Original Article

Let the Program Evaluation Committee SOAR: Applying the Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results (SOAR) Framework for Program Evaluation

Authors: Bharat Kumar, MD, MME, Alick Feng, MD, Gatr-alnada Gheriani, MD, Ayesha Iftekhar, MD, Ruoning Ni, MD, Shadeh Ghaffari-Rafi, BA, Svjetlana Dolovcak, MD, Patricia Bruffey Thoene, BA, Aaron Knaack, MBA, MS, Melissa L. Swee, MD, MME, Benjamin Davis, MD, PhD, Manish Suneja, MD

Abstract

Objective: Annual program evaluations are important activities of all graduate medical education programs. Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education provides general guidelines, there is substantial scope for educational innovation. Strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results (SOAR) is a strengths-based framework for strategic planning. Because SOAR emphasizes positivity and engagement, it is an appealing framework for evaluating graduate medical education programs. Our objective was to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of SOAR in a program evaluation committee of a fellowship program to generate strategic initiatives.

Methods: The authors used the four steps of SOAR within the program evaluation committee in 2022. Interviewers collected positive stories to understand program strengths. Then, rapid ideation was used to translate strengths into opportunities. These opportunities were condensed and refined for fellows to assess how well they align with aspirations. The ones that aligned best with aspirations were prioritized for implementation. Results were monitored through a scorecard based on specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals every month.

Results: Of 15 divisional members, 11 participated (73.3%). Five major strengths were identified: supportive environment, variety of cases, scheduling flexibility, integration with larger networks, and multidisciplinary collaboration. These 5 yielded 15 opportunities, which were refined and condensed to 9. Four were selected for implementation: scholarly works accountability group, hybrid-flex curriculum, fellowship weekly huddles, and structured electives. Scorecards have shown successful implementation during a 4-month period.

Conclusions: SOAR is an innovative and feasible approach to program evaluation that uses trainee engagement to translate and synergize existing program strengths into actionable program improvement.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Cole ML, Stavros JM, Cox J, et al. Measuring strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results: psychometric properties of the 12-Item SOAR scale. Front Psychol 2022;13:854406.
 
2. Stavros JM, Hinrichs G. The Thin Book of SOAR: Building Strengths-Based Strategy. Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishing Company; 2009.
 
3. Glasgow JL. An Appreciative Inquiry Case Study: Recognizing the Positive Core of Teachers in a Low SES Elementary School That Met Standard of Excellence [dissertation]. Wichita, KS: Wichita State University; 2008.
 
4. Swafford SW. Applied Experiences of the SOAR Framework by Association Management and Foundation Executives[dissertation]. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University; 2013.
 
5. McKenna C, Daykin J, Mohr BJ, et al. Strategic planning with appreciative inquiry: unleashing the positive potential to Soar. https://www.nami.org/NAMI/media/NAMInet/Ops-Gov/Strategic-Planning-with-Appreciative-Inquiry_SOAR.pdf. Published 2007. Accessed July 11, 2023.
 
6. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. SWOT analysis guide for programs and institutions. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/PDFs/SelfStudy/SS_SWOTGuide.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed May 12, 2023.
 
7. Hamilton AB, Finley EP. Qualitative methods in implementation research: an introduction. Psychiatry Res 2019;280:112516.
 
8. Taylor B, Henshall C, Kenyon S, et al. Can rapid approaches to qualitative analysis deliver timely, valid findings to clinical leaders? A mixed methods study comparing rapid and thematic analysis. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019993.
 
9. Hamilton AB. et al. www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for_researchers/cyber_ seminars/archives/video_archive.cfm?SessionID=780. Published 2013. Accessed February 28, 2023.
 
10. Hamer MK, Alasmar A, Kwan BM, Wynia MK, Ginde AA, DeCamp MW. Referrals, access, and equity of monoclonal antibodies for outpatient COVID19: a qualitative study of clinician perspectives. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022; 101:e32191.
 
11. Lewinski AA, Crowley MJ, Miller C, et al. Applied rapid qualitative analysis to develop a contextually appropriate intervention and increase the likelihood of uptake. Med Care 2021;59(suppl 3):S242-S251.
 
12. Walker M 3rd, Churchwell AL. Clinical immersion and biomedical engineering design education: “engineering grand rounds.” Cardiovasc Eng Technol 2016;7:1-6.
 
13. Wadsworth B, Felton F, Linus R. SOARing into strategic planning: engaging nurses to achieve significant outcomes. Nurs Adm Q 2016;40:299-306.
 
14. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:267-277.