BACKGROUND: Attending evaluations are commonly used to evaluate residents. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the quality of written feedback of internal medicine residents. DESIGN: Retrospective. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents and faculty at the Medical College of Wisconsin from 2004 to 2012. MAIN MEASURES: From monthly evaluations of residents by attendings, a randomly selected sample of 500 written comments by attendings were qualitatively coded and rated as high-, moderate-, or low-quality feedback by two independent coders with good inter-rater reliability (kappa: 0.94). Small group exercises with residents and attendings also coded the utterances as high, moderate, or low quality and developed criteria for this categorization. In-service examination scores were correlated with written feedback. KEY RESULTS: There were 228 internal medicine residents who had 6,603 evaluations by 334 attendings. Among 500 randomly selected written comments, there were 2,056 unique utterances: 29% were coded as nonspecific statements, 20% were comments about resident personality, 16% about patient care, 14% interpersonal communication, 7% medical knowledge, 6% professionalism, and 4% each on practice-based learning and systems-based practice. Based on criteria developed by group exercises, the majority of written comments were rated as moderate quality (65%); 22% were rated as high quality and 13% as low quality. Attendings who provided high-quality feedback rated residents significantly lower in all six of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies (p <0.0005 for all), and had a greater range of scores. Negative comments on medical knowledge were associated with lower in-service examination scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most attending written evaluation was of moderate or low quality. Attendings who provided high-quality feedback appeared to be more discriminating, providing significantly lower ratings of residents in all six ACGME core competencies, and across a greater range. Attendings' negative written comments on medical knowledge correlated with lower in-service training scores.
BACKGROUND: Attending evaluations are commonly used to evaluate residents. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the quality of written feedback of internal medicine residents. DESIGN: Retrospective. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents and faculty at the Medical College of Wisconsin from 2004 to 2012. MAIN MEASURES: From monthly evaluations of residents by attendings, a randomly selected sample of 500 written comments by attendings were qualitatively coded and rated as high-, moderate-, or low-quality feedback by two independent coders with good inter-rater reliability (kappa: 0.94). Small group exercises with residents and attendings also coded the utterances as high, moderate, or low quality and developed criteria for this categorization. In-service examination scores were correlated with written feedback. KEY RESULTS: There were 228 internal medicine residents who had 6,603 evaluations by 334 attendings. Among 500 randomly selected written comments, there were 2,056 unique utterances: 29% were coded as nonspecific statements, 20% were comments about resident personality, 16% about patient care, 14% interpersonal communication, 7% medical knowledge, 6% professionalism, and 4% each on practice-based learning and systems-based practice. Based on criteria developed by group exercises, the majority of written comments were rated as moderate quality (65%); 22% were rated as high quality and 13% as low quality. Attendings who provided high-quality feedback rated residents significantly lower in all six of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies (p <0.0005 for all), and had a greater range of scores. Negative comments on medical knowledge were associated with lower in-service examination scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most attending written evaluation was of moderate or low quality. Attendings who provided high-quality feedback appeared to be more discriminating, providing significantly lower ratings of residents in all six ACGME core competencies, and across a greater range. Attendings' negative written comments on medical knowledge correlated with lower in-service training scores.
Authors: Steven J Durning; Louis N Pangaro; Linda L Lawrence; Donna Waechter; John McManigle; Jeffrey L Jackson Journal: Acad Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: David A Davis; Paul E Mazmanian; Michael Fordis; R Van Harrison; Kevin E Thorpe; Laure Perrier Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen M Salerno; Patrick G O'Malley; Louis N Pangaro; Gary A Wheeler; Lisa K Moores; Jeffrey L Jackson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Joceline V Vu; Calista M Harbaugh; Ana C De Roo; Ben E Biesterveld; Paul G Gauger; Justin B Dimick; Gurjit Sandhu Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.891
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
Authors: Ara Tekian; Yoon Soo Park; Sarette Tilton; Patrick F Prunty; Eric Abasolo; Fred Zar; David A Cook Journal: Acad Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 6.893