Andrea Wendling1, Lisa Hoekstra. 1. Grand Rapids Family Practice Residency Program, Michigan State University, USA. awendling@pol.net
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We designed an interactive peer review process for our inpatient family practice residents using a faculty-facilitated group format. This paper describes and evaluates the method. METHODS: During inpatient rotations, first-year residents evaluate second- and third-year residents, second-year residents evaluate first- and third-year residents, and third-year residents evaluate first- and second-year residents. Evaluations are conducted in discussion format, led by a faculty facilitator. Results are shared with the resident being evaluated. We surveyed residents and faculty regarding the usefulness of this review method and their comfort with the process using a 15-question survey. RESULTS: A total of 90% of residents and 100% of faculty responded to the survey; 82% of residents and 100% of faculty felt that the peer-review process was useful. All faculty felt that peer comments correlated well with their own impressions of resident performance. Only 4% of residents felt uncomfortable knowing that peers were evaluating their performance, and 93% of residents and 100% of faculty felt that the peer-review process had supported the team environment. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive peer review is an excellent tool to obtain timely, specific, and useful information regarding resident performance and has been well accepted in our program.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We designed an interactive peer review process for our inpatient family practice residents using a faculty-facilitated group format. This paper describes and evaluates the method. METHODS: During inpatient rotations, first-year residents evaluate second- and third-year residents, second-year residents evaluate first- and third-year residents, and third-year residents evaluate first- and second-year residents. Evaluations are conducted in discussion format, led by a faculty facilitator. Results are shared with the resident being evaluated. We surveyed residents and faculty regarding the usefulness of this review method and their comfort with the process using a 15-question survey. RESULTS: A total of 90% of residents and 100% of faculty responded to the survey; 82% of residents and 100% of faculty felt that the peer-review process was useful. All faculty felt that peer comments correlated well with their own impressions of resident performance. Only 4% of residents felt uncomfortable knowing that peers were evaluating their performance, and 93% of residents and 100% of faculty felt that the peer-review process had supported the team environment. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive peer review is an excellent tool to obtain timely, specific, and useful information regarding resident performance and has been well accepted in our program.