An ongoing dialogue on HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases,
January 28th, 2022
Required Learning Modules and How to Make People Learn
Mandatory learning modules were different in the 19th century.
Like thousands of others who work in my organization, I’ve just finished a stultifying annual task — several hours of required online learning modules that must be completed to keep my job.
How much do we look forward to them? Think annual car inspections, or tax returns, and multiply the boredom factor several-fold.
You might not be surprised to hear that the due date is … today.
You also might not be surprised to hear that as part of the process, I aggressively sought out ways to multitask while the videos ran in the background — cleaned my desk, filed papers, did low cognitive demand patient care tasks, repeated some arm strengthening exercises to prevent tennis elbow, checked the latest weather forecast (ugh).
Since the clever folks who make these modules programmed them to stop running unless the video or slideshow is the active window, could I have been the only one who opened the program on a second computer? Doubtful.
In short, these “learning modules” offer a prime example of how difficult it is to make people learn things when they’re in no mood to learn.
Without exception, everyone I know races to the finish, delighted to find their to-do list empty. Even this doc, despite his admirable quest for learning and growth. Find an elective in the catalog! You bet.
https://twitter.com/kkidia/status/1487036908039544833?s=20&t=IYIQhUl6HbTSF7V9-RHTzw
It’s not that the topics in these required modules are unimportant — anything but. Patient confidentiality, racism in the workplace, infection control, employee harassment, managing chemical spills and fires, what to do if there is an armed intruder in the hospital.
Sure we make fun of the fire extinguisher trivia required to pass the fire safety module (“The canister with a thin hose which contains water is a Type A fire extinguisher, used for ordinary combustibles”), or the incredibly obvious statements (“Chemical exposures can be dangerous”). Tornado safety measures will never be as relevant in New England as they are in Oklahoma.
But read that list from the above paragraph again. It’s important stuff!
No doubt organizations must, for their accreditation, demonstrate that their employees are dutifully notified about these issues, explain when and how to get help, and provide a list of resources where a person can go to get more information. Given the extraordinary range of activities and backgrounds in hospital workers, this cannot be an easy task. One size most certainly does not fit all.
So I’m sympathetic about the challenge.
I just think that from a pedagogical perspective, there has to be a better way — a less painful way — to learn the material, one that would allow the hospitals to check this box.
Maybe this owl can come up with something while keeping her egg warm. Lots of thinking time.
She can even use the time to finish her Healthstream modules.
12 Responses to “Required Learning Modules and How to Make People Learn”
Paul E. Sax, MD
Contributing Editor
NEJM Journal Watch
Infectious Diseases
Biography | Disclosures | Summaries
Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.
NEJM Journal Watch — Recent Infectious Disease Articles- How Serious Is Artemisinin Partial Resistance in African Malaria Parasites?
- Observations from ID and Beyond: Who's Going to Get Lenacapavir for HIV Prevention?
- Can We Shorten the Duration of Antibiotic Treatment for Bacteremia?
- Rifampin and Gentamicin for Staphylococcal Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: Strictly Necessary?
- Gauging Risk for Liver Cancer: Hepatitis B Viral Load Might Be a Clue
As irritating as these things are, at least you can do them in your own time while multitasking. We both remember the days when you had to sit in a lecture hall for an hour to complete these requirements. At Hopkins a certain faculty member (who I won’t name) was the appointed or self-appointed “Monitor,” making sure you signed in on time and didn’t sneak out early.
A beloved and recently departed friend, colleague, and mentor, whom you knew well (I won’t say his name to avoid getting him in posthumous trouble with the Monitor) came back to his office after having attended the required “perils of sleep deprivation” lecture, which he’d postponed to the point of severe delinquency. I expressed my condolences, but he said, “Are you kidding? I had a GREAT nap!” Since he was typically more sleep deprived than the average intern, I liked the idea that he was able to catch up on his sleep during the sleep deprivation lecture.
I arranged to be paged at the 15 min mark for any of those required training meetings. If it was interesting enough, I could “triage” it into something I could handle later.
The point of these types of modules is not for the employee to learn. It is for the employer to be able to document that the topics have been taught. That transfers responsibility from the corporation to the individual. Any lawyers in the house?
I agree, “there has to be a better way” and will suggest some avenues the pedagogically challenged authors of these programs could take.
To make improvements first we need data–which should be available in abundance given the universality and long life of these programs. How well does the unmotivated audience do at retaining what is covered? What desired results are obtained–fewer injuries from falls, improved rates of hospital-acquired infections, better response to active shooters?
Finding experts to make improvements in these programs is not difficult: a good place to start would be to hire an elementary school teacher. If the Healthstream approach were applied to a second-grade classroom, you would see kids either zone out or walk out en masse
How do teachers engage kids? They embed the material in an interesting format–puzzles, games. They make the process interactive. They teach in small groups and teams. They focus learning around fun projects–such as a 3-week module on life on the Oregon trail that my 5th grade grandson did last year. They adjust programs to needs of their pupils.
Instead of repeating the same broad-based dull programs each year, we could break it up and focus on a different topic each year in an in-depth and engaging manner. For example, for fire safety we could look at the history of healthcare fires, how the present schema of fire safety was arrived at, what problems remain, coupled with videos of dramatic fires.
More attention should be pain to who is the intended audience. If you make the program inclusive enough to cover ICU nurses and cafeteria workers with the identical material it is bound to come out dull.
Like Dr Sax, most of us want to learn, and will respond favorably to an opportunity to broaden our knowledge in just about any subject as long as it is presented in an engaging format.
When I complain about having to wade through the same topics EVERY YEAR, I am told that the company has no choice, it is a compliance issue. Which leads me to wonder, who decided that millions of workers much go over the same material EVERY YEAR? Why can’t the modules be completed during orientation to a new job and then either never repeated again? I took my drivers license exam at age 16 and have never had to repeat it in the past 50 years. I can think of no greater waste of time than having millions of people mindless repeating modules year after year. Does anyone know who originated this crazy ritual? Has anyone estimated the cost in wasted hours? Someone must be responsible for starting this collective lunacy! What would happened if every physician refused- would society allow 500,000 doctors to be fired during the pandemic because they refused to watch the same module for the 32nd time?
For a starter, the regulatory agencies such as the Joint Commission are requiring annual education on mentioned topics in original post.
Great topic, and thank you for admitting that 90% of us good, hard working and caring doctors do exactly as you said to get through the annual bore fest.
But I love what Dr Berry proposes. The topics are certainly relevant, let’s make them fun. And hire the experts to sort that out. I’d take any of your suggestions above over the several hour compulsory marathon I run twice a year at the two institutions I work at.
Instead of using 2 computers, try using a 2nd screen.
We all suffer through these substitutes for effective learning programs. I have a strong belief that when implementing a new program, we should also implement a process by which to assess its real-world effectiveness. If not effective, or no longer effective, it should be killed or replaced. This might or might not include “required modules.”
And while I am at it. Pilot programs are intended to see if the program can be executed. No attempt should ever be made to use them to determine efficacy or effectiveness – there are way too many biases, and pilot programs are always underpowered.
“There’s got to be a better way!” Stop stop stop! At least I was able to outline a new meningitis lecture while this thing on “Ethics in the Tx State System” ran with the volume off. I don’t want any fancy pedagogy! Next thing, you’ll have us in there doing TBLs on when an employee can gift their boss over $10 (or whatever the number is…that I don’t know because, as I mentioned, volume…).
Anyway, “we don’t need no education!”
I used to work in Tx. State System Ethics? I’m shocked and amazed!
Finding new paths for a better education. Let it all be for the benefit of the patient. Thank you for your effort.