Journal articles on the topic 'Junior colleges, directories'

This study compared the number of sports offered to males and females in Texas colleges (N~ 113) to determine if a gender difference existed among leaders, coaches, and athletic directors of the female sport programs. In addition, predictions of gender for leaders were made based on the 10-year trend that the data covered. The data were collected by surveying annual issues of Sport Guide of High Schools and Colleges—Coaches Directory and revealed there were significantly more sports for males than for females at both the junior and senior college level. At the junior college level the mean for sports in the male programs was M=3.28, and for female programs it was M=2.09, t(9)=22.37, p > .0001. The results at the senior college level were also significant. The mean for sports in male programs at that level was M=5.67, and for females it was M=4.14, t(9)=6.68,p> .0001. There were significantly more males than females in leadership roles in female sport programs. The results of the correlated t test between the means of all positions of leadership held in female sport programs was significant. The mean of the positions held by males in junior colleges was M=90.2, and the mean for females was M=40.3, t(9) = 11.82, P> .0001. The mean of the positions held by males in senior colleges was M= 186.6, while that for females was 128.3, f(9)=6.68, p > .0001. Various causes for the reduction in the number of female coaches and implications of the current trends are discussed.

AbstractThe range and number of educational and networking events that are available for fellows, trainees, and junior faculty to attend grows every year. Each meeting useful in its own way; each adding value to the development and the growth of an interventionist. Within paediatric, congenital, and structural heart disease, three of the standout meetings are: Pediatric and Interventional Cardiac Symposium (PICS-AICS), Congenital and Structural Interventions (CSI), and International Workshop on Interventional Pediatric and Adult Congenital Cardiology (IPC). All of these were started by leaders in our field; people known to be passionate educators and innovators. International congresses focusing more broadly on congenital cardiac disease in children and adults are rare. These forums allow more interdisciplinary discussions between the interventionist, surgeon, and non-invasive specialists. Purely interventional meetings are essential to allow colleagues to debate and explore the nuances and intricacies of technique and approach, developing concepts to be challenged in wider forums. During the recent 21st PICS-AICS meeting Prof. Ziyad M. Hijazi, Shakeel A. Qureshi, Mario Carminati, and Dr Damien Kenny shared their time to engage in frank, recorded conversations which provide a unique insight in to the process and concepts behind three of our most important educational congresses.

Context.— Changes occurring in medicine have raised issues about medical professionalism. Professionalism is included in the Core Competencies and Milestones for all pathology residents. Previous studies have looked at resident professionalism attitudes and behaviors in primary care but none have looked specifically at pathology. Objective.— To examine behavior and attitudes toward professionalism within pathology and to determine how professionalism is taught in residency programs. Design.— Surveys were sent to all College of American Pathologists junior members and all pathology residency program directors, and responses were compared. Results.— Although no single behavior received the same professionalism rating among residents and program directors, both groups identified the same behaviors as being the most unprofessional: posting identifiable patient information or case images to social media, making a disparaging comment about a physician colleague or member of the support staff on social media or in a public hospital space, and missing work without reporting the time off. Faculty were observed displaying most of these behaviors as often or more often than residents by both groups. The most common means to teach professionalism in pathology residencies is providing feedback as situations arise and teaching by example. Age differences were found within each group and between groups for observed behaviors and attitudes. Conclusions.— As teaching by example was identified as a common educational method, faculty must be aware of the role their behavior and attitudes have in shaping resident behavior and attitudes. These results suggest a need for additional resources to teach professionalism during pathology residency.

Abstract Context.—The recent change in accreditation requirements for anatomic pathology and clinical pathology residency training from 5 to 4 years and the rapid advances in technologies for pathology services have sparked a renewed debate over the adequacy of pathology residency training. In particular, perceived deficiencies in training have been declared from a variety of sources, both in the form of recent editorial opinions and from surveys of community hospital pathologist employers in 1998, 2003, and 2005 by Dr Richard Horowitz. Objective.—To obtain more comprehensive data on the perceptions of strengths and weaknesses in pathology residency training. Design.—The College of American Pathologists conducted a survey of potential pathology employers (senior College of American Pathologists members, members designated as head of group, and members of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology). Also surveyed were recent graduates of pathology residency programs, who were identified as being junior members of the College of American Pathologists, were recent recipients of certification from the American Board of Pathology, or were contacted through their directors of pathology residency programs. Results.—There were 559 employer respondents, of whom 384 were responsible for hiring and/or supervising new pathologists. There were 247 recent graduates of pathology residency training programs who responded. From the employers' standpoint, the majority expressed overall satisfaction with recent graduates, but almost one third of employers indicated that new hires had a major deficiency in a critical area. Specific areas of deficiency were clinical laboratory management and judgment in ordering special stains and studies. In addition, one half of employers agreed that more guidance and support for newly trained pathologists is needed now than was required 10 years ago. Academic employers generally were more satisfied than private sector employers. Newly trained pathologists did not appear to be inappropriately overconfident in their abilities. In addition, their perceptions of those specific areas in which they are most and least prepared are very similar to the ratings provided by employers. On average, newly trained pathologists' ratings of their own preparedness are highest for specific aspects of general pathology and anatomic pathology, and lowest for specific aspects of clinical pathology and administration. In selecting new pathologists, employers perceived medical knowledge and interpersonal skills as the most important discriminating applicant characteristics. When new employees were asked why they thought they were offered their position, the discriminating qualifications cited most often were academic background and training, as well as completion of a fellowship and subspecialty training. Conclusions.—It is our hope that the results of this survey can be used as input for further discussions and recommendations for training of pathology residents so as to further advance the ability of pathologists to provide quality patient care upon their graduation from training.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the introduction of a Standardized Operative Dictation Template improved the quality of resident dictation. General surgery residents (N = 20) from the University of Manitoba participated in the study. All residents were shown a standardized surgical procedure video and then asked to dictate an operative report. Residents were randomized with the intervention group receiving the Operative Dictation Template. Three months later, all residents were retested. Resident comfort level with dictation and satisfaction with the template was evaluated with a questionnaire. Dictations were evaluated by two blinded independent reviewers using the previously validated SAFE-OR assessment tool. This tool consists of a Structured Assessment Form (SAF) scored out of 45 and a Global Quality Ratings Scale (GQRS) out of 36. Pre and post scores were analyzed using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test. Subjective comfort level with dictation, as measured by responses on a five point Likert scale, improved significantly in the intervention group (p=0.02). In addition, 90% of residents in the intervention group subjectively reported their dictations improved because of the template. There was no overall difference in the quality of dictation in the intervention group pre and post intervention as measured by the SAF (28.6 vs. 30.0; p=0.36) and GQRS (21.7 vs. 21.8, p=0.96). However, junior resident subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant improvement in the intervention on both the SAF (23.2 vs. 28.3; p=0.02) and GQRS (17.1 vs. 20.4; p=0.02). Senior resident subgroup analysis showed no difference in the intervention group on either the SAF (36.8 vs. 32.4; p=0.07) and GQRS (28.5 vs. 23.9; p=0.07). The Operative Dictation Template can result in a significant improvement in resident comfort level with dictation and has the potential to improve the quality of junior resident dictations. Eichholz AC, Van Voorhis BJ, Sorosky JI, Smith BJ, Sood AK. Operative note dictation: should it be taught routinely in residency programs? Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004; 103:342-6. Menzin AW, Spitzer M. Teaching operative dictation. A survey of obstetrics/gynecology residency program directors. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2003; 48:850-2. Moore RA. The dictated operative note: important but is it being taught? Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2000; 190:639-40.

ObjectiveTo survey adult neurology program directors (PDs) and inform the future development of neurology training programs.MethodsAll US adult neurology PDs were invited to complete the survey. The goals were to determine the demographic makeup of residency programs, characterize curricula, understand PD and program needs, and compare results to those of a similar survey in 2007.ResultsThe response rate was 70.6%. PD demographics for age, faculty track status, and academic rank remain unchanged over the last decade. The proportion of female PDs and assistant PDs has increased significantly. The mean number of residents per training program has also increased significantly. Female PDs are more likely to have a junior academic rank than their male colleagues. Disparities remain between the PDs' time spent on teaching/program administration and salary support. Most PDs support moving fellowship applications later in the training cycle. The majority of PDs find the Clinical Competency Committee process useful in assessing resident competence. A minority of PDs feel that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones meet their intended purpose. Half of programs include a curriculum to supplement the clinical experience on child neurology rotations. A third of programs include a supplemental curriculum for psychiatry rotations. The majority of programs offer a general fund for residents to use to support their education.ConclusionDeficiencies exist in compensation for PDs' teaching and administrative time and for academic promotion for female PDs. These results serve as a benchmark for comparison across programs and the basis to advocate for further improvements and support for neurology residency training.

Abstract I started my chemistry adventure while in high school, where I was the only female in a science and mathematics-oriented class. During our Junior year of high school, we were sent to the desert, close to the Red Sea in Israel to build roads. In the summers, we were in a Kibbutz on the border to help with the work needed. After work, we had time to discuss our future. Upon graduating from high school, I was drafted into the army, and in the evenings, started my college education and majored in chemistry. After finishing my term in the army, I continued my undergraduate studies in chemistry while raising my son. As I was conducting research on isotope effects, I realized that I wanted to make chemistry accessible to all. My tenet in life is that equal access to Science Education is a human right. I developed a method of teaching chemistry using art, music, dance, drama, and cultural backgrounds which attracted students at all educational levels to chemistry. I felt that as chemists, we have obligations to make the planet a better place for humankind. At this point, I became very active in working towards Scientific Freedom and Human Rights; helping chemists in the Soviet Union, China, Chile, Guatemala, and many other countries. The American Chemical Society established the Subcommittee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights in 1986 and I chaired this committee for 26 years. At great risk to my personal safety, we succeeded in preventing executions, releasing prisoners of conscience from jail and bringing dissidents to freedom. This work led me to use chemistry as a bridge to peace in the Middle East by organizing Conferences which bring together chemists from 15 Middle East Countries with five Nobel Laureates. The Conferences allow the participants to collaborate on solutions to problems facing the Middle East and the World. The issues are; Air and Water Quality, Alternative Energy Sources, and Science Education at all Levels. Eight conferences were held and the ninth is scheduled for 2019. More than 600 Middle East scientists already participated in these conferences. Considering that most of the participants are professors or directors of science institutions who have access to thousands of students, the number of people in the network is in the thousands. Between the conferences, the cross-border collaborations are ongoing despite the grave situation in the Middle East. In these conferences, the participants succeed in overcoming the chasms of distrust and intolerance. They do not just form collaborations, but form friendships. Hopefully, we will manage to form a critical mass of scientists who will be able to start the chain reaction for peace in the Middle East. Commitment, perseverance, and many times, bravery, helped me to overcome the obstacles I encountered.

At a recent conference I attended, a colleague stated that there was no education abroad research being conducted. In effect, he argued, we were a field without a research base to guide our program design and management. I heartily disagreed, countering that the field is producing an unprecedented amount of research of various types representing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives. The challenge, I said, was to expand our view of what we consider study abroad “research” to be. We work in a complex field that encompasses a tremendous range of issues and topics that invite analyses from multiple disciplines. Our challenge is more one of keeping up with reviewing all of this research and finding the time to analyze it and use it to improve programming. This present volume of Frontiers, the nineteenth since the journal’s first volume was published in 1995, contains research that education abroad professionals can use to consider how best to inform decisions about program administration, pedagogies, and curricula. For example, in the lead article by Vande Berg, Paige, and Connor-Linton, the results of one of the most comprehensive projects ever to assess study abroad learning outcomes, “The Georgetown Consortium Project,” the authors suggest that the results point education abroad in the direction of designing and managing “structured interventions” that promote intercultural and target language learning in study abroad. The results from this landmark study will be cited for many years to come. In keeping with the interdisciplinary nature of Frontiers, Stephanie Evan’s provides another perspective on education abroad through a scholarly review of African American women who have been influenced by study abroad. Her article, “African American Women Scholars and International Research: Dr. Anna Julia Cooper’s Legacy of Study Abroad,” details how Dr. Anna Julia Cooper, as well as other prominent women, were both impacted by study abroad and how they, in turn, impacted others. This historical research not only gives greater meaning and significance to the work of education abroad professionals by documenting these compelling stories, but also inspire the field to seek to expand access to study abroad for underrepresented students. Moreover, Evans presents practical ways in which she has designed and led her own study abroad programs utilizing her research, and in doing so helps us to think about how we might conduct similar kind of research that can inform our programming. Other articles in this volume serve the same purpose of providing research that informs education abroad programming. Five articles present research studies that examine study abroad outcomes, a fast-growing area of education abroad research. These include two studies that use a new instrument for assessing global learning called the Global Perspectives Inventory, or GPI (Braskamp, Braskamp and Merrill; and Doyle); a study of intercultural knowledge and competence in science students who study abroad (Bender, Wright and Lopatto); research on the influence that language courses taken prior to short-term study abroad (Duperron and Overstreet); and a study by Purdue University faculty and graduate students (Phillion, Malewski, Sharma, and Wang) of how preservice teachers participating in study abroad experience and interpret race, ethnicity, class and gender issues. Frontiers has always encouraged research into the nature and purposes of study abroad, and in this volume a number of authors present theoretical perspectives to advance our thinking about and practice of study abroad. Fred Dervin’s provocative analysis of how we conceive of study abroad is based on his research on European (especially Finnish) student mobility. Readers will find that his “proteophilic model” of intercultural competencies covers familiar ground but in ways that push us to examine our practices anew. Martha Johnson conducts a “post” analysis of study abroad and in doing so reminds us that the world is a complex place that challenges both study abroad students and those who develop and manage programs. She helps us to identify our inherent biases so that we may redefine the ways we design and deliver our study abroad programs. Tracy Williams presents the reflective model of intercultural competency in her article, which offers a qualitative approach to assessment that is built into several structures of the three stages (pre-departure, abroad, returned) of the study abroad experience. Pagano and Roselle describe their experiential education model as a means to improve study abroad learning, one that views student intellectual development as a process that ideally moves from reflection to critical thinking to a final stage of what they describe as “refraction.” Another theoretical approach to study abroad is provided by Reilly and Senders in their proposal of what they call “critical study abroad.” They argue that study abroad as a field needs to reevaluate its assumptions in light of the global challenges that we face, and they propose several reference points for doing so. Finally, Soneson and Cordano use universal design theory to encourage the re-design of study abroad programs in order to provide more effective access to a greater number of students. Yet another form of research that has frequently appeared in Frontiers is represented in articles by John Lucas and William Moseley: perspectives from resident directors and faculty. Formerly resident director of the IES Abroad Barcelona Program, Lucas presents and analyzes case studies that together explore important topics and issues related to the mental health of students who study abroad. Both on-site and campus-based staff alike will appreciate the insights offered in this article. A faculty member at Macalester College, Moseley draws on his experience leading a study abroad program as a pre-tenured faculty member to present a case study of how study abroad opportunities may be leveraged to support the research goals of junior faculty. Faculty with an interest in study abroad, deans and provosts, and study abroad directors will find Moseley’s article useful for considering how pre-tenured faculty may become involved in study abroad programming and at the same time meet the demands of institutional research requirements. Fourteen years ago, in my introduction to the first Frontiers volume, I wrote: “As we set out across the frontiers that have defined study abroad we cross into uncharted territory, but with a purpose that defines our path… the journey of encountering the frontiers of our field.” Since its founding Frontiers has remained true to this original purpose of seeking to expand our research approaches to and perspectives on study abroad. This current volume represents well how far the field of study abroad has come, and future volumes will no doubt take us further. Brian Whalen, Editor Dickinson College The Forum on Education Abroad

My academic research journey started a decade ago as a Ph.D. student at the Azman Hashim International School, University Technology Malaysia. Since then, I have authored over 150 peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, books, and book chapters. In addition to guest editing several special issues for academic journals, I also had an opportunity to serve as the Director of Research for numerous professional organizations. Furthermore, I have served in senior editorial positions for numerous well-established hospitality and services management journals for the last three years. All these roles involve sending out invitations to review the manuscripts. The usual scenario is where some invitees accept to review, and others decline. However, what stands out is that many invitees do not respond to the invitation or send a review comprising three to four sentences. Conferences and special issues usually are tight on time schedules because of deadlines. Journals also need to publish timely research. Most of it is possible with a quality review provided on time. Hospitality and tourism management is a relatively smaller discipline, and it is difficult for many editors/conference chairs to manage reviewers for an increasing number of submissions. Consequently, at times, many scholars receive dozens of review invitations every month with shrinking deadlines to get the job done. Including myself, I know of numerous scholars who review over hundred articles every year. The question, however, is if this is fair to be putting a burden of reviewing on a relatively smaller number of people. Recently a discussion on TRINET MAILSERV attracted some of the prominent scholars in our discipline with exciting viewpoints. An interesting question was raised in the discussion - "How many papers should an active researcher review every year?" To answer the question, while some mentioned a numeric number, others responded with an emphasis on the quality of reviews instead of the quantity. I stand for both of these arguments. I think an active researcher should publish a certain number of papers every year and try to beat that number the following year without compromising the quality of the feedback. I also think that reviewing for a journal should be incentivized. Monetary incentives can be lucrative but not practical. Some journals have started including quality and reliable reviewers on their editorial boards. It is a great practice that can benefit early-career researchers but is not being practiced by all journals. Another incentive can be pushing for the recognition of reviewing process. Recently, there has been an increase in journal editors working with Publons to provide recognition to reviewers. Another reason why many junior faculty members do not want to review academic journals is the simple cost-benefit equation. Providing quality reviews for several papers every year takes considerable time. However, reviewing is often given little weightage in an already minimum share of service for tenure-track faculty members towards their tenure and promotion. Since most of the editors in the hospitality and tourism discipline are senior faculty members, there is an increasing need for them to push for having some weightage to 'reviewing' in the tenure and promotion guidelines within their colleges/schools/departments. It is important because I know a few younger faculty members who love to review papers and provide feedback but cannot do it because it is not considered a performance metric. Lastly, just like anything else, reviewers also need to be developed. Many institutes and conferences hold panel discussions and workshops on research methodology or publishing papers. It is good for the benefit of the authors. However, there are no workshops provided to train reviewers. Recently, I moderated an online webinar, "Academic Peer Review: Benefits and Challenges." Panelists included Dr. Ulrike Gretzel, Dr. Stanislav Ivanov, Dr. Metin Kozak, and Dr. Marissa Orlowski. Here is a link for all of you to watch the webinar and forward it to your students or colleagues. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nJ66YyeEdk). The webinar generated a huge interest from around the world, further strengthening my viewpoint about the need for such activities. In the peer review process, reviewers act as the gatekeepers, which signifies their importance in advancing knowledge. However, most of the reviewers are self-taught or mentored in-house by their advisors. It is time for journal editors and conferences to step up and think about holding workshops to train the reviewers on how to review. It can be done at a major conference such as the Annual ICHRIE Conference or the Graduate Conference with a larger graduate student population to cultivate the next crop of reviewers. It can be a valuable step not only to deal with the shortage of reviewers but also to ensure quality reviews. Overview of This Issue This is the second issue of the Journal of Global Hospitality and Tourism. This issue features five exciting research papers and two viewpoints. The first paper written by Noradiva Hamzah, Norlida Hanım Mohd Salleh, Izuli Dzulkifli, and Tengku Kasmini Tengku Wook, sheds light on intellectual capital from the Islamic Value dimension to Muslim-friendly Medical Tourism. Using a case study approach, this study gives some directions for the hospital's management in developing and managing its intellectual capital and Islamic values. This study also explains how they can better leverage their intellectual capital and create added value to respond successfully to the increasingly competitive environment. It is pioneering research that develops a theoretical model to incorporate Intellectual Capital dimensions and Islamic Values in Muslim-friendly Medical Tourism. The second paper is written by Shaniel Bernard, Imran Rahman, Sijun Liu, and Luana Nanu. It examines the effect of reliance on different sources of information on the credibility of COVID-19 information (BCI). In addition, the effect of BCI on fearfulness and the corresponding fear on intention to use accommodation services and stay at home are analyzed. The authors collected data from 1,017 American consumers and analyzed them using a structural equation model. The results confirm the significant effects of trust in media and government on BCI and the corresponding positive effect of BCI on the scarecrow. However, the adverse effects of fear on intentions to visit hotels and restaurants (general and Chinese) and the positive effects of fear on intentions to stay at home and use third-party meal delivery services are confirmed. Rami K. Isaac conducts the third study from the Breda University of Applied Sciences. This research aims to understand better the impact of terrorism on risk perceptions and attitudes of Dutch travel behavior towards Egypt. The researcher obtained data from 414 respondents, and findings show that (potential) Dutch tourists are less likely to take risks when traveling with children. For example, people who often travel with children avoid traveling to countries in the MENA region due to terrorism-related unrest. Furthermore, it was determined that more than half of the sample size did not consider traveling to Egypt due to the current travel advice of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The fourth paper is written by Michael Vieregge from the University of Western Colorado. Although the demand for rural destinations has increased after the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of studies on this topic is scarce. This study contributes to the field by focusing on local gastronomy in rural communities. The archival research study focuses on 549 Cittaslow and non-Cittaslow towns and cities in 19 European countries. According to the research findings, rural towns offer more local gastronomy than cities, and towns with Cittaslow certification are more common than non-Cittaslow ones. The research suggests rural towns should focus on expanding their local gastronomy, and Cittaslow recommends expanding cities even further. The last article is authored by Cecily Martinez, Amy Bardwell, Julie Schumacher, and Jennifer Barnes. This study is based on implementing six nutrient claims evaluated by a group of registered dietitians. The snack items were conveniently placed near the cash register to "nudge" purchases, and sales of snacks before and after the claims implementation were examined. The authors applied paired-sample t-tests and indicated that after nutrient claims were implemented, sales of snacks increased in both groups. Results indicate that nutrient claims that had a significant impact on sales differed between the two groups. In addition to these five research papers, this second issue of JGHT also has two viewpoints. The first is an academic viewpoint, written by Prof. Stanislav Ivanov from Varna University of Management. He suggests academic research accepts and pays more attention to the economics of technologies in travel, tourism, and hospitality. According to Ivanov, travel, tourism, and hospitality (TTH) are intrinsically connected to technology. At the same time, tourists book their flights and accommodation through technology, reach their destination with the help of technology, explore the destination with technology, and share their experiences online with technology. Economic principles, like any other business, run them. Economic factors also drive their decisions to invest in technology. That is why academic research needs to acknowledge and pay more attention to the economics of technologies in travel, tourism, and hospitality. This academic viewpoint also outlines several directions for future research in the field. The second viewpoint is industry-focused and is authored by Mr. Murat Toktaş. He is the founder/president of KATID (Black Sea Tourist Operators Association), the founder/president of SKAL Karadeniz, and the founder/vice-president of TUROYD (Tourism Hotel Managers Association) and a member of the Board of Directors of TUROFED (Turkish Hoteliers Federation). In his viewpoint, he explains how destination management organizations (DMOs) work with local governments in Turkey. He suggested a successful destination marketing strategy for the Turkish Tourism Promotion and Development Agency (TGA). Collaboration between local and DMOs is essential for destinations to be adequately promoted and become a successful brands. Marketing is effective when a destination's artistic and cultural features are correctly promoted, as in the case of TGA. This viewpoint also concludes with several future research directions.

There are different apprehensions regarding the contemporary assessment system. Often, I listen to my colleagues saying that multiple-choice questions are seen as easier to score. Why can’t all assessments be multiple-choice tests? Some others would say, whether the tests given reflect what students will need to know as competent professionals? What evidence can be collected to make sure that test content is relevant? Others come up with concerns that there is a perception amongst students that some examiners are harsher than others and some tasks are easier than others. What can be done to evaluate whether this is the case? Sometimes, the students come up with queries that they are concerned about being observed when interacting with patients. They are not sure why this is needed. What rationale is there for using workplace-based assessment? Some of the students worry if the pass marks for the assessments are ‘correct’, and what is the evidence for the cut-off scores? All these questions are important, and I would deliberate upon them with evidence from the literature. Deliberating on the first query of using multiple-choice questions for everything, we know that assessment of a medical student is a complex process as there are multiple domains of learning such as cognition, skills, and behaviors (Norcini and McKinley, 2007)(Boulet and Raymond, 2018). Each of the domains further has multiple levels from simple to complex tasks (Norcini and McKinley, 2007). For example, the cognition is further divided into six levels, starting from recall (Cognition level 1 or C1) up to creativity (Cognition level 6 or C6) (Norcini and McKinley, 2007). Similarly, the skills and behaviors also have levels starting from observation up to performance and practice (Norcini and McKinley, 2007). Moreover, there are different competencies within each domain that further complicates our task as an assessor to appropriately assess a student (Boulet and Raymond, 2018). For instance, within the cognitive domain, it is not just making the learning objectives based on Bloom’s Taxonomy that would simplify our task because the literature suggests that individuals have different thinking mechanisms, such as fast and slow thinking to perform a task (Kahneman, 2011). We as educationalists do not know what sort of cognitive mechanism have we triggered through our exam items (Swanson and Case, 1998). Multiple Choice Questions is one of the assessment instruments to measure competencies related to the cognitive domain. This means that we cannot use multiple-choice questions to measure the skills and behaviors domains, so clearly multiple-choice questions cannot assess all domains of learning (Vleuten et al, 2010). Within the cognitive domain, there are multiple levels and different ways of thinking mechanisms (Kahneman, 2011). Each assessment instrument has its strength and limitations. Multiple-choice questions may be able to assess a few of the competencies, also with some added benefits in terms of marking but there always are limitations. The multiple-choice question is no different when it comes to the strengths and limitations profile of an assessment instrument (Swanson and Case, 1998). There are certain competencies that can be easily assessed using multiple-choice questions (Swanson and Case, 1998). For example, content that requires recall, application, and analysis can be assessed with the help of multiple-choice questions. However, creativity or synthesis which is cognition level six (C6) as per Blooms’ Taxonomy, cannot be assessed with closed-ended questions such as a multiple-choice question. This means that we need some additional assessment instruments to measure the higher levels of cognition within the cognitive domain. For example, asking students to explore an open-ended question as a research project can assess the higher levels of cognition because the students would be gathering information from different sources of literature, and then synthesizing it to answer the question. It is reported that marking and reading the essay questions would be time-consuming for the teachers (McLean and Gale, 2018). Hence, the teacher to student’s ratio in assessing the higher levels of cognition needs to be monitored so that teachers or assessors can give appropriate time to assess the higher levels of cognition of their students. Hence, we have to use other forms of assessment instruments along with multiple-choice questions to assess the cognitive domain. This will help to assess the different levels of cognition and will also incite the different thinking mechanisms. Regarding the concerns, whether the tests given reflect what students will need to know as competent professionals? What evidence can be collected to make sure that test content is relevant? It is one of an important issue for medical education and assessment directors whether the tests that they are taking are reflective of the students being competent practitioners? It is also quite challenging as some of the competencies such as professionalism or professional identity formation are difficult to be measured quantitatively with the traditional assessment instruments (Cruess, Cruess, & Steinert, 2016). Moreover, there is also a question if all the competencies that are required for a medical graduate can be assessed with the assessment instruments presently available? Hence, we as educationalists have to provide evidence for the assessment of required competencies and relevant content. One of the ways that we can opt is to carefully align the required content with their relevant assessment instruments. This can be done with the help of assessment blueprints, or also known as the table of specifications in some of the literature (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). An assessment blueprint enables us to demonstrate our planned curriculum, that is, what are our planned objectives, and how are we going to teach and assess them (Boulet and Raymond, 2018). We can also use the validity construct in addition to the assessment blueprints to provide evidence for testing the relevant content. Validity means that the test is able to measure what it is supposed to measure (Boulet and Raymond, 2018). There are different types of validity but one of the validity that is required in this situation to establish the appropriateness of the content is the Content Validity. Content validity is established by a number of subject experts who comment on the appropriateness and relevance of the content (Lawshe, 1975). The third method by which the relevance of content can be established is through standard-setting. A standard is a single cut-off score to qualitatively declare a student competent or incompetent based on the judgment of subject experts (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). There are different ways of standard-setting for example Angoff, Ebel, Borderline method, etc. (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). Although the main purpose is the establishment and decides the cut-off score during the process, the experts also debate on the appropriateness and relevance of the content. This means that the standard-setting methods also have validity procedures that are in-built in their process of establishing the cut-off score. These are some of the methods by which we can provide evidence of the relevance of the content that is required to produce a competent practitioner. The next issue is the perception amongst students that some examiners are harsher than others and some tasks are easier than others. Both these observations have quite a lot of truth in them and can be evaluated following the contemporary medical education evaluation techniques. The first issue reported is that some examiners are harsher than others. In terms of assessment, it has been reported in the literature as ‘hawk dove effect’ (McManus et al, 2006, Murphy et al, 2009). There are different reasons identified in the literature for some of the examiners to be more stringent than others such as age, ethnic background, behavioral reasons, educational background, and experience in a number of years (McManus et al, 2006). Specifically, those examiners who are from ethnic minorities and have more experience show more stringency (McManus et al, 2006). Interestingly, it has been reported elsewhere how the glucose levels affect the decision making of the pass-fail judgments (Kahneman, 2011). There are psychometric methods reported in the literature, such as Rasch modeling that can help determine the ‘hawk dove effect’ of different examiners, and whether it is too extreme or within a zone of normal deviation (McManus et al, 2006, Murphy, et al, 2009). Moreover, the literature also suggests ways to minimize the hawk-dove effect by identifying and paring such examiners so the strictness of one can be compensated by the leniency of the other examiner (McManus et al, 2006). The other issue in this situation is that the students find some tasks easier than others. This is dependent on the complexity of tasks and also on the competence level of students. For example, a medical student may achieve independent measuring of blood pressure in his/her first year but even a consultant surgeon may not be able to perform complex surgery such as a Whipple procedure. This means that while developing tasks we as educationalists have to consider both the competence level of our students and the complexity of the tasks. One way to theoretically understand it is by taking help from the cognitive load theory (Merrienboer 2013). The cognitive load theory suggests that there are three types of cognitive loads; namely, the Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane loads (Merrienboer 2013). The intrinsic load is associated with the complexity of the task. The extraneous load is added to the working memory of students due to a teacher who does not plan his/her teaching session as per students' needs (Merrienboer 2013). The third load is the germane or the good load that helps the student to understand the task and is added by using teaching methods that helps students understand the task (Merrienboer 2013). The teachers can use different instructional designs such as the 4CID model to plan their teaching session of the complex tasks (Merrienboer 2013). One of the ways to understand the difficulty of the task can be to pilot test the task with few students or junior colleagues. Another way to determine the complexity of the task can be through standard-setting methods where a cut-off score is established after the experts discuss each task and determine its cut-off score based on their judgments (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). However, it is important that the experts who have been called for setting standards have relevant experience so as to make credible judgments (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). A third way to evaluate the complexity of tasks is by applying the post-exam item analysis techniques. The difficulty of the task is evaluated after the performance of students in the exam. Each item’s difficulty in the exam can be measured. The items can be placed from extremely easy (100% students correctly answered the item) to extremely difficult (100% students failed on that specific item). The item analysis enables the teachers to determine which tasks were easier in exams as compared to more difficult tasks. Another concern that comes from students is about their observation when interacting with patients. Health professions training programs require the interaction of students with patients. The student-patient interaction is not very often in initial years of student’s training due to the issues of patient safety, and due to the heavy workload on clinical faculty. However, with the passage of time in the training program, these student patient interactions increase. There is also a strong theoretical basis for better learning when the students are put in a context or a given situation (Wenger, 1998). For example, infection control can be taught through a lecture however the learning can be more effective if the students practically learn it in an operation theatre. Moreover, the undergraduate students or foundation year house job doctors are yet not competent enough to practice independently and require supervision for the obvious reasons of patient safety. Although, some of the students may not like being observed it is one of the requirements for their training. The examiners observing them can give them constructive feedback to further improve their performance (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Feedback is one of the essential components of workplace-based assessments, and it is suggested in the literature that the time for feedback to the student should be almost equal to one-third of the procedure or task time (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013), that is, for a fifteen minutes tasks, there should be at least five minutes for the feedback hence having a total of twenty minutes time on the whole. Further, it is important for the examiners and senior colleagues to establish trust in the competence of their students or trainees. The ‘trust’ is one of the behavioral constructs that also starts initially with an observation (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Hence, observation of students or house officers by senior colleagues or teachers during clinical encounters is important to establish trust in student’s competence levels. Additionally, in the workplace, there are different skills that are required by the students to demonstrate, and each skill is quite different to others. There are different workplace-based assessment instruments and each of them assesses only certain aspects of student’s performance during clinical practice. For instance, the Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) can primarily assess the history taking and physical examination skills of students (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Similarly, the Directly Observed Procedural Skills (DOPS) is required to assess the technical and procedural skills of students (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). More so, the Case-based Discussion (CBD) is required to assess clinical reasoning skills, decision-making skills, ethics, and professionalism (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Further, multi-source feedback (MSF) or 360-degree assessment collects feedback about a student on their performance from multiple sources such as patients, senior and junior colleagues, nursing staff, and administrative staff (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). All these workplace-based assessments require observation of students so they can be given appropriate feedback on their technical and nontechnical skills (Etheridge and Boursicot, 2013). Hence, clinical encounters at the workplace are quite complex and require training of students from different aspects to fully train them that cannot be accomplished without observation. Some students also worry whether the pass marks for the assessments are ‘correct’, and what is the evidence for the cut-off score in their exams? A standard is a single cut-off score that determines the competence of a student in a particular exam (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The cut-off score is decided by experts who make a qualitative judgment (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The purpose is not to establish an absolute truth but to demonstrate the creditability of pass-fail decisions in an exam (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). There are certain variables related to standard setters that may affect the creditability of the standard-setting process; such as age, gender, ethnicity, their understanding of the learners, their educational qualification, and their place of work. Moreover, the definition of competence varies with time, place and person (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). Hence, it is important that the standard setters must know the learners and the competence level expected from them and the standard setters must be called from different places. This is one of the first requirements to have the profile of the standard setters to establish their credibility. Moreover, the selection of the method of standard setting is important, and how familiar are the standard setters with the method of standard-setting. There are many standard-setting methods for different assessment instruments and types of exams (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). It is essential to use the appropriate standard-setting method, and also to train the standard setters on that method of standard setting so they know the procedure. The training can be done by providing them certain data to solve it following the steps of the standard-setting procedure. The record of these exercises is important and can be required at later stages to show the experience of the standard setters. Further, every standard-setter writes a cut-off score for each item (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The mean score of all the standard setters is calculated to determine the cut-off score for each item (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The total cut-off score is calculated by adding the pass marks of each individual item (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). The cut-off scores for items would also help in differentiating the hawks from doves, that is, those examiners who are quite strict from those who are lenient (McManus et al, 2006). Hence, it is important to keep the record of these cut-off scores of each item for future records and to have a balanced standard-setting team for future exams (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). Additionally, the meeting minutes is an important document to keep the record for the decisions made during the meeting. Lastly, the exam results and post-exam item analysis is an important document to see the performance of students on each item and to make comparisons with the standard-setting meeting (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). It would be important to document the items that behaved as predicted by the standard setters and those items that would show unexpected responses; for example, the majority of the borderline students either secured quite high marks than the cut-off score or vice versa (Norcini and McKinley, 2013). All the documents mentioned above would ensure the creditability of the standard-setting process and would also improve the quality of exam items. There are many other aspects that could not be discussed in this debate on the contemporary assessment system in medical education. Another area that needs deliberations is the futuristic assessment system and how it would address the limitations of the current system? Disclaimer: This work is derived from one of the assignments of the author submitted for his certificate from Keele University. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- References Boulet, J. and Raymond, M. (2018) ‘Blueprinting: Planning your tests. FAIMER-Keele Master’s in Health Professions Education: Accreditation and Assessment. Module 1, Unit 2.’, FAIMER Centre for Distance Learning, CenMEDIC. 6th edn. London, pp. 7–90. Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., & Steinert, Y. (2016). ‘Amending Miller’s pyramid to include professional identity formation’. Acad Med, 91(2), pp. 180–185. Etheridge, L. and Boursicot, K. (2013) ‘Performance and workplace assessment’, in Dent, J. A. and Harden, R. M. (eds) A practical guide for medical teachers. 4th edn. London: Elsevier Limited. Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Lawshe, CH. (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol, 28(4), pp. 563–75. McLean, M. and Gale, R. (2018) Essays and short answer questions. FAIMER-Keele Master’s in Health Professions Education: Accreditation and Assessment. Module 1, Unit 5, 5th edition. FAIMER Centre for Distance Learning, CenMEDIC, London. McManus, IC. Thompson, M. and Mollon, J. (2006) ‘ Assessment of examiner leniency and stringency (‘hawk-dove effect’) in the MRCP(UK) clinical examination (PACES) using multi-facet Rasch modelling’ BMC Med Educ. 42(6) doi:10.1186/1472- 6920-6-42 Merrienboer, J.J.G. (2013) ‘Instructional Design’, in Dent, J. A. and Harden, R. M. (eds) A practical guide for medical teachers. 4th edn. London: Elsevier Limited. Murphy, JM. Seneviratne, R. Remers, O and Davis, M. (2009) ‘Hawks’ and ‘doves’: effect of feedback on grades awarded by supervisors of student selected components, Med Teach, 31(10), e484-e488, DOI: 10.3109/01421590903258670 Norcini, J. and McKinley, D. W. (2007) ‘Assessment methods in medical education’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(3), pp. 239–250. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.021. Norcini, J. and Troncon, L. (2018) Foundations of assessment. FAIMER-Keele Master’s in Health Professions Education: Accreditation and Assessment. Module 1, Unit 1. 6th edn. London: FAIMER Centre for Distance Learning CenMEDIC. Norcini, J. and McKinley, D. W. (2013) ‘Standard Setting’, in Dent, J. A. and Harden, R. M. (eds) A practical guide for medical teachers. 4th edn. London: Elsevier Limited. Swanson, D. and Case, S. (1998) Constructing written test questions for the basic and clincial sciences. 3rd Ed. National Board of Medical Examiners. 3750 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104. Van Der Vleuten, C. Schuwirth, L. Scheele, F. Driessen, E. and Hodges, B. (2010) ‘The assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development’, Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, pp. 1-17. doi:10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2010.04.001 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

The Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (PJOHNS) is the official refereed journal of the Philippine Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (PSOHNS). What does it mean for our journal to be refereed or peer reviewed? According to the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME),1 “A peer-reviewed biomedical journal is one that regularly obtains advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. Peer review is intended to improve the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of published manuscripts and to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish. Peer review does not guarantee manuscript quality and does not reliably detect scientific misconduct.” Who are peer reviewers? Integral to the whole system, they are experts in their chosen field who are expected to provide an unbiased opinion on the quality, timeliness, and relevance of a submitted manuscript.2 They are responsible to the editor and journal, their specialty and/or subspecialty, study participants and/or subjects, and authors, to “make sure rubbish does not get published.”2 As editors, we understand that peer review (also called refereeing) is not a perfect antidote to poor science, and we need to carefully evaluate manuscripts themselves for quality and validity.3 Prior to review, we carefully review submissions for suitability to our journal and ensure that all important elements of the manuscript are included, in accordance with our instructions to authors.4 Manuscripts are subjected to a double blinded external peer-review process, guided by the “Responsibilities and Rights of Peer Reviewers” contained in the Editorial Policy Statements approved by the Council of Science Editors Board of Directors.5 For participants in the PSOHNS research contests, this review process is facilitated by pre-judging of anonymized manuscripts by blinded judge-reviewers. Manuscripts are further reviewed by editors and other experts in the field and may be proofread, content- and form- edited and returned for revision. The revision process is often tedious, particularly when authors fail to adequately address the concerns, comments, and corrections of editors and reviewers (or referees). In this regard, authors have much to learn from research protocol and medical writing workshops. It is also in the best interests of editors and their journals to improve peer review, and ways to do so have been identified by systematic reviews.6,7 Double-blind review (blinding both author and reviewer to each other’s identity and anonymizing manuscripts before review) supposedly reduces the likelihood of bias for or against authors based on name, affiliation or country of origin, and is perceived as more fair.3,8 Unless they are able to guess the identity of authors, reviewers only discover such identities if the manuscript is finally accepted and published.7,9 On the other hand, lack of transparency may be considered a limitation of double-blind review, although the cultural-appropriateness of transparency may be argued in collective cultural contexts such as ours. To minimize bias, and manage and assure the quality of the peer review process, we try to select peer reviewers who possess the appropriate expertise needed to review a manuscript thoroughly and identify and exclude peer reviewers with potential conflicts of interest.10 In cooperation with the PSOHNS, we conduct 1-day introduction to basic medical writing workshops, and 2-day advanced workshops for peer reviewers every year, as well as mini-workshops during our annual convention. Unfortunately, it seems that those who would benefit most from our courses are not the ones who participate in them. Very few consultants have attended either workshop, evinced by the quality of co-authorship of their own papers, or their reviews of other papers. There are many instances where senior colleagues perpetuate inappropriate research and writing practices, contradicting what would have been the correct work of their junior co-authors (the latter merely applying what they learned from our workshops). Worse, some of these consultants insist on their way (as research supervisors, co-authors or reviewers), undoing our corrections and misguiding residents in the process. Things would be different if they opened themselves to acquiring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of good referees, and contribute to the ongoing history of scholarship in our field. Meanwhile, regardless of the recommendations they make, the ultimate decision and responsibility is the editor’s. We aim to publish original work of value to the intellectual community in the best possible form and to the highest possible standards, and expect similar standards from our reviewers and authors. Our journal follows the “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals” of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and is proudly listed as such.11 Honesty, originality and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity and confidentiality on the part of editors and reviewers are among the critical values that enable us to achieve our aim. To this end, we also endorse and uphold the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).12 We hope that our efforts are well worth the hardships and heartaches we endure with each manuscript we process. Guided by our principles, we painstakingly search for solutions to current problems as the promise of a better tomorrow beckons. We invite you to partner with us as peer reviewers and participate in our future. References World Association of Medical Editors. Definition of a Peer-Reviewed Journal. Oct 19, 2007. [Cited 26 May 2018]. Available from: http://www.wame.org/policy-statements#Definition%20PR Peh WC, Ng KH. Role of the Manuscript Reviewer. Singapore Med J 2009 Oct; 50(10): 931-933. PMID:19907880 Lapeña JF, Winker M. Peer Review, Manuscript Decisions, and Author Correspondence. WAME eLearning Program. World Association of Medical Editors 2018. (Forthcoming) Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. Instructions to Authors. [Cited 26 May 2018]. Available from: https://journal.pso-hns.org/instructions-to-authors/ Council of Science Editors. Responsibilities and Rights of Peer Reviewers. CSE Editorial Policy Statement. Science Editor 2002 Nov-Dec;25(6):187. [Cited 26 May 2018] Available from: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/v25n6p187.pdf Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: MR000016. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2016 Jun;14(1):85. DOI:1186/s12916-016-0631-5 PMID: 27287500 PMCID:PMC4902984 Okike K, Hug KT, Kocher MS, Leopold SS. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. 2016 Sep;316(12):1315–1316. DOI:10.1001/jama.2016.11014 PMID:27673310 Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, and the PEER Investigators. Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 1998 Jul;280(3):240-242. DOI:10.1001/jama.280.3.240 PMID:9676668 Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, Barbour V, Bartolomeos K, Baskin P, et al. Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Med. 2017 Sep 11;15(1):167. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0. PMID:28893269 PMCID:PMC5592713 [Cited 26 May 2018] Available from: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916- 017-0927-0 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. [Cited 26 May 2018] Available from: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf COPE Council. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. September 2017. [Cited 26 May 2018] Available from: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf

One of the challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic was the need for quick departmental inductions to allow rotating and redeployed junior doctors to familiarize themselves with rapidly changing departmental environments. We were unable to continue traditional inductions due to various challenges including lack of senior staff to provide the induction due to increased workload; lack of administrative staff to support inductions due to sickness and self-isolation; and lack of physical space under the constraints of social distancing. Thus, an alternative was needed incorporating all aspects of a traditional induction. Video Reality 360 (VR360) technology and video simulation have been on the rise during the last few years in medicine The aim of the study was to produce a simulation-based departmental induction programme that would be equally effective to the traditional model.We started with identifying the components of a departmental induction and then held a multi-disciplinary team meeting to encourage the addition of topics felt to be important and often overlooked. Stakeholders were involved in a needs analysis on the induction material; previous and current departmental junior doctors, the lead pharmacist, medical registrars, emergency physicians, acute physicians, the clinical lead, the medical director and the director of medical education were all contacted with specific questions on content and junior doctors’ needs. Components of the recent General Medical Council surveys were taken into account to allow for a more junior doctor-centred induction. Subsequently, scenarios were designed with input from the directors of simulation and approved by the acute medical unit (AMU) lead. With the help of our colleagues at Hull Institute of Learning & Simulation (HILS) the scenarios were filmed, edited, and filed to produce an educational tool.The end-product of our VR360 induction has been checked by the educational lead of AMU against specific variables and standards and was characterized as ‘much more flexible and a potentially more effective educational tool for junior doctors’ medical induction’. Initial feedback from junior doctors has been very positive; however, further feedback comparing traditional and VR360 induction is needed. Work is ongoing to produce an interactive VR360 induction video with the hope that this could replace face-to-face departmental induction within our hospital.

Abstract The American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) currently has 13 Restricted Funds intended to make financial resources available to support the mission of the Society by providing grants and awards to students, early-career mammalogists, and members who perform activities relevant to ASM. Restricted Funds are specified to support a Society objective or area of research. When initially established, the originator(s) defined the use of a Restricted Fund. However, descriptions and requirements of each Restricted Fund are not often stored in a readily available location or format making it difficult for potential applicants to determine how to proceed. We collected information on each Fund from journal articles, book chapters, minutes of ASM Board of Directors meetings, and personal communications from ASM members. Then we compiled information relevant to each Restricted Fund to centralize this information and make available the intended purpose of each Restricted Fund. Several of the Funds have reached a level to be self-sustaining at the current award amounts, but others remain in desperate need of funding to be able to support the intentions of the originators. Mammalogists recognize through their establishment of Restricted Funds that allocations from these Funds are instrumental in supporting the development of students and junior colleagues as they hone their science and contribute to the science of mammalogy.

Year 3 Internal Medicine Trainee (IMT3) is a new (in 2021) grade of medical trainee intended to bridge the chasm between the supported environment of being a senior house officer and the more independent role of a medical registrar. We identified an unmet need for simulation experience to develop skills in emergency management, team leadership, and medicolegal/ethical judgement needed by the medical registrar [1]. Medical simulation and human factors training are essential for the development of IMT3s [2]. We created a novel high-fidelity simulation programme to address this training requirement and support this new grade of junior registrars. We designed five scenarios according to current curriculum guidance and Trust human factors framework. These scenarios were: (i) managing a Jehovah’s witness with an upper gastrointestinal tract bleed but lacking capacity, (ii) tricyclic antidepressant overdose, (iii) cardiac arrest in pregnancy, (iv) duty of candour after a fatal medical error, and (v) a hypoxic COVID-19 patient refusing treatment. The scenarios were piloted to a focus group with iterative improvements made. Participants responded to a Likert-type scale on both pre- and post-course questionnaires regarding their perceived confidence in managing difficult clinical and ethical conundrums, and their ability to share decision-making and communicate effectively during these situations. 23 out of 30 (77%) of the Trust’s IMT3s attended the programme which ran from January to May 2022, 22 (96%) of whom have completed both pre- and post-course questionnaires across the six sessions held. Mean course satisfaction and subjective knowledge gained ratings amongst participants following attendance at the course was 4.9/5. There was a 34.9% increase in mean confidence rating towards the management of challenging ethico-legal dilemmas (pre- versus post-course: 6.6/10 versus 8.9/10). Similarly, the average confidence towards the delivery of effective resuscitation in acutely deteriorating patients rose from 7.3 to 8.8/10 (20.5%), while average confidence in sharing decision-making and effective communication increased from 7 to 9/10 (28.6%) amongst the participants. Unclear audio system and lack of handouts were reported as limitations. Pauses in study leave access due to COVID-19 surges posed a challenge to the delivery of sessions and additional sessions were instituted to limit this impact. This is a novel programme for a new grade of doctors. The pilot data suggested that the implementation of a high-fidelity simulation programme appeared to be an effective modality to support the progression of this junior medical registrar cohort. 1. Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board (JRCPTB). Internal Medicine Training (IMT) Stage 1 ARCP Decision Aid. 2019 (last updated 2022). [Accessed on 4/06/2022]. 2. Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board (JRCPTB). Rough Guide to Internal Medicine Training: Guidance for training programme directors, supervisors and trainees. 2019 (last updated June 2019) guide to IMT June 2019.docx %282%29.pdf [Accessed on 17/05/2022].