Faculty development
Build communication practice into faculty development
Last updated: September 2026
Faculty can rehearse corrective feedback, professionalism concerns, bedside teaching, and peer conversations before they lead them in person. Each conversation is scored against the framework named on the case, with the faculty member's own words quoted under every score, to review privately or with a coach.
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.
Professionalism conversations with peers
Address lateness, disengagement, or a colleague performing below expectations directly, 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.
Practice for participants, reporting for programs
Participants get feedback they can use on the next attempt, while programs review agreed individual or cohort views.
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.
Scored against the framework on the case
Each conversation is scored against the framework named on the case, and every score quotes what the faculty member said, so the report shows strengths and a clear focus for the next attempt.
A program view for coaching
Review repeated practice and transcript-linked feedback by participant or cohort, with institution-defined access, so coaches can see strengths and choose the next practice focus.
Private, repeatable practice
Learners can repeat a case in private before sharing the report with a faculty member, coach, or program.
Frequently asked questions
Why would experienced faculty need communication practice?
Faculty are expected to model feedback, professionalism, and teaching conversations. ClinicalSim gives them a private place to rehearse, scores the conversation against the framework named on the case, and quotes their own words under each score, so they can see what worked and what to practice before leading the conversation in person.
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: the measurement gap in end-of-life communication training
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.
What the evidence says about communication training
Candello found a communication factor in 40% of asserted malpractice cases, and Chung's review of 20 training studies rated the evidence very low to low quality. Neither supports an ROI headline. What a program can measure is its own learners, scored against a named framework.
Breaking bad news is a practice problem, not a knowledge problem
A framework can organize a conversation, but learners still need repeated spoken practice with feedback. The evidence shows how little formal training many residents receive and what a program can do about it.