Reese Zachary A, Lee Jessica T, Clancy Caitlin
Division of Pulmonology, Allergy, and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and.
ATS Sch. 2023 Jul 27;4(3):354-361. doi: 10.34197/ats-scholar.2023-0023IN. eCollection 2023 Sep.
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.
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.
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.
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 ( < 0.01 for all categories).
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.
对教员进行高质量的学员评估对于有意义的教员发展和改善临床学习环境至关重要。然而，对匿名性的担忧可能会限制学员评估的效用，尤其是在较小的项目中，如亚专科 fellowship。
开发并实施一个由学员主导的小组评估流程，以增强学员的保密性，并为肺科和重症医学教员提供高质量的反馈。
开发了一种用于教员评估和反馈的新流程，包括每季度举行一次、由学员主导的结构化小组评估会议，重点是为教员收集保密的、以行为为导向的、可操作的反馈。高年级学员主持人使用标准格式组织讨论，为每位教员生成优势和成长领域，同时明确征求不同观点学员的意见。主持人将匿名的会议记录汇编给项目主任，由项目主任向每位教员提供反馈。在前六次会议之后，分发了一份电子调查问卷，以评估学员对小组评估模型的看法。
在42个月内的11次小组会议中，对37名教员进行了评估。与个人书面评估相比，学员认为小组生成的反馈更保密、更具体、更准确、更有效、更可操作且偏差更小（所有类别均<0.01）。
作者成功开发并实施了一个由学员主导的教员小组评估流程，旨在促进学员的保密性并提高反馈质量。与个人书面评估相比，学员更喜欢小组评估流程，并对小组生成的反馈评价更高。
