R W Chapman1. 1. Shasta-Cascade Family Practice Residency, University of California-Davis, Redding.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a significant lack of information regarding the evaluation of family practice residents. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 397 family practice residency directors in the United States to determine the methods used in evaluating family practice residents. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of residency directors returned the survey. Family practice faculty are involved in the majority of resident evaluations and are trained in the evaluation process in 46% of the programs. The most common evaluation method was a written form completed in 99% of the programs for inpatient evaluations and in 67% for outpatient evaluations. The evaluation forms were five years or older in 30% of the programs and were rotation specific in 40% of the programs. Other evaluation methods included videotaping, peer and self-evaluations, and structured clinical examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty development in evaluation performance is strongly encouraged. Written evaluation forms are used extensively, but the quality of these forms remains unknown. Further investigations into appropriate family practice evaluation methods are recommended.
BACKGROUND: There is a significant lack of information regarding the evaluation of family practice residents. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 397 family practice residency directors in the United States to determine the methods used in evaluating family practice residents. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of residency directors returned the survey. Family practice faculty are involved in the majority of resident evaluations and are trained in the evaluation process in 46% of the programs. The most common evaluation method was a written form completed in 99% of the programs for inpatient evaluations and in 67% for outpatient evaluations. The evaluation forms were five years or older in 30% of the programs and were rotation specific in 40% of the programs. Other evaluation methods included videotaping, peer and self-evaluations, and structured clinical examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty development in evaluation performance is strongly encouraged. Written evaluation forms are used extensively, but the quality of these forms remains unknown. Further investigations into appropriate family practice evaluation methods are recommended.