PURPOSE: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) supports 8,700 resident positions nationally to enhance quality of care for veterans and to educate physicians. This study sought to establish a yearly quality indicator to identify and follow strengths and opportunities for improvement in VA clinical training programs. METHOD: In March 2001, the VA Learners' Perceptions Survey, a validated 57-item questionnaire, was mailed to 3,338 residents registered at 130 VA facilities. They were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the VA clinical training experience and their satisfaction in four domains: faculty/preceptor, learning, working, and physical environments using a five-point Likert scale. Questionnaires were received from 1,775 residents (53.2%). A full analysis was conducted using 1,436 of these questionnaires, whose respondents were categorized in four training programs: medicine (n = 706), surgery (n = 291), subspecialty (n = 266), and psychiatry (n = 173). RESULTS: On a scale of 0 to 100, residents gave their clinical training experience an average score of 79. Eighty-four percent would have recommended VA training to peers, and 81% would have chosen VA training again. Overall, 87% were satisfied with their faculty/preceptors, 78% with the learning environment, and 67% with the working and physical environments. The survey was sensitive to differences in satisfaction among the trainee groups, with residents in internal medicine (IM) the least satisfied. CONCLUSION: The VA Learners' Perceptions Survey is the first validated survey to address comprehensive satisfaction issues in clinical training. The survey highlights strengths and opportunities for improvement in VA clinical training and is the first step toward improving education.
PURPOSE: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) supports 8,700 resident positions nationally to enhance quality of care for veterans and to educate physicians. This study sought to establish a yearly quality indicator to identify and follow strengths and opportunities for improvement in VA clinical training programs. METHOD: In March 2001, the VA Learners' Perceptions Survey, a validated 57-item questionnaire, was mailed to 3,338 residents registered at 130 VA facilities. They were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the VA clinical training experience and their satisfaction in four domains: faculty/preceptor, learning, working, and physical environments using a five-point Likert scale. Questionnaires were received from 1,775 residents (53.2%). A full analysis was conducted using 1,436 of these questionnaires, whose respondents were categorized in four training programs: medicine (n = 706), surgery (n = 291), subspecialty (n = 266), and psychiatry (n = 173). RESULTS: On a scale of 0 to 100, residents gave their clinical training experience an average score of 79. Eighty-four percent would have recommended VA training to peers, and 81% would have chosen VA training again. Overall, 87% were satisfied with their faculty/preceptors, 78% with the learning environment, and 67% with the working and physical environments. The survey was sensitive to differences in satisfaction among the trainee groups, with residents in internal medicine (IM) the least satisfied. CONCLUSION: The VA Learners' Perceptions Survey is the first validated survey to address comprehensive satisfaction issues in clinical training. The survey highlights strengths and opportunities for improvement in VA clinical training and is the first step toward improving education.
Authors: Maureen D Francis; Eric Warm; Katherine A Julian; Michael Rosenblum; Kris Thomas; Sean Drake; Keri Lyn Gwisdalla; Michael Langan; Christopher Nabors; Anne Pereira; Amy Smith; David Sweet; Andrew Varney; Mark L Francis Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2014-09
Authors: John M Byrne; Barbara K Chang; Stuart C Gilman; Sheri A Keitz; Catherine P Kaminetzky; David C Aron; Sam Baz; Grant W Cannon; Robert A Zeiss; Gloria J Holland; T Michael Kashner Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2013-12
Authors: Maureen D Francis; Kris Thomas; Michael Langan; Amy Smith; Sean Drake; Keri Lyn Gwisdalla; Ronald R Jones; Katherine A Julian; Christopher Nabors; Anne Pereira; Michael Rosenblum; Andrew Varney; Eric Warm; Melchor Ortiz Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2014-06
Authors: Duc Ha; Michael Faulx; Carlos Isada; Michael Kattan; Changhong Yu; Jeff Olender; Craig Nielsen; Andrei Brateanu Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2014-03
Authors: T Michael Kashner; Debbie L Hettler; Robert A Zeiss; David C Aron; David S Bernett; Judy L Brannen; John M Byrne; Grant W Cannon; Barbara K Chang; Mary B Dougherty; Stuart C Gilman; Gloria J Holland; Catherine P Kaminetzky; Annie B Wicker; Sheri A Keitz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Lauren A Peccoralo; Sean Tackett; Lawrence Ward; Alex Federman; Ira Helenius; Colleen Christmas; David C Thomas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mark L Wieland; Andrew J Halvorsen; Rajeev Chaudhry; Darcy A Reed; Furman S McDonald; Kris G Thomas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karina D Torralba; Lawrence K Loo; John M Byrne; Samuel Baz; Grant W Cannon; Sheri A Keitz; Annie B Wicker; Steven S Henley; T Michael Kashner Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2016-12
Authors: David A Deemer; John M Byrne; Lawrence K Loo; David Puder; Karina D Torralba; Sonny C Lee; T Michael Kashner Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2020-12-08