Teaching record
Teaching log: a worked example
Scores alone are not a teaching record. This page shows one complete record for Module 1 — what the platform captures automatically, the faculty sign-off that gates on it, and the observation narrative a faculty member adds — so a program director can see exactly what evidence a completed module produces.
Record header demonstration
| Program | Test Residency Program |
|---|---|
| Resident | Sample Resident (test account) |
| Faculty of record | Sample Faculty (test account) — Emergency rotation |
| Module | Module 1 — Legal Statuses in the NY ED |
| Record dates | All activity October 19, 2026 |
What the platform captured
Recorded automatically by the module player and the dashboards — no one typed any of this:
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Pre-test (17 items, before Lesson 1) | 11/17 |
| Post-test (17 items, unlocked after Lesson 8) | 15/17 |
| Score change | +4 |
| Lessons completed | 8 of 8, each with its own completion timestamp |
| Sign-off | “Proficient in applying” — Sample Faculty, October 19, 2026, 7:40 AM ET |
How to read the +4 score change. This resident entered at 11 of 17. The pre-test misses were the rules an entering resident most often has not met yet: who is disqualified from certifying a §9.27, when a §9.45 arrival must be released, that involuntary admission by itself never authorizes medication, what an AOT order does and does not do, and the reach of the SAFE Act. She finished at 15 of 17, still missing the 16-to-18-year-old’s own voluntary application and the AOT detention question in its applied form. The record was produced on the current 17-item tests (the October 2026 revision); the dashboard delta is a descriptive score change on blueprint-matched forms, and a score change is a claim about the items sampled, nothing wider — which is why the sign-off control does not exist until the post-test is done, and why the record’s weight sits in the combination: the delta, and the observation below.
Faculty observation note sample narrative
A structured observation form is in development (see “What comes next” below); until it lands, this is the exemplar of the note the faculty member writes and the program keeps alongside the platform data. The encounter described is a teaching encounter, not a real patient’s record.
Setting. Emergency department, observed during a shift after the resident completed Module 1. A patient had been brought in by police and the team needed an admission decision.
What I observed. The resident started from the arrival paper, not the diagnosis: she named the §9.41 transport for what it is — a door paper that by itself retains no one — and then worked the §9.39 three-element standard in order: mental illness, immediate hospital-level care appropriate, and likely serious harm. She stated the confirmation clock unprompted — another psychiatric-staff physician must confirm within 48 hours or the paper lapses — and she explained the status to the patient in plain language, including who gets notified under §9.39(a): the patient, MHLS, and up to three people the patient designates.
Specific feedback. Strength: the three-element check was done as a checklist, in order, before any paperwork — withholding the power when an element is missing is the judgment this module is really training. Growth point: her first reach was for the §9.27 packet; §9.27 is the two-physician certification route, built for a planned involuntary admission, while the emergency in front of her was §9.39’s one-physician certificate with its 48-hour confirmation safeguard. She corrected the choice herself once she named which clock each paper starts. Trap avoided on the second pass: she initially said “notify the nearest relative” — under §9.39 there is no nearest-relative provision; that is §9.29, and it belongs to §9.27 admissions.
Follow-up plan. On the next two ED shifts, the resident leads the status explanation and notice list for every admission she writes, with me observing; I re-check the §9.39 vs. §9.27 first-reach on the next emergency admission specifically. If the door-paper reasoning and the notice list are clean on both, this record closes and goes to her CCC file as the Module 1 observed-practice evidence.
Milestones this observation speaks to: PC1 Psychiatric Evaluation (risk assessment in its legal form); PC3 Treatment Planning and Management; PROF1 Professional Behavior and Ethical Principles; ICS1 Patient- and Family-Centered Communication; SBP2 System Navigation for Patient-Centered Care. The CCC’s ratings remain the committee’s.
What the platform captures / what the faculty adds / what comes next
The platform captures automatically
- Enrollment: resident ↔ program ↔ rotation, and which faculty cover which rotations.
- Pre-test and post-test scores and the score change, per resident per module.
- A completion timestamp for every lesson — the same data behind the PD dashboard’s Didactic engagement view.
- The sign-off itself: faculty identity, module, and timestamp — gated so it cannot be recorded before the post-test exists.
- PD-facing rollups of all of the above, with CSV export.
The faculty member adds
- The observed encounter: what the resident actually did with a real presentation.
- Specific feedback tied to named concepts — the §9.27 first-reach above is invisible to every score on this page.
- The follow-up plan and its re-check: what happens next, who observes, and what closes the loop.
What comes next
- A structured observation & feedback form, in the platform. In development: faculty will record the observed encounter, a proficiency rating, and the follow-up plan with its re-check date — stored with the resident’s record and exportable for the CCC, instead of a narrative kept separately.
- A graduated sign-off. The sign-off gains a proficiency rating alongside today’s confirmation, so partial proficiency is recorded and tracked through to its follow-up.
- Feedback the resident can see. Faculty feedback will appear on the resident’s own dashboard next to their scores, closing the loop instead of living in a separate file.
ACGME does not review, endorse, or certify this curriculum, its Milestone mapping, or this record format. Milestone names are ACGME’s framework language; the mapping is the curriculum’s own.