PURPOSE: Milestones for the assessment of residents in graduate medical education mark a change in our evaluation paradigms. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has created milestones and defined them as significant points in development of a resident based on the 6 competencies. We propose that a similar approach be taken for resident assessment of teaching faculty. We believe this will establish parity and objectivity for faculty evaluation, provide improved data about attending surgeons' teaching, and standardize faculty evaluations by residents. METHODS: A small group of advanced surgery educators determined appropriate educational characteristics, resulting in creation of 11 milestones (Fig. 2) that were reviewed by faculty and residents. The residents have historically answered 16 questions, developed by our surgical education committee (Fig. 3), on a 5-point Likert score (never to very often). Three weeks after completing this Likert-type evaluation, the residents were asked to again evaluate attending faculty using the Faculty Milestones evaluation. The residents then completed a survey of 7 questions (scale of 1-9-disagree to strongly agree, neutral = 5), assessing the new milestones and compared with the previous Likert evaluation system. RESULTS: Of 32 surgery residents, 13 completed the Likert evaluations (3760 data points) and 13 completed the milestones evaluations (1800 data points). The number completing both or neither is not known, as the responses are anonymous when used for faculty feedback. The Faculty Milestones attending physicians' scores have far fewer top of range scores (21% vs 42%) and have a wider spread of data giving better indication of areas for improvement in teaching skills. The residents completed 17 surveys (116 responses) to evaluate the new milestones system. Surveys indicated that milestones were easier to use (average rating 6.13 ± 0.42 Standard Error (SE)), effective (6.82 ± 0.39) and efficient (6.11 ± 0.53), and more objective (6.69 ± 0.39/6.75 ± 0.38) than the Likert evaluations are. Average response was 6.47 ± 0.46 for overall satisfaction with the Faculty Milestones evaluation. More surveys were completed than evaluations, as all residents had an opportunity to review both evaluation systems. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty Milestones are more objective in evaluating surgical faculty and mirror the new paradigm in resident evaluations. Residents found this was an easier, more effective, efficient, and objective evaluation of our faculty. Although our Faculty Milestones are designed for surgical educators, they are likely to be applicable with appropriate modifications to other medical educators as well.
PURPOSE: Milestones for the assessment of residents in graduate medical education mark a change in our evaluation paradigms. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has created milestones and defined them as significant points in development of a resident based on the 6 competencies. We propose that a similar approach be taken for resident assessment of teaching faculty. We believe this will establish parity and objectivity for faculty evaluation, provide improved data about attending surgeons' teaching, and standardize faculty evaluations by residents. METHODS: A small group of advanced surgery educators determined appropriate educational characteristics, resulting in creation of 11 milestones (Fig. 2) that were reviewed by faculty and residents. The residents have historically answered 16 questions, developed by our surgical education committee (Fig. 3), on a 5-point Likert score (never to very often). Three weeks after completing this Likert-type evaluation, the residents were asked to again evaluate attending faculty using the Faculty Milestones evaluation. The residents then completed a survey of 7 questions (scale of 1-9-disagree to strongly agree, neutral = 5), assessing the new milestones and compared with the previous Likert evaluation system. RESULTS: Of 32 surgery residents, 13 completed the Likert evaluations (3760 data points) and 13 completed the milestones evaluations (1800 data points). The number completing both or neither is not known, as the responses are anonymous when used for faculty feedback. The Faculty Milestones attending physicians' scores have far fewer top of range scores (21% vs 42%) and have a wider spread of data giving better indication of areas for improvement in teaching skills. The residents completed 17 surveys (116 responses) to evaluate the new milestones system. Surveys indicated that milestones were easier to use (average rating 6.13 ± 0.42 Standard Error (SE)), effective (6.82 ± 0.39) and efficient (6.11 ± 0.53), and more objective (6.69 ± 0.39/6.75 ± 0.38) than the Likert evaluations are. Average response was 6.47 ± 0.46 for overall satisfaction with the Faculty Milestones evaluation. More surveys were completed than evaluations, as all residents had an opportunity to review both evaluation systems. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty Milestones are more objective in evaluating surgical faculty and mirror the new paradigm in resident evaluations. Residents found this was an easier, more effective, efficient, and objective evaluation of our faculty. Although our Faculty Milestones are designed for surgical educators, they are likely to be applicable with appropriate modifications to other medical educators as well.
Keywords:
Interpersonal and Communication Skills; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; Professionalism; education; faculty development; milestones; surgery