Literature DB >> 22655133

A survey of resident opinions on peer evaluation in a large internal medicine residency program.

Denise M Dupras, Randall S Edson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Starting in the 1960s, studies have suggested that peer evaluation could provide unique insights into the performance of residents in training. However, reports of resident resistance to peer evaluation because of confidentiality issues and the possible impact on their working relationships raised concerns about the acceptability and utility of peer evaluation in graduate medical education. The literature suggests that peers are able to reliably assess communication, interpersonal skills, and professionalism and provide input that may differ from faculty evaluations. This study assessed the attitudes of internal medicine residents 1 year after the implementation of a peer-evaluation system.
METHODS: During the 2005-2006 academic year, we conducted an anonymous survey of the 168 residents in the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Contingency table analysis was used to compare the response patterns of the groups.
RESULTS: The response rate was 61% (103/168 residents) and it did not differ by year of training. Most residents (74/103; 72%) felt that peers could provide valuable feedback. Eighty percent of residents (82/103) felt the feedback was important for their professional development and 84% (86/102) agreed that peers observe behaviors not seen by attending faculty.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that internal medicine residents provide unique assessment of their peers and provide feedback they consider important for their professional development. More importantly, the results support the role of peer evaluation in the assessment of the competencies of professionalism and interpersonal and communication skills.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 22655133      PMCID: PMC3184905          DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-10-00099.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Grad Med Educ        ISSN: 1949-8357


  27 in total

1.  Peer assessment of competence.

Authors:  John J Norcini
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.251

2.  A FACTOR-ANALYTIC STUDY OF VARIOUS CRITERIA OF MEDICAL STUDENT ACCOMPLISHMENT.

Authors:  C F SCHUMACHER
Journal:  J Med Educ       Date:  1964-02

3.  Peer assessment of professional competence.

Authors:  Elaine F Dannefer; Lindsey C Henson; S Beth Bierer; Tana A Grady-Weliky; Sean Meldrum; Anne C Nofziger; Craig Barclay; Ronald M Epstein
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 6.251

4.  Resistance to peer evaluation in an internal medicine residency.

Authors:  G M Van Rosendaal; P A Jennett
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  The state of evaluation in internal medicine residency.

Authors:  Saima I Chaudhry; Eric Holmboe; Brent W Beasley
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Teaching peer review.

Authors:  P Peterson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1973-05-07       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Medical shcool evaluation and internship performance.

Authors:  M Korman; R L Stubblefield
Journal:  J Med Educ       Date:  1971-08

8.  Ratings of surgical residents by self, supervisors and peers.

Authors:  D A Risucci; A J Tortolani; R J Ward
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1989-12

9.  The evaluation of family practice residents: a national survey.

Authors:  R W Chapman
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.756

10.  Resident evaluation: it is, can it, should it be objective?

Authors:  R A Anwar; C Bosk; A G Greenburg
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 2.192

View more
  5 in total

1.  Resident Perceptions of Giving and Receiving Peer-to-Peer Feedback.

Authors:  Maria Syl D de la Cruz; Michael T Kopec; Leslie A Wimsatt
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-06

Review 2.  Using Peer Feedback to Promote Clinical Excellence in Hospital Medicine.

Authors:  Molly A Rosenthal; Bradley A Sharpe; Lawrence A Haber
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Evaluating the SPIKES Model for Improving Peer-to-Peer Feedback Among Internal Medicine Residents: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Emmett A Kistler; Victor Chiappa; Yuchiao Chang; Meridale Baggett
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Perceptions of clinical years' medical students and interns towards assessment methods used in King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah.

Authors:  Nahla Khamis Ibrahim; Budoor Mohammed Al-Sharabi; Rasha Abdullah Al-Asiri; Najat Abdullah Alotaibi; Wejdan Ibrahim Al-Husaini; Hussa Adel Al-Khajah; Reem Mohammad Rakkah; Afnan Mohammed Turkistani
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.088

5.  What are the associations between the quantity of faculty evaluations and residents' perception of quality feedback?

Authors:  Joseph M Blankush; Brijen J Shah; Scott H Barnett; Gaber Badran; Amanda Mercado; Reena Karani; David Muller; I Michael Leitman
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2017-03-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.