Co-Designing and Evaluating a 1-Day Quality Improvement Workshop for Medical Students and Resident Physicians: Tutorial on Applying Kern's Curriculum Development Framework.

Background: Despite the importance of quality improvement in advancing patient care and safety, there is limited literature describing structured, practical, and co-designed quality improvement education. Objective: This study aimed to (1) describe how learner co-design was operationalized within Kern's 6-step curriculum development framework to develop a quality improvement workshop for medical students and resident physicians, (2) evaluate preworkshop and postworkshop changes in learners' self-reported understanding of and confidence in quality improvement, and (3) explore participants' attitudes toward quality improvement and their perceptions of the workshop's relevance to future practice. Methods: Using Kern's 6-step curriculum development model, informed by Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory, we co-designed a 1-day quality improvement workshop with medical students and resident physicians. To address objective 1, the workshop development process was guided by a literature review and a targeted needs assessment. To address objective 2, we used a mixed methods pre-post educational evaluation design. The workshop incorporated expert-led lectures, small-group project design exercises, and peer presentations addressing audit methodology, ethical considerations, and practical implementation. Preworkshop and postworkshop surveys assessed changes in participants' self-reported understanding of quality improvement concepts, confidence, and attitudes using 10-point Likert scales. Quantitative data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank and Fisher exact tests. Semistructured interviews explored participants' experiences and helped to explain their quantitative responses. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Findings from the literature review and targeted needs assessment identified gaps in practical quality improvement education related to project design, implementation, and ethical considerations, which informed workshop co-design. In total, 31 learners attended the workshop, and 77.4% (24/31) completed preworkshop and postworkshop surveys. There was a significant improvement in participants' understanding of the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle (preworkshop median score 2.0, IQR 1.0-2.8 vs postworkshop median score 4.0, IQR 4.0-5.0; P<.001). Confidence in engaging in quality improvement projects improved significantly (preworkshop median score 4.5, IQR 2.3-7.0 vs postworkshop median score 7.5, IQR 6.3-8.0; P=.004). Self-reported knowledge of additional methodologies, including Six Sigma, Lean, and root cause analysis, also improved significantly. Participants rated the workshop highly (median score 9.5 out of 10). Qualitative findings indicated that participants perceived improved capability in project planning, greater ethical awareness, and stronger motivation to apply learning in clinical practice. These findings reflect self-reported learning experiences rather than objectively verified skill development. Conclusions: Learner co-design was successfully integrated within Kern's curriculum development framework to develop a practical quality improvement workshop informed by identified learner needs. Participation in the workshop was associated with improved self-reported understanding, confidence, and positive perceptions of relevance and usefulness. Future research should examine longer-term outcomes and evaluate adaptation across broader educational settings.