Better Together: Development and Implementation of Fellow Group Evaluations of Faculty.

Abstract

Background: High-quality trainee evaluations of faculty are essential for meaningful faculty development and for improving the clinical learning environment. However, concerns about anonymity can limit usefulness of trainee evaluations, particularly in smaller programs, such as subspecialty fellowships.

Objective: To develop and implement a fellow-driven group evaluation process to enhance trainee confidentiality and generate high-quality feedback for pulmonary and critical care medicine faculty.

Methods: A novel process was developed for faculty evaluation and feedback consisting of quarterly, structured, fellow-led group evaluation sessions focused on collecting confidential, behaviorally oriented, actionable feedback for faculty. Upper-year fellow moderators utilized a standard format to structure discussion, generating strengths and areas for growth for each faculty member while explicitly asking for input from fellows with divergent perspectives. Moderators compiled anonymized session notes for the program director, who delivered feedback to individual faculty. After the first six sessions, an electronic survey was distributed to assess fellow perceptions of the group evaluation model.

Results: Thirty-seven faculty members were evaluated in 11 group sessions over 42 months. Fellows rated group-generated feedback as more confidential, more specific, more accurate, more efficient, more actionable, and less biased when compared with individual written evaluations (P < 0.01 for all categories).

Conclusion: The authors successfully developed and implemented a process for fellow-led group evaluation of faculty, designed to facilitate fellow confidentiality and enrich the quality of feedback. Fellows preferred the group evaluation process and perceived group-generated feedback more favorably compared with individual written evaluations.