Background Clinical supervisors often do not fail students and residents even though they have judged their performance to be unsatisfactory. This study explored the factors identified by supervisors that affect their willingness to report poor clinical performance when completing In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs). Method Semistructured interviews with 21 clinical supervisors at the University of Ottawa were conducted and qualitatively analyzed. Results Participants identified four major areas of the evaluation process that act as barriers to reporting a trainee who has performed poorly: (1) lack documentation, (2) lack of knowledge of what to specifically document, (3) anticipating an appeal process and (4) lack of remediation options. Conclusions The study provides insight as to why supervisors fail to fail the poorly performing student and resident. It also offers suggestions of how to support supervisors, increasing the likelihood that they will provide a valid ITER when faced with an underachieving trainee.
