Lauren M Anderson, Kathleen Rowland, Deborah Edberg, Katherine M Wright, Yoon Soo Park, Ara Tekian
{"title":"An Analysis of Written and Numeric Scores in End-of-Rotation Forms from Three Residency Programs.","authors":"Lauren M Anderson, Kathleen Rowland, Deborah Edberg, Katherine M Wright, Yoon Soo Park, Ara Tekian","doi":"10.5334/pme.41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>End-of-Rotation Forms (EORFs) assess resident progress in graduate medical education and are a major component of Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) discussion. Single-institution studies suggest EORFs can detect deficiencies, but both grades and comments skew positive. In this study, we sought to determine whether the EORFs from three programs, including multiple specialties and institutions, produced useful information for residents, program directors, and CCCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Evaluations from three programs were included (Program 1, Institution A, Internal Medicine: n = 38; Program 2, Institution A, Anesthesia: n = 9; Program 3, Institution B, Anesthesia: n = 11). Two independent researchers coded each written comment for relevance (specificity and actionability) and orientation (praise or critical) using a standardized rubric. Numeric scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>4869 evaluations were collected from the programs. Of the 77,434 discrete numeric scores, 691 (0.89%) were considered \"below expected level.\" 71.2% (2683/3767) of the total written comments were scored as irrelevant, while 3217 (85.4%) of total comments were scored positive and 550 (14.6%) were critical. When combined, 63.2% (n = 2379) of comments were scored positive and irrelevant while 6.5% (n = 246) were scored critical and relevant.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong><1% of comments indicated below average performance; >70% of comments scored irrelevant. Critical, relevant comments were least frequently observed, consistent across all 3 programs. The low rate of constructive feedback and the high rate of irrelevant comments are inadequate for a CCC to make informed decisions. The consistency of these findings across programs, specialties, and institutions suggests both local and systemic changes should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"12 1","pages":"497-506"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624145/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.41","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: End-of-Rotation Forms (EORFs) assess resident progress in graduate medical education and are a major component of Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) discussion. Single-institution studies suggest EORFs can detect deficiencies, but both grades and comments skew positive. In this study, we sought to determine whether the EORFs from three programs, including multiple specialties and institutions, produced useful information for residents, program directors, and CCCs.
Methods: Evaluations from three programs were included (Program 1, Institution A, Internal Medicine: n = 38; Program 2, Institution A, Anesthesia: n = 9; Program 3, Institution B, Anesthesia: n = 11). Two independent researchers coded each written comment for relevance (specificity and actionability) and orientation (praise or critical) using a standardized rubric. Numeric scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: 4869 evaluations were collected from the programs. Of the 77,434 discrete numeric scores, 691 (0.89%) were considered "below expected level." 71.2% (2683/3767) of the total written comments were scored as irrelevant, while 3217 (85.4%) of total comments were scored positive and 550 (14.6%) were critical. When combined, 63.2% (n = 2379) of comments were scored positive and irrelevant while 6.5% (n = 246) were scored critical and relevant.
Discussion: <1% of comments indicated below average performance; >70% of comments scored irrelevant. Critical, relevant comments were least frequently observed, consistent across all 3 programs. The low rate of constructive feedback and the high rate of irrelevant comments are inadequate for a CCC to make informed decisions. The consistency of these findings across programs, specialties, and institutions suggests both local and systemic changes should be considered.
期刊介绍：
Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices.
Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO).
Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
