A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations - 26/07/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

Adam D. Shellito ^a, Christian de Virgilio ^a,^b, Amy H. Kaji ^b,^c, Darrel W. Harrington ^a, Jamie M. Robertson ^d, Nicole K. Zern ^e, David A. Spain ^f, Karen J. Dickinson ^g, Douglas S. Smink ^d, Nancy L. Cho ^d, Timothy Donahue ^h, Cary B. Aarons ⁱ, Jukes P. Namm ^j, Farin Amersi ^k, Tiffany N. Tanner ^l, Edgar Shields Frey ^m, Benjamin T. Jarman ⁿ, Brian R. Smith ^o, Jeffrey M. Gauvin ^p, Karen J. Brasel ^q, Edgardo S. Salcedo ^r, Kenric Murayama ^s, V. Prasad Poola ^t, Ebondo Mpinga ^u, Kenji Inaba ^v, Kristine E. Calhoun ^e,^⁎
^a Department of Surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA
^b Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Research, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA
^c Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA
^d Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
^e Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
^f Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
^g Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
^h Department of Surgery, UCLA Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA
ⁱ Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
^j Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA
^k Department of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
^l Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
^m Department of Surgery, Baptist Health System, Birmingham, AL, USA
ⁿ Gunderson Medical Foundation, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, WI, USA
^o Department of Surgery, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA
^p Department of Surgery, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
^q Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
^r Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA
^s Department of Surgery, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
^t Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA
^u Department of Surgery, WellSpan York Hospital, York, PA, USA
^v Department of Surgery, LAC-USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

^∗Corresponding author. University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Surgery 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356410, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.University of Washington School of MedicineDepartment of Surgery 1959 NE Pacific StBox 356410SeattleWA98195USA

Abstract

Background

Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists.

Study design

Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful.

Results

Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest.

Conclusion

There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Graphical abstract

Image 1

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Highlights

•	There is considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments.
•	Three independent clinical education experts performed a blinded assessment of the 22 FEs.
•	Experts assessed adherence to 2018 ACGME common program requirement standards and if the FE was meaningful and actionable.
•	No FE assessed all domains and there were significant differences in FEs effectiveness of assessing ACGME standards.
•	Wide variation between programs in how general surgery FEs were developed, utilized and adhered to the ACGME standards.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Abbreviations : FE, PD, ACGME

Plan

Introduction

Methods

Surgery Educators Workgroup

Results

Discussion

Export

Vol 222 - N° 2

P. 334-340 - août 2021 Retour au numéro

Article précédent

Effect of a behavioral intervention on anxiety and perceived performance of non-technical skills during surgical simulations
Lisa Merriman, Rebecca L. Williams-Karnesky, Renee Pepin, Annette Brooks, Jorge Wernly, Zoë O. Jones, John C. Russell

| Article suivant

The reliability of resident self-evaluation of operative performance
Daniel E. Kendrick, Michael J. Clark, Ilana Fischer, Jordan D. Bohnen, Grace J. Kim, Brian C. George

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

connectez-vous ou créez un compte

A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations - 26/07/21

Abstract

Background

Study design

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Highlights

Plan

Export citations

Fichier

Contenu

Accès rapides

Mon compte

Aide & support

Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL