Session Design Submission Review

No

Yes

LCME Standard 3.5 mandates that medical schools monitor the learning environment (LE) across all clerkships, yet the processes for doing so vary widely. Many surgery clerkship directors report significant challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of their LE review processes and aligning them with stakeholder priorities. While many have proposed intervention strategies to deal with mistreatment, they lack dynamic specificity at the institutional level and often neglect perspectives of a variety of stakeholders. This workshop addresses that gap by creating a space for structured dialogue around what barriers or facilitators exist in the learning environment review processes.

Participants will enumerate processes, resources, challenges, and cultural issues that affect the undergraduate surgical learning environment. 

Through real-time data collection, analysis, interactive group work, and guided discussion, attendees will engage in informational exchange, building on their strengths as experts in their own institutions. The goal is to use these insights to build community capacity, inform action steps, and guide future solutions to deal with this difficult challenge. 

Grounded in Thomas et al.’s Six-Step Approach to Curriculum Development (Thomas PA, Kern DE, Hughes MT, Tackett SA, Chen BY (2022). Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six-Step Approach. Johns Hopkins University Press), this session focuses specifically on the “targeted needs assessment” step. Participants will be able to identify discrepancies between current and ideal LE review practices. 

Alignment with ASE criteria: 

• Merit & Originality: Employs an evidence-based curricular framework (Thomas et al., 2022) to clerkship-level LE reviews, focusing specifically on the targeted needs assessment step to equip Clerkship Directors, Coordinators, faculty, trainees, and students to review the learning environment.
• Innovation: Translates accreditation compliance (LCME 3.5) into actionable peer-designed assessment tools through a structured gap analysis.
• Engagement: Emphasizes group brainstorming, real-time data collection and visualization, and collaborative gap mapping.
• Relevance: Directly supports ASE members charged with LE oversight, addressing burnout, accountability, and continuous quality improvement in surgical education.

90-minute workshop

Yes

Yes

Articulate the LCME’s standard elements of LE reviews

Assess stakeholder priorities in LE reviews

Conduct collaborative gap analysis comparing current practices against stakeholder priorities