July 2008.indd SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY MEDICAL JOURNAL JULY 2008, VOLUME 8, ISSUE 2, P. 149-156 SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY© SUBMITTED - 27TH APRIL 2008 ACCEPTED - 20TH MAY 2008 Medical Education Units History, Functions, and Organisation Nadia M Al-Wardy MOST MEDICAL SCHOOLS HAVE WELL established independent medical educa-tion units or similar bodies. Such units have various titles,1 but the ones in common use are: office, division, department, centre, and unit.2 In this paper, the term ‘medical education unit’ (MEU) will be used to refer to such titles. The development of MEUs has been triggered by several factors such as curriculum reforms, need for faculty training, new methods for student selection, advances in medical informatics, the requirements from quality assurance and accreditation bodies, and education becoming a viable faculty career track. In the UK, in response to the recommendations of To- morrow’s Doctors,3 many such units were established and charged with the responsibility for overseeing staff development. These units took on additional roles that were crucial to introducing changes in the curriculum.4, 5 The functions of MEUs include research, teach- ing, service and career development of staff and the scope of their activities ranges from undergraduate to postgraduate programmes and from uni-professional to multi-professional audiences. The balance of these activities varies according to the mission and scope of the units; however, the right balance is important for their continuity and stability.6 Many MEUs started as administrative units in the medical school’s dean’s office,2 but then slowly evolved into independent academic units or departments. The Medical Education Unit, College of Medicine & Health Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman Email: naiwardi@squ.edu.om R E V I E W وحدات التعليم الطبي اإلداري التنظيم و الوظائف و التأريخ الوردي نادية تَلِفةُ وتَعمل خْ مُ عناوينُ لَها هذه الوحداتِ مثل الطبي. التعليم لتحسني شابهها ما أَو طبيةِ تعليم وحداتَ الطبيّةِ أكثر الكليّات ستْ ص: أَسّ امللخّ اخلدمات وتزويد التعليم إلى إضافة تربوية، بحوث راء إجْ ن يَتضمّ املذكورة الوحدات ــاط نش الكلية. عميد مكتبِ إشراف حتت أَو ــتقل مس ــكل بش إما ــتويات املس في اآلخرينِ الصحةِ محترفي لّ كُ ــمل ليش الطبيةِ الكليّةِ ة مَ دْ خِ ــاطاتِها نش مجالُ وقد يتعدى فني. للموظّ األكادمييِ ــتقبل وتطويرَ املس الطبية. الكليات على إيجابي أثر له أن تأسيسها وحداتِ التعليم الطبي ويرى جناحِ تُساهمُ في عوامل ة دّ عِ توجد بعدها. وما اجلامعية عمان. ، واإلدارة التنظيم ، الطبي الكلمات: التعليم مفتاح ABSTRACT Most medical schools have established a medical education unit (MEU) or similar bodies in response to various reforms in medical education. Such units have a variety of titles and operate either independently or under the office of the dean. Their activi- ties include conducting educational research, teaching and providing service and career development of academic staff. The scope of their activities ranges from serving medical faculty only to all other health professionals at either the undergraduate or postgraduate levels. Several factors contribute to the success of MEUs and their establishment is seen to have a positive effect on their medical school. Keywords: Education, Medical. Organisation and administration; Oman. N A D I A M A L - WA R D Y 150 staff of the unit includes a range of expertise and comes from different professional backgrounds including medical and educational with part-time or full-time commitments. Several sections can exist in the unit to fulfill its mission. Backup and support is important to sustain MEUs. This support can come from the dean and higher ad- ministration. Financial support can come from the medical school, university, government, or external sources. The establishment of MEUs has several positive ef- fects on medical schools. It enhances the quality of medical education7, increases the publication of schol- arly articles as well as the productivity of educational research8, 9, leading to the commitment of universities to their continuation.10 The units continue to provide important benefits to the educational mission of their institution and, by supporting the professional iden- tity of medical education scholars, they are essential to the continued development of medical education as a discipline. This review attempts to document the develop- ment of such units, the need for their establishment, their functions and organisational structure, thus pro- viding useful information for those intending to estab- lish one. W O R L D W I D E D E V E L O P M E N T O F M E D I C A L E D U C A T I O N U N I T S Many medical schools around the world have well established MEUs. However, the process of their es- tablishment has been slow. From 1958, when the first medical education unit was started, until the 1970’s, there were only 72 MEUs worldwide.1 From then on, the number of MEUs steadily increased. In the USA, as of 2001, there were 61 formal MEU.2 Some of these units started as offices of research in medical education11, 12 while others have started as audiovisual units.13 In Canada, the trigger for the es- tablishment of MEUs was the innovative initiative of problem-based learning14 and in Latin America, MEUs began to be established around 196815 as a result of lack of coordination in activities related to teaching and learning. In the UK, several MEUs were set up during the 1970s to support the undergraduate curriculum and to act as a national resource in medical education.1 Several more were established as a result of financial support that was provided for medical schools to ap- point facilitators to help faculty respond to the recom- mendations of Tomorrow’s Doctors. These facilitators, and the offices that supported them, were the precur- sors of many MEUs in Britain.4, 5 Now, all new medical schools in the UK have MEUs to help underpin teach- ing with a strong research base.16 In other countries in Europe, MEUs were established in the universities of Geneva, Bern1, the University of Maastricht17 and the Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.18 The WHO played a leading role in creating a sys- tem of Regional Teacher Training Centres (RTTCs) to provide training to future national leaders to establish national centres in their countries. The creation of such a centre in Iran in the early 1970s had a remark- able impact on the region.11 In South East Asia, RT- TCs were established at the Chulalongkorn University in Thailand and the University of Sri Lanka.11, 19 These played a critical role in the establishment of the first National Teacher Training Centres (NTTCs) in Phil- ippines, Republic of South Korea, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and other countries in the South East region of the World Health Organisation (WHO). In India, however, the withdrawal of funding to these NTTCs led to their withering, but not before fostering the de- velopment of MEUs in other medical colleges.20 In China, the first medical education unit was estab- lished as a medical education research unit in China’s Shanghai First Medical University in October 1978. Its purpose was to evaluate and promote the quality of medical education.7 Later, more research units were established in China’s other medical schools. In South East Asia, many medical schools have a medical edu- cation unit or a similar structure in place. The majority of these MEUs were established during or since 1990.21 In Japan, only 8 MEUs were founded in 1995, but by the year 2000, the number of MEUs reached 20.22 In the African continent, MEUs were established in several medical schools in response to issues such as deteriorating student performance in medical exams,23 and the growing demands of the countries and the re- gion for qualified medical teachers.24, 25 In Australia, the RTTC established by the WHO in Sydney (which is also the Centre for Medical Edu- cation at the University of New South Wales) in the early 1970s, played an important role in creating a critical mass of concerned and informed individu- als and in matching training programmes with the identified needs of a regional constituency.11, 26 Later, curriculum reforms, with the introduction of gradu- M E D I C A L E D U C AT I O N U N I T S 151 ate-entry programmes and new admission criteria, led to the establishment of several MEUs in the 1990s.10 Now, almost all medical schools in Australia have set up similar bodies to lead and support this curriculum reform.16, 27 A survey that was conducted to look at the estab- lishment and role of MEUs in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) medical schools showed that 10 out of 13 medical schools had such units (unpublished data). MEUs exist in several medical colleges in Saudi Ara- bia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and, recently, a medical education unit has been estab- lished in the College of Medicine and Health Sciences at Sultan Qaboos University, Oman. T H E N E E D F O R M E D I C A L E D U C A T I O N U N I T S C UR R I C ULUM C H A N GE Medical curricula around the world are undergoing reform. The introduction of new student selection cri- teria, integration of basic and clinical sciences, empha- sis on relevance, increased attention to personal and professional development, problem-based and self-di- rected learning, the emphasis on information technol- ogy to support learning, community-based initiatives and the introduction of graduate-entry programmes are all major innovations to which medical schools have to respond. As a result, many medical schools have set up these units to lead, support and evaluate curriculum reform, with many being the driving force behind curriculum change.16 A C C R E D I TATI O N R E Q UI R E ME N TS Accreditation and quality assurance bodies are de- manding greater scrutiny of the education process, the number and qualifications of teachers and teaching/ learning and assessment methods. This has resulted in the design of outcome-based curricula,28 audits of teaching, and appraisal activities that are now normal processes in many medical schools around the world. A medical education unit can provide major support for these initiatives and a home base for staff involved in this process.1 In fact, certain accrediting bodies list the existence of a medical education unit in their cri- teria for accrediting new medical schools. TE A C H E R TR A I N I N G The increasing complexity of the curriculum with its new educational strategies, new assessment tools and the increased use of learning technologies, has led to the recognition that all those who teach re- quire some background and training in education. The General Medical Council of the UK requires that training in teaching is provided even at undergradu- ate level.3 Many universities conduct faculty develop- ment programmes for their teachers and make use of in-house, regional and international medical centre programmes, for this purpose.4 In fact, teaching con- stitutes a component, if not a major one, of promo- tion criteria in many medical school.4, 21, 29, 30 Teacher training has proved pivotal in stimulating curricular changes and is becoming compulsory for all new staff members in some medical schools.21 In addition, many schools have encouraged their established staff, who have major teaching responsibilities, to under- take training leading to a recognised teaching certifi- cate or diploma. In one medical school, consultants apply to become clinical teachers and are encouraged to undertake a postgraduate qualification in medical education. Their teaching practice is reviewed as part of their regular appraisal and consistently poor per- formance would result in their teaching duties being withdrawn.31 MEUs can assist in this requirement of teacher training, a function that is provided by many such units around the world. In fact, some of the larger units or- ganise award-bearing medical education programmes up to and including doctoral-level.17, 32, 33 It has been reported that this teacher training had “very much” improved medical education at their schools.34, 35 A DMI N I STR ATI V E N E E D Due recognition is needed for faculty who undertake the responsibility of training staff and who conduct fac- ulty development workshops in their ‘borrowed’ time. MEUs should create a proper administrative structure with appropriate job descriptions and reward struc- tures leading to the recognition of the efforts of staff undertaking these activities on a part-time basis. F U N C T I O N S O F M E D I C A L E D U C A T I O N U N I T S The functions of MEUs vary from institution to insti- tution; their scope of activities can include undergrad- uate and postgraduate education and continuing pro- fessional education. These activities could extend not only to medical professionals but also to other health- care professions such as dentistry, pharmacy, medical technology and nursing. In general, the functions of MEUs span the areas of research, teaching, service, N A D I A M A L - WA R D Y 152 workshops, evaluation, consultancies, and the career development of staff.1, 36 R E SE A R C H An essential mission of MEUs across institutions is to conduct research and provide scientifically sound information that advances and promotes medical education.6 The extent and priority of research in dif- ferent MEUs depends on many identified factors such as access to research expertise, protected time for scholarship, funding (whether internal or exter- nal), the institutional culture of scholarship, educa- tional leadership, the history of medical education innovation, the quality of faculty and the complemen- tary areas of expertise they possess, critical mass of educational scholars, status of the medical education unit, response to accreditation bodies, mentorship, faculty development, access to learners, and growth of opportunities for advanced training in educational scholarship.9, 37-42 The areas of research also vary ac- cording to the mission of the unit and the need of the institution. In the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Maastricht, for example, the initial focus of research was on the evaluation of problem-based learning, but this focus widened to include the areas of student and teacher learning, learning environments, and assess- ment and evaluation of learning and teaching.39 A wide variety of research is undertaken in other places, covering topics considered important to their govern- ments, health system administration, communities and funding bodies.43 The areas include health serv- ices research, public health, workforce and career out- comes of medical courses and their relations to student characteristics, admission and selection procedures, curriculum development, and clinical reasoning and problem solving.44 Based on a survey of 25 members of the Society for Directors of Research in Medical Education (SDRME – an international organisation with primarily North American membership),39 the research areas of focus were (in rank order): assess- ment of competencies, curriculum, student assess- ment approaches, standardised patients, instructional design, computer-based education applications, pa- tient simulations, institutional research, student selec- tion, clinical decision making, medical informatics, faculty careers, patient education, continuing educa- tion, chronic diseases, health economics and disease prevention. MEUs play an important part in creating a culture of research by innovating, developing new approaches to medical education and publishing their findings. Fellows of MEUs are authors of a substantial number of peer reviewed manuscripts.6, 37, 38 Communication concerning research such as running journal clubs, circulating medical education newsletters, and con- ducting medical education rounds45 are also ways used by the units for promoting this culture. TE A C H I N G The major role of the MEU in the teaching aspect of their function is to help equip the teaching staff with the necessary abilities to undertake effectively their roles as medical teachers. Teaching areas vary accord- ing to need. They can range from teaching and learning, medical student assessment and selection, curriculum development and evaluation, course design, research in medical education,1,15 instructional material design, and e-learning.1 Again, based on a survey of 25 mem- bers of the SDRME39 the teaching areas of MEUs were (in rank order): research skills, educational methods, statistics, academic skills, test taking/preparation, computer applications, clinical education, medical humanities, clinical decision making, international medical education, enrichment programmes, basic sciences, patient education, health economics/policy, and disease prevention. Some MEUs in GCC medical schools also took responsibility for running continu- ing medical education (CME) activities, conferences, workshops on evidence-based medicine and running the clinical skills laboratory. Types of educational activities were workshops, seminar series, short courses, individual or augment- ed feedback and site visits. Longitudinal programmes (e.g. fellowships, Masters and PhDs) were also offered by some units. Target audiences were both practising clinicians and basic scientists from either one or more disciplines34 or a mixture of health professionals. A wide range of instructional methods were used such as lectures, small-group discussions, interactive exer- cises, role plays and simulations, films and videotape reviews of performance. 34 SE RV I C E PR OV I SI O N Many MEUs are service providers within an institution. For some, a service responsibility was the main ration- ale for their establishment.13 The service areas include: service on committees and task forces; consultancies to educational providers; curriculum development, planning and administration, for example, assistance M E D I C A L E D U C AT I O N U N I T S 153 in defining objectives and curriculum organisation; assessment and evaluation, for example, curriculum and programme evaluation, test administration and scoring, developing and maintaining examination da- tabanks; educational support services, for example, computer classroom/laboratory administration, com- puter support, standardised patient programme ad- ministration, clinical skills laboratory administration and preparation of teaching material; data analysis and statistical support; undergraduate and graduate student selection and admission to the medical pro- gramme;, coordination of clinical elective placements; mentoring and student counselling and other services such as media production, printing, copying, medical illustrations and graphics production. 1, 15, 39, 46 A C A D E MI C D E V E L O PME N T A N D SUPP O RT An important role of MEUs is to provide an aca- demic home for and nurture the careers of faculty members wanting to focus on educational scholarship and develop as future medical educationists. By ensur- ing that these faculty members are given the necessary exposure to the field, and are allowed to develop their studies and publish research in medical education, MEUs help them to gain academic rewards and recog- nition for their expertise. O R G A N I S A T I O N A L S T R U C T U R E A DMI N I STR ATI V E STRU C T UR E The structure and organisation of an MEU depends on its position within the university’s structure i.e. wheth- er it is within the medical school, within an institute of health sciences, or within the university. The units are usually administrative structures within the medi- cal school dean’s office, but a few are free-standing de- partments. They are headed by persons who hold titles such as head,45 coordinator,47 director, chair, assistant or associate deans.2, 39 These lead persons report to in- dividuals with 7 different administrative titles, again, depending on the position of the unit within the uni- versity. If within the medical school, then the lead per- son reports to the dean or associate dean; if outside the medical school, then he/she reports to vice-chan- cellor, vice-president, or vice-provost.39 SI Z E A N D STA FF PR O FI L E The size of the MEU varies from very small to very large depending on its role in the wider institution. In North America, on average, MEUs employ 5 profes- sional or faculty staff and 3 clerical staff or support staff.6 The degrees held by faculty/professional staff were mostly PhD or EdD while few were MD. Around 68% of heads has a PhD while only 16% has an MD.39 The technical support staff has varied titles: Systems Analyst, Standardized Patient Coordinator, Research Scientist/Statistician, Instructional Technology Man- ager, Information Analyst, and Data Manager.39 The same author reported that the average number of years of experience of professional staff in medical education was seven and their average annual salary (based on 100% FTE) 56,000 U.S. dollars. A mixture of tenure and non-tenure staff with full-time or part- time commitment contribute to the activities of the unit.1, 23, 39, 47 I N TE R N A L O R G A N I SATI O N Different kinds of sections exist within MEUs depend- ing on their size and mission. Examples of these are course administration unit, computer assisted learn- ing unit, clinical skills and simulation unit,46 commu- nity based education unit, ethics unit, staff develop- ment unit, communication skills unit, international programme unit, graduate studies unit, medical hu- manities unit, and research unit.1 FI N A N C I A L SUPP O RT Financial support can come from the university, hos- pital, medical school or government funds.1 In Aus- tralia, for example, grants from the health department enabled the establishment of MEUs in 3 universities.10 However, constraints on funding led the consortium of graduate medical schools in Australia to create dif- ferent resources for their programmes.27 In develop- ing countries, the WHO played a substantial part in setting up MEUs in several medical schools.11, 20, 26 In the North American context the median budget for each medical education unit was $650,000 with 75% of support coming from ‘hard’ university funds. The remainder of support came from research and training grants, services, and contracts with other in- stitutions and government agencies.6 On average, the level of unit activities supported by external funds accounted for approximately 16% of unit finances in 200239 which is in contrast to 25% in 1998.2 N A D I A M A L - WA R D Y 154 O P P O R T U N I T I E S A N D C H A L L E N G E S F O R T H E E S T A B L I S H M E N T A N D C O N T I N U A T I O N O F M E D I C A L E D U C A T I O N U N I T S The calls for reform in medical education created opportunities for the establishment of MEUs and the support came from a variety of sources, one of the key points of their success. Financial support whether it is from the university, hospital, external, or from inter- national programmes, is important at least at the early stages of setting up the unit.1 Other important factors that contribute to the success and sustainability of the units are: MEU leaders able to motivate and provide a role model;48 educational relevance and professional alignment of the activities of the units; diversity of ide- as and research methodologies; access to research ex- pertise; focused and collaborative research; a culture of mutual support and mentorship; a clear faculty de- velopment initiative; access to learners; and protected time for scholarship.37-42 Several challenges are faced when setting up MEU such as lack of full-time dedicated faculty, appropri- ate financial support, and finding the right balance be- tween the research and service functions of the unit. Many units employ part-time faculty, but demands on productivity in their own professions might restrict their participation in the activities of the unit. To en- courage their involvement, appropriate reward struc- tures need to be set up. Appropriate financial support is needed for setting up the unit and a great deal of this comes from ‘hard’ university funds.6 However, at times when institutes are becoming increasingly dependent on research grants there is paucity of funding for medical educa- tion research.40, 49 Finding the right balance between the research and service functions of the medical education unit is important for its continuity. If the unit concentrates on service at the expense of research, it will reduce its innovative capacity and wither. Several units have closed or downsized because the sole responsibility of the unit was service provision.1 On the other hand, if the unit concentrates on research at the expense of service it might come into conflict with the admin- istration of the medical school whose interest lies in solving immediate institutional needs and problems.6 Finding the right point on the research-service con- tinuum is a challenge. The units sometimes become entrapped in service provision because of the urgency of institutional needs. A solution for this would be to highlight to the medical school administration the enhanced reputation that the institute receives by be- ing an innovator in educational research. Members of the medical education unit can also learn from their service activities and so generate scholarship material relevant beyond the home institution. C O N C L U S I O N MEUs have been established in response to several contemporary needs. By providing specialised re- sources for teaching, service and a focus on educa- tional research, they are essential to the continued de- velopment of medical education as a discipline. R E F E R E N C E S 1. Davis M, Karunathilake I, Harden R. AMEE Education Guide no. 28: The development and role of departments of medical education. Med Teach 2005; 27:665–675. 2. Albanese M, Dottl S, Nowacek G. Offices of Research in Medical Education: Accomplishments and Added Value Contributions. Teach Learn Med 2001; 13:258–267. 3. Tomorrow’s Doctors: Recommendations on Under- graduate Medical Education. London: General Medical Council, 1993. 4. Christopher D, Harte K, George C. The implementation of Tomorrow’s Doctors. Med Educ 2002; 36:282-288. 5. Bligh J. Tomorrow’s Doctors: extending the role of pub- lic health medicine in medical education. Med Educ 2002; 36: 206-207. 6. Gruppen L. Creating and sustaining centres for medical education research and development. Med Educ 2008; 42:121-122. 7. Gao T, Shiwaku K, Fukushima T, Isobe A,Yamane Y. Medical education in China for the 21st century. Med Educ 1999; 33:768-773. 8. Irby D, Hodgson C, Muller J. Promoting research in medical education at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Acad Med 2004; 79:981– 984. 9. Elam C. Medical education research at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine. Acad Med 2004; 79:985–989. 10. Prideaux D, Teubner J, Sefton A, Field M, Gordon J, Price D. The consortium of graduate medical schools in Australia: Formal and informal collaboration in medical education. Med Educ 2000; 34:449-454. 11. Miller G. Educating medical teachers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. M E D I C A L E D U C AT I O N U N I T S 155 12. Rosinski E. The society of directors of research in medi- cal education: A brief history. USA: Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education, 1988. 13. Engel C. Teaching services in the medical school. WHO Medical Education Bulletin 1, 2. Geneva: WHO, 1966. 14. Regehr G. Report to Canadian institutes of Health Re- search Committee: research in medical education fund. Ottawa, CA: Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, 2001. 15. Munoz E. Activities and strategy of an office or de- partment of medical education. Educ Med Salud 1976; 10:70-77. 16. Pritchard L. Changing Course. Med Educ 2004; 38: 582- 586 . 17. University of Maastricht, Department of Educational Development & Research. From http://www.educ.uni- maas.nl Accessed April 2008. 18. Binetti P. Medical Education Centres: Strategies and purpose. Clin Ter 1999; 150:359-72. 19. Sanusi R. Medical Education Units. Health Policy Educ 1982; 3:183-191. 20. Supe A, and Burdick W. Challenges and Issues in Medi- cal Education in India. Acad Med 2006; 81:1076-1080. 21. Amin Z, Eng K, Gwee M, Rhoon K, Hoon T. Medical Education in South East Asia: emerging issues, chal- lenges and opportunities. Med Educ 2005; 39:829-832. 22. Onishi H, Yoshida I. Rapid change in Japanese medical education. Med Teach 2004; 26:403-408. 23. Ofoegbu E, Ozumba B. Establishment of an office of medical education: Nigeria. Med Educ 2007; 41:505. 24. Fahal A. Medical education in the Sudan: its strengths and weaknesses. Med Teach 2007; 29:910-914. 25. Suez Canal University-Joint Master Netherlands-Egypt. From www.unimaas.nl/default.asp?template=werkveld. htm&id=DJ6QR26XN5X4754H55O3&taal=nl - 17k Accessed April 2008. 26. Rundle F. The WHO Regional Teacher Training Cen- tre for the Health Sciences, Sydney. Aust Fam Physician 1976; 5:262. 27. Prideaux D, Saunders N, Schofield K, Wing L, Gordon J, Hays R, et al. Country Report: Australia. Med Educ 2001; 35:495-504. 28. Harden R, Crosby J, Davis M. An introduction to out- come-based education Med Teach 1999; 21:7-14. 29. Simpson D, Hafler J, Brown D, Wilkerson L. Documen- tation systems for educators seeking academic promo- tion in US medical schools. Acad Med 2004; 79:783– 790. 30. Simpson D, Fincher R, Hafler J, Irby D, Richards B, Rosenfeld G et al. Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educational scholarship. Med Educ 2007; 41:1002- 1009. 31. Leinster S. Medical education in the real world. Med Educ 2003; 37:397-398. 32. University of Dundee Centre for Medical Education. From http://www.dundee.ac.uk/meded/frames/home. html Accessed April 2008. 33. Monash University Centre for Medical and Health Sci- ences Education. From http://www.med.monash.edu. au/cmhse/ Accessed April 2008. 34. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M et al. A systematic review of faculty devel- opment initiatives designed to improve teaching effec- tiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No.8. Med Teach 2006; 28:497-526. 35. Wilson S, Denison A, McKenzie H. Survey of clinical teaching fellowships. Med Educ 2008; 42:170-175. 36. Gruppen L. Report of the 2004 Member Survey Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education (SDRME) North American Units 2007. From http://www.sdrme. org/ Accessed April 2008 37. Irby D, Cooke M, Lowenstein D, Richards B. The acad- emy movement: a structural approach to reinvigorating the education mission. Acad Med 2004; 79:729-736. 38. Thomas P, Wright S, Kern D. Educational research at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine: A grass- roots Development. Acad Med 2004; 79:975-980. 39. van der Vleuten C, Dolmans D, de Grave W, van Luijk S, Muijtjens A, Scherpbier A et al. Education research at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Maastricht: fos- tering the interrelationship between professional and education practice. Acad Med 2004; 79:990-996. 40. Gruppen L. The Department of Medical Education at the University of Michigan Medical School: a case study in medical education research productivity. Acad Med 2004; 79:997-1002. 41. Hodges B. Advancing health care education and prac- tice through research: the University of Toronto, Don- ald R Wilson Centre for Research in Education. Acad Med 2004; 79:1003-1006. 42. Wolf F, Schaad D, Carline J, and Dohner C. Medical edu- cation research at the University of Washington School Of Medicine: lessons from the past and potential for the future. Acad Med 2004; 79:1007-11. 43. Searle J, Prideaux D. Medical education research: being strategic. Med Educ 2005; 39:544-546. 44. Grover P et al. Activities and trends in offices of re- search in medical education, 1974-1984. Professions Education Researcher Notes 1985; 6:3-6. 45. National University of Singapore Medical Education N A D I A M A L - WA R D Y 156 Unit. From http://www.med.nus.edu.sg/meu/index. shtml Accessed February 2008. 46. Medical Education Department, Flinders University. From http://som.flinders.edu.au/staff/groups/dept- mededuc/default.htm Accessed January 2008. 47. Continuing professional development at the faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences: Role of the medical edu- cation unit. From http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache: OUqqriU2FZIJ:www.calm.unimas.my/insite9/article3. html Accessed April 2008. 48. Bordage G, Foley R, Goldyn S. Skills and attributes of directors of educational programmes. Med Educ 2000; 34:206-210. 49. Wartman S, O’Sullivan, P. The case for a national center for health professions education research. Acad Med 1989; 64:295-299.