Faculty Development
Faculty have to model conversations no one trained them for
The platform isn't only for trainees. Attendings, fellows-as-teachers, and clinician educators practice the conversations they're expected to model — giving difficult feedback, navigating professionalism concerns, and teaching at the bedside — with the same rubric-scored simulation. Because confidence in these conversations is often the absence of feedback, not evidence of skill: in one survey, the attendings furthest out from training reported the highest confidence and the least formal preparation.
What faculty practice
The same rubric system that trains residents, turned toward the skills faculty are expected to demonstrate.
Constructive, specific, timely
Deliver corrective feedback to a learner with structure (Pendleton, SBI) and handle defensiveness without dissolving the relationship.
Hard conversations with peers
Address lateness, disengagement, or a colleague performing below expectations — directly, but without damaging the working relationship.
Bedside and small-group
Practice teach-back from the teacher's side, calibrating to the learner's level and protecting time for questions.
One platform, one rubric
The same engine and dashboard that serve every other use case.
On-Demand, Not On-Schedule
Voice-based AI patient encounters available 24/7 from any device. No standardized patient to recruit, no sim center to book, no faculty observer required to practice.
Milestone-Aligned Feedback
Every encounter is rubric-scored and mapped to ACGME ICS Milestones 2.0, with feedback that points to the specific behavior to change rather than a vague “be more empathic.”
A Dashboard That Follows the Learner
Longitudinal scores by subcompetency, learner-by-scenario heatmaps, and flags for anyone trending below benchmark — the same dashboard whether you track one learner or an entire cohort.
Private, Judgment-Free Repetition
A low-stakes environment with no real patients and no social judgment gives learners permission to be imperfect while they build the skill — and makes the human feedback that follows land better.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why would experienced faculty need communication practice?
Because confidence is not evidence of skill — it is largely the absence of feedback. Faculty are expected to model feedback, professionalism, and teaching conversations they were rarely formally trained to lead, and they almost never get objective, structured feedback on how they run them. The platform provides that feedback in a private, low-stakes setting.
Does this use the same system as trainee scenarios?
Yes. Faculty-development scenarios run on the same engine, rubric structure, and dashboard as the trainee-facing programs — so an institution can support learners and the faculty who teach them from one platform.
Related Insights
Six of 105: Why End-of-Life Communication Training Has a Measurement Problem
A systematic review of 105 studies found only 6 with clear training objectives — none sharing the same outcomes. A pediatric intensivist and palliative care physician explains what this means for fellows learning to navigate the hardest conversations in medicine.
Why Communication Training Matters
Communication failures are the leading driver of malpractice claims, yet most clinicians receive minimal structured training. The gap between what's at stake and how we prepare is wider than most realize.
End-of-Life Conversations: Practice Makes Progress
EOL conversations are low-frequency, high-stakes events. Traditional training models cant provide the practice clinicians need.