamic and engaging learning experience. If stakeholders knew the answers, the session moved on quickly, saving time for areas where knowledge gaps existed. The sessions concluded earlier than planned, demonstrating time efficiency. Additionally, contentious topics were expanded upon regardless of responses to ensure thorough understanding. The time investment for the leadership team in the development and planning of this session was less than creating a standard PowerPoint.Post-session, questions with answer keys and links to source documents were distributed to reinforce learning. Feedback from stakeholders was overwhelmingly positive, highlighting the effectiveness of the format and content. Participants felt better prepared for the external surveyors’ questions and appreciated the opportunity for discussion and active participation.The program performed exceptionally well in the external accreditation review, with all stakeholders demonstrating preparedness and confidence. The leadership team’s innovative teaching strategy not only ensured compliance with accreditation standards but also fostered a collaborative and informed community within the residency program.The Child and Adolescent Psychiatry program at Queen’s University will continue to use this method to present faculty and learners with information. Although this innovation took place at only one program in one institution, the authors believe that with adjustments to the questions it can easily be adapted and used at other institutions and in other specialities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".