BACKGROUND: Multisource evaluations of residents offer valuable feedback, yet there is little evidence on the best way to collect these data from a range of health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated nonphysician staff members' ability to assess internal medicine residents' performance and behavior, and explored whether staff members differed in their perceived ability to participate in resident evaluations. METHODS: We distributed an anonymous survey to nurses, medical assistants, and administrative staff at 6 internal medicine residency continuity clinics. Differences between nurses and other staff members' perceived ability to evaluate resident behavior were examined using independent t tests. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 82% (61 of 74). A total of 55 respondents (90%) reported that it was important for them to evaluate residents. Participants reported being able to evaluate professional behaviors very well (62% [36 of 58] on the domain of respect to staff; 61% [36 of 59] on attire; and 54% [32 of 59] on communication). Individuals without a clinical background reported being uncomfortable evaluating medical knowledge (60%; 24 of 40) and judgment (55%; 22 of 40), whereas nurses reported being more comfortable evaluating these competencies. Respondents reported that the biggest barrier to evaluation was limited contact (86%; 48 of 56), and a significant amount of feedback was given verbally rather than on written evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Nonphysician staff members agree it is important to evaluate residents, and they are most comfortable providing feedback on professional behaviors. A significant amount of feedback is provided verbally but not necessarily captured in a formal written evaluation process.
BACKGROUND: Multisource evaluations of residents offer valuable feedback, yet there is little evidence on the best way to collect these data from a range of health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated nonphysician staff members' ability to assess internal medicine residents' performance and behavior, and explored whether staff members differed in their perceived ability to participate in resident evaluations. METHODS: We distributed an anonymous survey to nurses, medical assistants, and administrative staff at 6 internal medicine residency continuity clinics. Differences between nurses and other staff members' perceived ability to evaluate resident behavior were examined using independent t tests. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 82% (61 of 74). A total of 55 respondents (90%) reported that it was important for them to evaluate residents. Participants reported being able to evaluate professional behaviors very well (62% [36 of 58] on the domain of respect to staff; 61% [36 of 59] on attire; and 54% [32 of 59] on communication). Individuals without a clinical background reported being uncomfortable evaluating medical knowledge (60%; 24 of 40) and judgment (55%; 22 of 40), whereas nurses reported being more comfortable evaluating these competencies. Respondents reported that the biggest barrier to evaluation was limited contact (86%; 48 of 56), and a significant amount of feedback was given verbally rather than on written evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Nonphysician staff members agree it is important to evaluate residents, and they are most comfortable providing feedback on professional behaviors. A significant amount of feedback is provided verbally but not necessarily captured in a formal written evaluation process.