Development of a Train-the-Trainer Quality Improvement Curriculum

Abstract

Introduction: Quality improvement (QI) curricula are required for clinical disciplines at all training levels. Despite this, faculty educators often feel inadequately prepared to perform QI functions and thus lack the skills necessary to teach QI to learners. We aimed to improve faculty QI skills so they could oversee didactic curricula and experiential QI projects.

Methods: We developed a train-the-trainer curriculum for faculty within medicine, nursing, and allied health that was delivered as a 2-hour interactive workshop. Core concepts included QI methodologies, measurement, implementation, and scholarship. Prior to the workshop, attendees completed a baseline knowledge test and a self-assessment of their confidence in teaching QI. Both assessments were repeated 1 month and 6 months postworkshop. Participants also completed a course evaluation.

Results: We report on our experience after two workshops with 23 participants total. Baseline median knowledge test percentage correct was 36%. This increased to 77% at 1 month and remained at 57% at 6 months. Self-assessment ratings of QI teaching skills increased consistently from baseline to 1 month to 6 months, with all respondents reporting feeling some confidence or very confident by the end of the study period. The course overall was rated very good or excellent by 91% of attendees.

Discussion: A focused QI train-the-trainer curriculum can sustainably improve faculty knowledge and self-ratings of QI teaching skills. Participants rated the interactive 2-hour workshop highly. Its materials can be easily adapted across disciplines and clinical departments to increase the number of faculty competent to facilitate didactic and experiential QI training.

Keywords: Curriculum Development; Faculty Development; Interprofessional Education; Quality Improvement/Patient Safety; Train-the-Trainer.

Figure.. Participants’ course evaluation ratings. Immediately after the workshop, participants completed a course evaluation where they rated each item using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent). Course evaluations are shown for 23 participants. Results are reported as raw numbers per rating per item.