Quality In-Training Evaluation Reports-Does Feedback Drive Faculty Performance?

被引:26
作者
Dudek, Nancy L. [1 ]
Marks, Meridith B. [1 ]
Bandiera, Glen [2 ]
White, Jonathan [3 ]
Wood, Timothy J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Fac Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Alberta, Fac Med & Dent, Edmonton, AB, Canada
关键词
RESIDENTS; WORKSHOP;
D O I
10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299394c
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Purpose Clinical faculty often complete in-training evaluation reports (ITERs) poorly. Faculty development (FD) strategies should address this problem. An FD workshop was shown to improve ITER quality, but few physicians attend traditional FD workshops. To reach more faculty, the authors developed an at-home FD program offering participants various types of feedback on their ITER quality based on the workshop content. Program impact is evaluated here. Method Ninety-eight participants from four medical schools, all clinical supervisors, were recruited in 2009-2010; 37 participants completed the study. These were randomized into five groups: a control group and four other groups with different feedback conditions. ITER quality was assessed by two raters using a validated tool: the completed clinical evaluation report rating (CCERR). Participants were given feedback on their ITER quality based on group assignment. Six months later, participants submitted new ITERs. These ITERs were assessed using the CCERR, and feedback was sent to participants on the basis of their group assignment. This process was repeated two more times, ending in 2012. Results CCERR scores from the participants in all feedback groups were collapsed (n=27) and compared with scores from the control group (n = 10). Mean CCERR scores significantly increased over time forthe feedback group but not the controlgroup. Conclusions The results suggest that faculty are able to improve ITER quality following a minimal at-home FD intervention. This also adds to the growing literature that has found success with improving the quality of trainee assessments following rater training.
引用
收藏
页码:1129 / 1134
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   A randomized multicenter trial to improve resident teaching with written feedback [J].
BingYou, RG ;
Greenberg, LW ;
Wiederman, BL ;
Smith, CS .
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN MEDICINE, 1997, 9 (01) :10-13
[2]  
Cohen G.S., 1993, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, V5, P10, DOI [10.1080/10401339309539580, DOI 10.1080/10401339309539580]
[3]  
Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, VSecond
[5]   Effect of Rater Training on Reliability and Accuracy of Mini-CEX Scores: A Randomized, Controlled Trial [J].
Cook, David A. ;
Dupras, Denise M. ;
Beckman, Thomas J. ;
Thomas, Kris G. ;
Pankratz, V. Shane .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 24 (01) :74-79
[6]   Evaluation of a teaching workshop for residents at the University of Saskatchewan: A pilot study [J].
D'Eon, MF .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2004, 79 (08) :791-797
[7]  
Dudek N, 2009, RES MED ED RIME C NO
[8]   Assessing the quality of supervisors' completed clinical evaluation reports [J].
Dudek, Nancy L. ;
Marks, Meridith B. ;
Wood, Timothy J. ;
Lee, A. Curtis .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2008, 42 (08) :816-822
[9]   Quality evaluation reports: Can a faculty development program make a difference? [J].
Dudek, Nancy L. ;
Marks, Meridith B. ;
Wood, Timothy J. ;
Dojeiji, Suzan ;
Bandiera, Glen ;
Hatala, Rose ;
Cooke, Lara ;
Sadownik, Leslie .
MEDICAL TEACHER, 2012, 34 (11) :E725-E731
[10]   Failure to fail: The perspectives of clinical supervisors [J].
Dudek, NL ;
Marks, MB ;
Regehr, G .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2005, 80 (10) :S84-S87