Qualitative Findings of a Nominal Group Process to Identify Critical Factors in New LIC Implementation

Stacy K Eddings; Laura L Brown; Steven Godin

doi:10.1177/23821205231217894

Qualitative Findings of a Nominal Group Process to Identify Critical Factors in New LIC Implementation

J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2023 Dec 15:10:23821205231217894. doi: 10.1177/23821205231217894. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.

Authors

Stacy K Eddings¹, Laura L Brown², Steven Godin³

Affiliations

¹ Dean's Office, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
² Department of Pediatrics, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
³ Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.

Abstract

Objectives: Medical schools considering longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) have access to literature that provides recommendations for planning, implementation, and sustainability. However, LIC development and implementation remain notoriously challenging. University of Utah's LIC development process was informed by the documented experiences of long-established LIC programs. A literature gap was identified pertaining to more recently implemented LICs. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of faculty in the early stages of LIC development.

Methods: Thirteen representatives from eight LICs implemented after 2015 participated in 2 Zoom focus groups (5 participated in the first and the other 8 participated in the second). Participants were asked questions to assess key supports, barriers, and recommendations. Following the focus groups, participants were asked to rank the responses based on their level of importance.

Results: Highest ranked supports included stakeholder and partner involvement; a dedicated coordinator or team; and strong, committed leadership. Highest ranked barriers included difficulty recruiting preceptors and clinical sites; underestimation of the amount of work required to coordinate the LIC; and challenges in providing the needed faculty development. Top recommendations for new LICs included investing in the needs of clinical partners; staffing or assigning a dedicated coordinator early in the development and implementation process; and frequent communication with all stakeholders.

Conclusion: Despite variation among the types of new LICs represented, there was consensus among participants on the importance of key supports, barriers, and recommendations. Knowledge of these factors can help new schools plan and allocate resources during their LIC development process. Participants found the focus group process and follow-up discussions useful and have formed an ongoing workgroup which meets quarterly.

Keywords: LIC; clinical clerkships; longitudinal integrated clerkships; medical education.