Epperson Madison V, Thorne Ella, Kupfer Robbi A, Thatcher Aaron L, Thorne Marc C
Department of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Greenhills School, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
J Surg Educ. 2022 Sep-Oct;79(5):1253-1258. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.05.011. Epub 2022 Jun 7.
Quality feedback is critical to facilitate better performance and quicker learning. However, faculty may be hesitant to provide quality constructive feedback, especially in written form, due to fear of retaliation. We evaluated the impact of faculty anonymity on the quality of faculty-to-resident feedback.
A retrospective review was undertaken of faculty evaluation of resident performance from 2017 to 2018, when evaluations were identifiable, compared to 2018-2019, when evaluations were anonymous. Evaluations included 27 individual items with Likert type scoring and 2 open-ended questions. Open-ended responses and overall performance were de-identified and scored by 2 reviewers independently using the task, performance gap, action scoring model. Comparisons between groups were performed with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.
Tertiary Care Institution, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI PARTICIPANTS: 415 resident performance evaluations were available for analysis with 251 in the identifiable group and 164 in the anonymous group.
The average composite score for the identifiable group was 105.2 and 103.4 in the anonymous group (p = 0.22). The effect size of the impact on composite score was small (Cohen's d 0.084, 95% CI -0.11-0.28). There was excellent inter-rater reliability. There were no differences between feedback groups for any of the 3 components of task, performance gap, and action model. While average scores for all 3 components were low, action scores were lowest.
Anonymity did not significantly impact faculty evaluations of resident performance. The quality of open-ended feedback on written evaluations was generally poor, especially in identifying actions for continued performance improvement. Additional mechanisms to improve feedback quality should be sought.
质量反馈对于促进更好的表现和更快的学习至关重要。然而，由于担心遭到报复，教员可能不愿提供高质量的建设性反馈，尤其是书面形式的反馈。我们评估了教员匿名对教员给住院医师反馈质量的影响。
对2017年至2018年（评估可识别）和2018年至2019年（评估匿名）期间教员对住院医师表现的评估进行回顾性分析。评估包括27个采用李克特量表评分的单项和2个开放式问题。开放式回答和整体表现进行了去识别处理，并由两名评审员独立使用任务、表现差距、行动评分模型进行评分。采用Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验进行组间比较。
密歇根大学安娜堡分校三级医疗机构
共有415份住院医师表现评估可供分析，其中可识别组251份，匿名组164份。
可识别组的平均综合评分为105.2，匿名组为103.4（p = 0.22）。对综合评分影响的效应量较小（科恩d值为0.084，95%可信区间为-0.11至0.28）。评分者间信度良好。在任务、表现差距和行动模型这三个组成部分中，各反馈组之间均无差异。虽然所有三个组成部分的平均得分都较低，但行动得分最低。
匿名并未显著影响教员对住院医师表现的评估。书面评估中开放式反馈的质量普遍较差，尤其是在确定持续改进表现的行动方面。应寻求其他提高反馈质量的机制。
