Name
Are we getting it right? Using the concerns-based adoption model to
evaluate and enhance medical school curriculum implementation
Date & Time
Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 10:00 AM - 10:15 AM
Location Name
Estes A
Speakers
Authors
Peter Boedeker, Baylor College of Medicine
Nancy Moreno, Baylor College of Medicine
Andrew Bergemann, Baylor College of Medicine
Cara Foldes, Baylor College of Medicine
Sandra Haudek, Baylor College of Medicine
Matthew McMillin, Baylor College of Medicine
Nadia Ismail, Baylor College of Medicine
Presentation Topic(s)
Other
Description
PURPOSE
Implementing a new medical school curriculum requires ongoing monitoring,
flexibility to emerging needs, and attention to multiple stakeholder
perspectives. Student feedback is common but reflects only one viewpoint. The
Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) includes capturing faculty concerns
through focus groups and observing implementation using innovation
configurations (ICs), structured tools describing variations in practice.
Using both components provides information regarding fidelity of
implementation and areas needing attention. Guided by CBAM, we developed and
conducted an evaluation of our new undergraduate medical curriculum.
METHODS
Course director focus groups were held in the spring of each academic year
to identify challenges and suggestions for improvement. Notes were reviewed
immediately after each session to identify key issues and recommendations.
To develop ICs, a team defined components and observable variations for
problem-based learning (PBL) and large-group interactive (LGI) sessions.
Reliability was assessed through agreement between independent observers of
the same session. Observation data were aggregated to create snapshots of
implementation for leadership review.
RESULTS
Across two years, 38 course directors from 12 courses participated in focus
groups. Common concerns included technology coordination, need for additional
faculty development in active learning strategies, and communication with
leadership.
The PBL IC was piloted and demonstrated high interrater reliability
(>89% exact agreement). The LGI IC is in development. PBL IC results
indicate that PBL sessions are largely implemented as intended.
CONCLUSION
CBAM provided a practical framework to guide evaluation of curriculum
implementation. In response to findings, leadership has made changes to
address faculty concerns and promote consistent implementation. Developing
ICs was time-intensive, and identifying trained observers remains a
challenge; however, the focus groups were readily implemented and well-received
by faculty. Programs adopting innovative curricula are encouraged to use
CBAM-informed strategies that incorporate faculty experiences alongside
student feedback.
Implementing a new medical school curriculum requires ongoing monitoring,
flexibility to emerging needs, and attention to multiple stakeholder
perspectives. Student feedback is common but reflects only one viewpoint. The
Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) includes capturing faculty concerns
through focus groups and observing implementation using innovation
configurations (ICs), structured tools describing variations in practice.
Using both components provides information regarding fidelity of
implementation and areas needing attention. Guided by CBAM, we developed and
conducted an evaluation of our new undergraduate medical curriculum.
METHODS
Course director focus groups were held in the spring of each academic year
to identify challenges and suggestions for improvement. Notes were reviewed
immediately after each session to identify key issues and recommendations.
To develop ICs, a team defined components and observable variations for
problem-based learning (PBL) and large-group interactive (LGI) sessions.
Reliability was assessed through agreement between independent observers of
the same session. Observation data were aggregated to create snapshots of
implementation for leadership review.
RESULTS
Across two years, 38 course directors from 12 courses participated in focus
groups. Common concerns included technology coordination, need for additional
faculty development in active learning strategies, and communication with
leadership.
The PBL IC was piloted and demonstrated high interrater reliability
(>89% exact agreement). The LGI IC is in development. PBL IC results
indicate that PBL sessions are largely implemented as intended.
CONCLUSION
CBAM provided a practical framework to guide evaluation of curriculum
implementation. In response to findings, leadership has made changes to
address faculty concerns and promote consistent implementation. Developing
ICs was time-intensive, and identifying trained observers remains a
challenge; however, the focus groups were readily implemented and well-received
by faculty. Programs adopting innovative curricula are encouraged to use
CBAM-informed strategies that incorporate faculty experiences alongside
student feedback.