Month: June 2015
Thank you, Peter
The history of career counseling in our medical school divides nicely into three “eras”. Before 2006, students were informally supported through the efforts of faculty mentors, but there was essentially no structured program or standard approach. The next eight years or so can be rightfully dubbed the “Peter O’Neill Era”. Recruited to the role of Director, Career Counseling in July of that year Peter resolutely went about developing a program of individual counseling and innovative organized group activities that supported hundreds of students through the increasingly complex and stressful process of selecting and engaging a postgraduate residency position. He worked alone for much of that time, until joined by Dr. Kelly Howse about three years ago. As he steps down from that role this year and we enter the “post-Onellian” era of Career Counseling, it’s clear that he has provided our school with a very solid foundation to build upon.
The core of Peter’s approach and our current program is personalized counseling with attention to the needs of each student. That individual approach is enhanced with a series of information and orientation sessions that feature themes as diverse as CV preparation, how to dress and interview for success and how to navigate the CaRMS application process. Over the years, our students have had enviable success in the matching process, a testimony to Peter’s efforts. Kelly Howse has been able to build on the foundations Peter established, and is now leading the development of a national document on Career Counseling standards and best practice, which is rooted in many of the principles and practices Peter established.
I personally feel very grateful for Peter’s presence in our school. As a devoted Queen’s grad with experience in community practice before engaging his current specialty of Obstetrics and Gynecology, he brought a unique blend of personal dedication and practical “real world” perspective to his practice and teaching, as evidenced by numerous teaching recognitions through the years, including the very prestigious Connell Award and the Association of Academic Professionals in Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada (APOG) Educator of the Year Award. Moreover, he has always been willing to contribute and to serve, and I have certainly benefitted from his advice and support over the years. Although he’s moving on to another career role, I know he’ll remain dedicated to our school, and his life’s journey in education is far from complete.
What makes folks like Peter so very valuable to medical schools is really very simple: they truly and deeply care. That caring begins with their approach to the practice of medicine, but extends naturally to their students and their institutions. Great medical schools are built around such people.
Thank you Peter.
Anthony J. Sanfilippo, MD, FRCP(C)
Undergraduate Medical Education
June Curricular Leaders Retreat held: EPAs, Remediation and Feedback, oh my!
After bringing another busy semester to a close, UGME curricular leaders took time to reflect on the past year and take part in workshops and discussion groups on a number of areas of the curriculum at their semi-annual Curricular Leaders Retreat on June 19. The aim of the retreat was to share information and to generate ideas and solutions to address teaching and assessment challenges.
In his end of year report, Associate Dean Anthony Sanfilippo highlighted accomplishments of the past year as well as announced new faculty appointments.
After providing an entertaining and informative review of the process of curriculum renewal that UGME has undergone over the last several years, including the development of the “Red Book” objectives, Dr. Sanfilippo discussed how the emerging use of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) will relate to and refine our existing curriculum and assessment processes.
Dr. Sue Moffatt presented an information session on how the three classroom-based “C” courses relate to both clerkship and the rest of the curriculum.
In a discussion about Service-Learning, led by Dr. Sanfilippo, faculty brainstormed ways additional service-learning opportunities could be created for medical students and others as well as ways they could support and encourage students in these endeavours. The Service Learning Advisory Panel will consider their suggestions and recommendations.
As a follow-up to last year’s popular workshop on remediation strategies, Michelle Gibson, Richard Van Wylick and Renee Fitzpatrick presented “Remediation 2” with additional cases and strategies.
For the afternoon, participants chose between a session on writing narrative feedback or one on making ExamSoft work for you.
Designed in particular for faculty working in clerkship, clinical skills and facilitated small group learning (FSGL), for the workshop on narrative feedback, Cherie Jones and Andrea Winthrop provided concrete examples and solutions to situations faculty routinely encounter when needing to provided constructive feedback to students. This included a discussion of ways in which oral and written feedback differ.
In the ExamSoft workshop, Michelle Gibson, Eleni Katsoulas and Amanda Consack worked with faculty to show how to tag mid-term and final assessments to match to assigned MCC presentations and Red Book objectives as well as coding for author and key word. Using these ExamSoft tools upfront makes it possible to use built-in reports to blueprint assessments, rather than having to do so manually. (For more on ExamSoft, check out the team’s poster from CCME at this link.)
To wrap up the day’s activities, pre-clerkship and clerkship course directors brainstormed with competency leads for ways the milestones identified for these intrinsic roles can be met throughout the curriculum. How to highlight and incorporate patient safety in different courses was also considered.
Documents from the Retreat are available to curricular leaders under “Retreats” on the Faculty Resources Community Page.
Bridging the gap between theory and practice in Medical Education: Entrustable Professional Activities.
Anyone who’s struggled through high school or university language courses will have observed, perhaps with exasperation, how young children learn to speak those languages quite effectively without the benefit of formal instruction. Growing children blissfully bypass linguistic theory and grammatical rules, and simply start speaking the language, employing a combination of imitation and trial-and-error to find what sounds and phrases produce desired effects. In fact, they may not even be aware that any linguistic conventions or grammatical structures exist. In my high school experience, French-speaking classmates had difficulty passing high school French courses because, as our non-Franchophone French teacher explained, the course was about the French language, not about speaking French. This distinction, lost on myself and the other peri-pubescent males of our rural Ontario community, caused many to abandon all hope for the educational system. There was a gap, it seemed, between formal “book learnin’” and real world skills that would allow people to function effectively and earn a living.
Every discipline, occupation or societal role can be regarded as requiring both theoretical underpinnings and practical application.
The theoretical components consist of the relevant knowledge base and a deeper understanding of the principles on which that knowledge base is established. This may involve learning scientific or abstract disciplines that might seem quite removed from the practical application. Such learning usually resides formally within our educational institutions and is recognized through the granting of diplomas or degrees.
Practical application, in contrast, is pragmatic, workplace-based and performance driven. Knowledge acquisition is more directly related intended purposes, and the ultimate goal is mastery of the specific skills, acts or functions understood to be requisite to the role.
The history of medical education is a story of struggle to balance theory and practice. Initially, medical education was purely a workplace, apprenticeship-based experience. Aspiring doctors worked with established practitioners and at some point, usually established by mutual agreement, were deemed ready to practice independently. The emergence of professional societies provided some external scrutiny and certification of competence. It was the rather profound intervention of the Carnegie Foundation and its sponsorship of the Flexner enquiry and subsequent report released in 1911 that moved medical education firmly into the university setting and established the requirement for fundamental education in the scientific foundations of medical practice.
Today, medical schools continue to struggle with establishing the appropriate balance between theory and practice. Educators ponder the degree to which fundamental science should be provided, the methods in which it should be taught, when and how patient-based experiences should be introduced. Students struggle to find “relevance” in their educational experience, particularly in the early years. A degree of mutual trust is essential to the process.
The emergence of “competency- based” education over the past decade or so is a valiant attempt to bridge the theory/practice gap. The “competencies” are based on the “roles” considered essential to (and characteristic of) the effective, practicing physician. In addition to expertise in clinical medicine and its scientific foundations, communication, collaboration, scholarship, advocacy, leadership and professionalism have been widely and rightfully accepted as attributes of the effective practitioner. Utilizing those attributes as a basis for development and design of a medical educational program may seem logical and appealing. However, on closer inspection, this extrapolation makes two key assumptions that are fundamentally flawed and have resulted in considerable challenges to our programs:
The first flawed assumption is that all competencies can (and should) be taught and learned. Many of the competencies relate to personal attributes, values or qualities. Examples drawn from our own competency framework include:
- The graduate is able to identify honesty, integrity, commitment, compassion, respect and altruism
- The graduate demonstrates respect for patient confidentiality, privacy and autonomy
- The graduate demonstrates respect for diversity, regardless of social, cultural or ethnic background
- The graduate demonstrates engagement in effective and shared decision making
Such objectives can be identified, characterized, used for purposes of selection and even required as a behavioural expectation. However, they are, for the most part, inherent characteristics that can’t truly be “taught”. It’s no more reasonable to expect that any individual can be taught to be a doctor than it is to expect than anyone can be taught to be a star athlete. Certainly good education can characterize the key expectations, contextualize their role and refine their application, but they cannot be developed de novo, regardless of good intentions, diligence and excellent teaching methods. Nonetheless, medical education programs devote precious curricular time and resources in attempts to ensure students possess attributes that, many would argue, should be substantially in place on admission.
The second flawed assumption is that all competencies can be reliably assessed. The medical education community has developed impressive expertise in the assessment of knowledge, skills and even complex tasks. However, the assessment of personal qualities such as interpersonal collaboration, compassion and integrity has not progressed much past the “know it when I see it” stage.
All this has led to a strong sense among both teaching faculty and students that there continues to be a “missing link”, essentially a theory/practice gap between the stated objectives of our program, and the fundamental goal of producing graduates able to excel as postgraduate program trainees and as young physicians.
To address these concerns, the medical education community is beginning to embrace an approach originally proposed by Dr. Olle ten Cate (ten Cate O. Entrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Med Educ. 2005: 39(12); 1176, and ten Cate O. Trust, competence and the supervisors role in postrgraduate training. BMJ 2006; 333(7571);748).
“Entrustable Professional Activities” have been defined as units of professional practice. As such, they are tasks or responsibilities that trainees are to be able to perform independently by the time they complete their educational program. Importantly, EPAs are independently executable, observable, and measurable. In short, they go beyond what our students should know and be, and articulate in specific terms the things we expect our graduates to be able to do, and form the criteria by which they can be objectively and reliably assessed. The various competencies are necessary components required in order to achieve that EPA. However, demonstration of ability to perform the EPA, not the components, is the necessary final step to qualification.
To illustrate, let’s consider the simple and familiar example of driving a car, which can be considered a societal EPA. In order to achieve that EPA, candidates must master certain competencies, such as understanding the rules of the road, good vision, trustworthiness. Those attributes must be demonstrated or mastered in order to qualify to drive, but the ultimate “test” is the driving test itself.
An example of what might constitute a EPA for medical education might be the ability to perform a history and physical examination appropriate to patients presenting with certain key clinical presentations. That particular activity requires a number of requisite competencies including, for example:
- An understanding of the structure of the normal human body
- An understanding of structural changes that occur in various disease states
- An understanding of the symptoms and signs expected that are relevant to various presentations
- An understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms of clinical signs and symptoms
- An ability to communicate effectively with patients from various backgrounds
- The ability to maintain patient confidentiality
- The ability to interact effectively and respectfully with patients and their families
- The ability to understand the clinical utility and predictive value of various physical examination findings
- The ability to manage an interview effectively and efficiently
It becomes apparent from this list that medical expert, communicator, professional and scholar competencies are all required in order to carry out this particular, key EPA. They must all be learned and mastered individually, to be sure. However, individual achievement of each component is insufficient unless they “come together” to enable the learner to perform the fully formed professional activity.
Importantly, EPAs can be developed relevant to the fully qualified physician, and then described relevant to various stages of development. They therefore have the potential to unify the medical education continuum from entry to independent practice readiness.
A number of key organizations either have developed, or are in the process of developing EPAs. The American Academy of Medical Colleges sponsored an international consensus panel that produced a particularly attractive set of 13 EPAs currently being piloted at selected sites. The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, at the suggestion of the Undergraduate Deans, has recently established a committee under the leadership of Dr. Claire Touche that is exploring the development of a common set of EPAs that could be utilized by all Canadian medical schools. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, is incorporating EPAs as foundational component of it’s Competency by Design approach to postgraduate and continuing medical education.
In the meantime, our schools are likely to engage EPAs more actively as they endeavor to ensure their curricula are relevant to their students, and reliably address the real needs of postgraduate programs and society.
EPAs are the bridge that will take us from theory to practice.
Anthony J. Sanfilippo, MD, FRCP(C)
Undergraduate Medical Education
New career advisor appointed
Dr. Anthony Sanfilippo, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Medicine has announced that Susan Haley has joined the staff of the UGME Student Affairs office as a career advisor. She will be working with Kelly Howse and Renee Fitzpatrick in UGME’s growing Career Advising group.
An anesthesiologist, Dr. Haley has practiced in Kingston for 16 years. Prior to moving to Kingston, she worked at Mount Sinai at the University of Toronto. While in Toronto, she also worked in the area of chronic pain treatment. Her current work interest is obstetrical anesthesiology.
Since coming to Kingston, Dr. Haley has becoming involved in undergraduate medical education and has really enjoyed working with medical students, she said in an interview.
“When this [position] came up, it seemed to be something I’d be interested in, helping students beginning their path to success.”
She noted that her own career has included a variety of experiences, including being a peer assessor at CPSO and sitting on a number of OMA committees.
“I’d like to share the perspective of medicine that involves doing other things besides practicing medicine on a day-to-day basis,” she added.
For appointments with Dr. Haley or any of the Student Affairs advisors, please contact email@example.com , stop by the Student Affairs office in the Undergraduate Medical Office or call the Learner Wellness Assistant at 613-533-6000 x78451.
Celebration of Teaching explores curricular innovations
The Annual Faculty of Health Sciences Celebration of Teaching was held June 12 to celebrate innovative efforts of teaching, learning and scholarship in the faculty, sponsored by the Office of Health Sciences Education.
This year’s theme was Connecting Curricular Innovations to Health Sciences Competencies. The conference featured an opening panel, a facilitated poster session, a dozen “swap shops” and a keynote speaker to wrap up the day-long event.
The opening panel explored competency frameworks across health sciences disciplines. The panel featured Kathleen Norman (Physical Therapy); Catherine Donnelly (Occupational Therapy); Rosemary Brander (Interprofessional Education and Practice); Cheryl Pulling (Nursing) and moderator Damon Dagnone (Medicine).
The facilitated poster session featured 25 posters in five categories. Posters presented research and other projects by faculty, students and staff members.
For the half-hour swap-shops, presenters discussed a curricular innovation and led a discussion with participants about challenges and successes they had experienced. Topics ranged from how to give, receive and respond to feedback, to using YouTube in your teaching; from structured interprofessional observerships to engaging undergraduate students in research. Participants could attend up to three swap-shop sessions.
The keynote presentation was delivered by J. Damon Dagnone, Faculty Lead for Competency Based Medical Education (CBME) for Postgraduate Medical Education. Dr. Dagnone is also an assistant professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine.
In his presentation, Dr. Dagnone invited attendees to consider three questions:
- How do we extract competency from our everyday healthcare environments?
- How are current practices of CBE implementation (un)realistic?
- How should assessment help drive the agenda?
Dr. Dagnone’s presentation acknowledged both the challenges presented and the necessity for embracing competency-based frameworks and challenging time-based-only paradigms.
Baseball players, Cardiologists, and the art of Decision Making
What do great baseball players and cardiologists have in common? Not much, may be your first reaction. However, as I was preparing some comments on the topic of decision making for our clerkship class recently, I came to recognize some intriguing parallels.
Baseball players come basically in two varieties, pitchers and batters. Pitchers are large, powerful people who stand on a mound of elevated dirt and hurl the ball toward an imaginary area of space 60.5 feet away called the “strike zone”. The strike zone is defined by home plate and, believe it or not, anatomic dimensions of the batter. If the pitcher is able to do so three times, he/she records an “out”, and once sufficient outs are recorded, the game ends. It’s basically that simple. The rest is largely spitting and scratching.
The objective of the batter is to intercept the ball as it travels through the strike zone. To make this challenging, the batter must do so by swinging an implement remarkably ill suited to the purpose called a “bat”, which is a carved wooden stick barely wider than the ball. To make things even more interesting, the bat has a curved surface, which causes the ball to careen in virtually any direction unless very precise contact is achieved. Batters are also big, powerful people. When they get the bat into the right place at the precisely right time and connect with a rapidly moving ball, the result is a graceful, glorious flight through the stadium and into the stands. They are then heroes and the focus of much jubilation and adulation. When they swing and miss, they look rather ridiculous, even comical, and are the target of derision and amusement from the assembled masses. It’s truly all or nothing.
Now let’s do some simple math. An accomplished professional baseball pitcher can throw a baseball in excess of 90 miles per hour. The ball will therefore reach the strike zone 60.5 feet away in about 400 milliseconds, and will actually be in the strike zone and available to the batter for only about 5 msec. Neurologic activation of the various muscle groups required for the batter to even begin to move the bat takes about 200 msec, and then must be moved through the strike zone. All this means that the batter must commit to swing shortly after the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand. In fact, it’s been estimated that the batter must decide and commit to the swing within the first 100 msec of the ball’s flight. If they wait until the ball is closer, it’s far too late to hit the ball. In short, they must make a critical decision with minimal information, and must commit fully to that decision if they’re to have any hope of getting the ball into the field of play. There will always be considerable uncertainly (good pitchers can vary the speed and path of the ball), and they must be prepared to deal with inevitable failure. The greatest hitter of all time was, arguably, Ted Williams, whose lifetime success rate was about 40%. Even very good professional hitters fail 70 or even 80 percent of the time. What makes someone willing to take on such a task? What makes someone able to succeed? Much has been written about vision, reflexes, flexibility, swing speed. I would submit that great batters have two key and indispensible qualities:
- the ability to make and commit completely to rapid, mostly intuitive decisions unsupported by complete information, and
- the ability to deal emotionally and recover from failure.
Pitchers must also make decisions, but can control the pace of those decisions. They take time to consider each pitch, often delaying the game by wandering around the mound, rubbing the ball in a contemplative way, “adjusting equipment” and even conferring with teammates. They therefore have the ability to consider their decision, commit completely to that decision, and, only then, execute the decision. In short, they can become sure of what they wish to do and separate the thinking from the execution, unlike the batter who must do both virtually simultaneously.
So what’s this all have to do with Cardiology? When I began my career, cardiologists all did essentially the same things. Today, there are a number of sub-specialties within the field of Cardiology, but they divide basically into those who are primarily engaged in procedural (“interventional” or “invasive”) work and those who are not. Interventional Cardiology, whether it’s coronary or electrophysiologic applications, certainly requires the acquisition of key technical skills. But I would argue that the defining, key characteristics of these folks are their ability/desire/comfort in making critical decisions “on the fly”, often without full information, and being able to deal with sub-optimal outcomes. Those sub-optimal outcomes are fortunately very rare, unlike our baseball-playing friends, but may have considerably more serious consequences. Successes or “home runs” in the interventional world are really the norm, which is wonderful, but doesn’t change the critical nature of each individual decision. “Non-invasive” cardiologists also make critical, life determining decisions but, like baseball pitchers, have the option of doing so at a more controlled pace, and only after accumulating what they consider to be complete information.
Cardiology is, in fact, a microcosm of modern medical practice in general. Specialties and sub-specialties vary greatly as to procedural mix, how decisions must be made, and likelihood of dealing with adverse outcomes. As our students grapple with decisions about careers, they seek much information about the various specialties and disciplines available to them, but often pay scant attention to their own personal preferences and attributes so critical to career choice and professional satisfaction. Some key questions for medical students as they consider career options:
- How do you prefer to make decisions? Some prefer to gather information, consider alternatives, weigh potential outcomes and come to deliberate decisions, while others are comfortable with (and even prefer) more urgent situations where it’s necessary to make the best choice from the information available at the moment. Disciplines and practice settings differ with respect to the types of decisions that are required or appropriate, and therefore provide opportunities for various personalities. In my experience, students who choose surgical specialties do so early in their medical school experience and seldom deviate. Those engaging Internal Medicine usually don’t come to a final decision until late and only after serious consideration of numerous other options. Hardly surprising.
- Do you prefer continuing relationships with your patients, or situational, acute intervention? Although all medical disciplines are centred on the patient relationship, for many these involve problem-oriented and self-limited encounters. The preference for and and comfort with continuing relationships that are central to specialties such as Family Medicine can’t really be learned or acquired through practice.
- Are you comfortable with the inevitable adverse outcome that can occur despite what appeared to the right decision, appropriately applied? Every physician must learn to deal with these situations, but not all are able easily to move on without being personally affected, or developing self-doubt that may compromise subsequent performance.
These are personal, intrinsic, “hard-wired” qualities that can’t be learned, trained or denied. The key to making effective career decisions is self-awareness, and the way we make decisions is, itself, a key component of that awareness. Medical undergraduate programs are becoming increasingly aware of the need to provide students with the information and counseling they require. Here at Queen’s, we’re fortunate to have an excellent team in Student Affairs, including Drs. Kelly Howse, Susan Haley and Renee Fitzpatrick, who both develop learning events and meet with students individually to assist with career choice.
So, to get things started, are you a pitcher, or a batter?
Anthony J. Sanfilippo, MD, FRCP(C)
Undergraduate Medical Education
Medical grad receives Queen’s University Agnes Benidickson Tricolour Award
One of the highlights at Convocation on May 21 was the admission of one of the Meds Class of 2015 to the Queen’s University Tricolour Society.
Benjamin Frid was admitted to the Society through the Agnes Benidickson Tricolour Award—the highest honour given to a Queen’s student for non-academic, non-athletic activities. Recipients are chosen by their fellow students.
For Frid, it had been a bit of a wait to be inducted into the Tricolour Society: He was actually nominated and accepted for the award in 2012-2013, but it is presented upon graduation.
The award—named after Dr. Agnes Benidickson, Chancellor of Queen’s University from 1980 to 1996—is presented in recognition for valuable and distinguished service of outstanding individuals to the University. According to the Tricolour website, “such service may have been confined to a single field, or it may have taken the form of a significant contribution over a wide range of activities.” For Frid, his contributions definitely spanned a range of activities. Among those contributions included in the citation read at convocation were:
- He founded the Kingston chapter of Making Waves, a student-run organization that provides affordable private swimming lessons for children with disabilities
- He was Aesculapian Society president
- He formed of a wellness committee to address mental health issues for medical students
- He was founder and president of the Health Care Management Interest Group, a team involved with addressing the deficit in financial literacy that many physicians today are burdened with
“Ben’s spirited inclusive, and enthusiastic approach to life has influenced the lives of innumerous students and the greater Kingston community for the better,” the citation said.
Frid’s journey to this award actually began with his first undergraduate degree where he had what he describes as “limited extra-curricular involvement.”
“It left me feeling that I had really missed out on a lot of interesting and important opportunities,” he wrote in an email interview. “I think university is the perfect time to start becoming more involved. You are surrounded by such energetic people and a university that wants to help students do great things, I really think it’s the best time in person’s life to try and make a difference and improve the lives of those around them.”
Frid got more involved at the Telfer School of Business at the University of Ottawa where he started the Ottawa Making Waves chapter, was a teaching assistant and began taking leadership courses. This new habit of involvement continued when he came to Queen’s School of Medicine.
“At Queen’s, I was heavily involved in student government through our class council, our Aesculapian Society, and the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (in addition to lots of other groups and projects), but by far my favourite was Making Waves!”
Frid admits that balancing extra-curricular activities with medical school studies wasn’t always easy. “I had to learn some new skills and become a more organized person,” he said. “Fortunately, Queen’s faculty are very supportive of students who want to be involved,” he added.
“I think extra-curriculars are an important component of mindfulness,” he pointed out. “Just like eating well and exercising regularly, finding consistent positive and rewarding experiences are a key part of managing the heavy workload of medical school.”
“Even though it can create a bit of a time crunch, I think I was a far better medical student for the extra responsibilities I took on.”
“The beginning of medical school should not be the end of your hobbies and passions,” Frid said when asked for advice for the incoming Class of 2019. “Grow them! Pursue what you have loved to do, and take advantage of all the new experiences that will soon present themselves. Your fellow medical students are every bit as passionate as you are, and together you can do incredible things.”
Frid noted that he is “inspired by the people I have had the privilege of working for,” and pointed to one example from the early days of Making Waves in Kingston.
“I remember wondering how long it would take for instructors and their kids to bond, and for us to start seeing evidence of value we were generating for the community,” he said. “While setting up for just the second lesson, I remember watching one of our kids recognizing his instructor in the aquatic centre lobby, his eyes opening wide as could be, and him launching into a full speed sprint with arms outstretched to go hug his instructor he had only met one week before. I knew then that we had happened upon something special and that memory has stayed with me.”
Frid will begin his Family Medicine residency in July here at Queen’s. As he moves on to the post-graduate program, he’s left Making Waves in good hands. “The medical students in the classes of 2017 and 2018 are doing an incredible job of growing Making Waves from where we left off, and are to be commended for their hard work and successes,” he said. “Making Waves Kingston is a Queen’s-wide initiative with key leadership from the Queen’s School of Medicine, and it is thriving under its new leadership.”
According to the Society’s web page, Frid is the first medical student to receive the Tricolour since Ahmed Kayssi (Meds2009) in 2005-2006. Because of this, Frid was “particularly proud to be attracting some attention to the amazing things Queen’s Medical students have been doing year in and year out.”
Frid said he felt very honoured to receive the award and was quick to point out that he had much support along the way: “None of the projects I was involved in were individual, so I feel very grateful to the QMed faculty and students, particularly my classmates in the Class of 2015, that helped those projects be successful.”