Anonymous versus Open Evaluative Feedback in US Academic Medical Institutions: Pros and Cons.

Abstract

Evaluative feedback and associated processes are critical for a US Academic Medical Institution (AMI) in fulfilling its vital missions of clinical service, teaching, training, mentoring, research, scholarship, community engagement, and innovation. AMIs utilize myriad anonymous (evaluator, receiver, or both) and non-anonymous ("open") evaluative methodologies in these domains in a journey of continuous learning and improvement. Such appraisals enhance systems and processes and provide determinative data in alignment with organizational mission, vision, values, and strategic goals. This literature-based descriptive treatise explores the nuances, benefits, and disadvantages of anonymous versus open feedback in AMIs in the context of augmenting the overall performance of systems and its stakeholders. It further explicates the critical role of the organizational cultural milieu, and its foundational core embedded in trust, meritocracy, transparency, fairness, empathetic and dialogic communication, shared responsibility, and collaborative goal setting. These core elements are critical in nurturing a collective problem-solving mindset in conjunction with key facets of professionalism with resolute support of the AMI's administrative leadership toward embracing open feedback systems.