Lisa N Conforti1, Kathryn M Ross, Eric S Holmboe, Jennifer R Kogan. 1. L.N. Conforti is research associate for milestones evaluation, Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois. At the time this study was conducted, she was research associate for academic programs, American Board of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. K.M. Ross is research associate, American Board of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. E.S. Holmboe is senior vice president for milestones development and evaluation, Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois. At the time this study was conducted, he was chief medical officer and senior vice president, American Board of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. J.R. Kogan is associate professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore faculty's experience participating in a standardized patient (SP) assessment where they were observed and assessed and then received feedback about their own clinical skills as part of a rater training faculty development program on direct observation. METHOD: In 2012, 45 general internist teaching faculty from 30 residency programs participated in an eight-station SP assessment with cases covering common clinical scenarios. Twenty-one participants (47%) received verbal feedback from SPs and a performance-based score report. All participants reflected on the experience through an independent written exercise, one-on-one interviews, and a focus group discussion. Grounded theory was used to analyze all three reflections. RESULTS: Eleven participants (24%) previously completed an SP assessment post training. Most found the SP assessment valuable and experienced emotions that increased their empathy for learners' experiences being observed, being assessed, and receiving nonspecific feedback. Participants receiving verbal feedback from SPs described different themes around personal improvement plans compared with the nonfeedback group. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty experience many of the same emotions as trainees during SP encounters and view SP assessment as a valuable mechanism to improve their own clinical skills and assessments of trainees. SP assessments may be one approach to provide faculty feedback about core clinical skills needed in their own patient care as well as what they are expected to teach trainees. Although actual changes in participants' clinical or assessor skills were not measured (more research is merited), findings hint at a "dual benefit" from incorporating SP assessment into a faculty development workshop about assessment.
PURPOSE: To explore faculty's experience participating in a standardized patient (SP) assessment where they were observed and assessed and then received feedback about their own clinical skills as part of a rater training faculty development program on direct observation. METHOD: In 2012, 45 general internist teaching faculty from 30 residency programs participated in an eight-station SP assessment with cases covering common clinical scenarios. Twenty-one participants (47%) received verbal feedback from SPs and a performance-based score report. All participants reflected on the experience through an independent written exercise, one-on-one interviews, and a focus group discussion. Grounded theory was used to analyze all three reflections. RESULTS: Eleven participants (24%) previously completed an SP assessment post training. Most found the SP assessment valuable and experienced emotions that increased their empathy for learners' experiences being observed, being assessed, and receiving nonspecific feedback. Participants receiving verbal feedback from SPs described different themes around personal improvement plans compared with the nonfeedback group. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty experience many of the same emotions as trainees during SP encounters and view SP assessment as a valuable mechanism to improve their own clinical skills and assessments of trainees. SP assessments may be one approach to provide faculty feedback about core clinical skills needed in their own patient care as well as what they are expected to teach trainees. Although actual changes in participants' clinical or assessor skills were not measured (more research is merited), findings hint at a "dual benefit" from incorporating SP assessment into a faculty development workshop about assessment.