BACKGROUND: Handoffs among post-graduate year 1 (PGY1) trainees occur with high frequency. Peer assessment of handoff competence would add a new perspective on how well the handoff information helped them to provide optimal patient care. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to test the feasibility of the approach of an instrument for peer assessment of handoffs by meeting criteria of being able to use technology to capture evaluations in real time, exhibiting strong psychometric properties, and having high PGY1 satisfaction scores. DESIGN: An iPad® application was built for a seven-item handoff instrument. Over a two-month period, post-call PGY1s completed assessments of three co-PGY1s from whom they received handoffs the prior evening. PARTICIPANTS: Internal Medicine PGY1s at the University of Pennsylvania. MAIN MEASURES: ANOVA was used to explore interperson score differences (validity). Generalizability analyses provided estimates of score precision (reproducibility). PGY1s completed satisfaction surveys about the process. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-two PGY1s (100 %) participated in the study. 59 % of the targeted evaluations were completed. The major limitations were network connectivity and inability to find the post-call trainee. PGY1 scores on the single item of "overall competency" ranged from 4 to 9 with a mean of 7.31 (SD 1.09). Generalizability coefficients approached 0.60 for 10 evaluations per PGY1 for a single rotation and 12 evaluations per PGY1 across multiple rotations. The majority of PGY1s believed that they could adequately assess handoff competence and that the peer assessment process was valuable (70 and 77 %, respectively). CONCLUSION: Psychometric properties of an instrument for peer assessment of handoffs are encouraging. Obtaining 10 or 12 evaluations per PGY1 allowed for reliable assessment of handoff skills. Peer evaluations of handoffs using mobile technology were feasible, and were well received by PGY1s.
BACKGROUND: Handoffs among post-graduate year 1 (PGY1) trainees occur with high frequency. Peer assessment of handoff competence would add a new perspective on how well the handoff information helped them to provide optimal patient care. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to test the feasibility of the approach of an instrument for peer assessment of handoffs by meeting criteria of being able to use technology to capture evaluations in real time, exhibiting strong psychometric properties, and having high PGY1 satisfaction scores. DESIGN: An iPad® application was built for a seven-item handoff instrument. Over a two-month period, post-call PGY1s completed assessments of three co-PGY1s from whom they received handoffs the prior evening. PARTICIPANTS: Internal Medicine PGY1s at the University of Pennsylvania. MAIN MEASURES: ANOVA was used to explore interperson score differences (validity). Generalizability analyses provided estimates of score precision (reproducibility). PGY1s completed satisfaction surveys about the process. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-two PGY1s (100 %) participated in the study. 59 % of the targeted evaluations were completed. The major limitations were network connectivity and inability to find the post-call trainee. PGY1 scores on the single item of "overall competency" ranged from 4 to 9 with a mean of 7.31 (SD 1.09). Generalizability coefficients approached 0.60 for 10 evaluations per PGY1 for a single rotation and 12 evaluations per PGY1 across multiple rotations. The majority of PGY1s believed that they could adequately assess handoff competence and that the peer assessment process was valuable (70 and 77 %, respectively). CONCLUSION: Psychometric properties of an instrument for peer assessment of handoffs are encouraging. Obtaining 10 or 12 evaluations per PGY1 allowed for reliable assessment of handoff skills. Peer evaluations of handoffs using mobile technology were feasible, and were well received by PGY1s.
Authors: Clinton D Kemp; Jonathan M Bath; Jonathan Berger; Aaron Bergsman; Trevor Ellison; Katherine Emery; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Helen G Hui-Chou; Skye C Mayo; Oscar K Serrano; Sachin Shridharani; Kashif Zuberi; Pamela A Lipsett; Julie A Freischlag Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2008-10
Authors: Jeanne M Farnan; J A M Paro; R M Rodriguez; S T Reddy; L I Horwitz; J K Johnson; V M Arora Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lee Ann Riesenberg; Jessica Leitzsch; Jaime L Massucci; Joseph Jaeger; Joel C Rosenfeld; Carl Patow; Jamie S Padmore; Kelly P Karpovich Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Subha L Airan-Javia; Jennifer R Kogan; Megan Smith; Jennifer Lapin; Judy A Shea; C Jessica Dine; Koto Ishida; Jennifer S Myers Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2012-06