| Title |
Towards organizational development for sustainable high-quality medical teaching
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40037-013-0043-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rik Engbers, Léon I. A. de Caluwé, Paul M. J. Stuyt, Cornelia R. M. G. Fluit, Sanneke Bolhuis |
| Abstract |
Literature shows that faculty development programmes are not organizationally embedded in academic hospitals. This leaves medical teaching a low and informal status. The purpose of this article is to explore how organizational literature can strengthen our understanding of embedding faculty development in organizational development, and to provide a useful example of organizational development with regards to medical teaching and faculty development. Constructing a framework for organizational development from the literature, based on expert brainstorming. This framework is applied to a case study. A framework for organizational development is described. Applied in a context of medical teaching, these organizational insights show the process (and progress) of embedding faculty development in organizational development. Organizational development is a necessary condition for assuring sustainable faculty development for high-quality medical teaching. Organizational policies can only work in an organization that is developing. Recommendations for further development and future research are discussed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 25% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#475
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,954
of 291,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.