The Hirsch Index and Self-Citation in Academic Physiatry among Graduate Medical Education Program Directors

ABSTRACT Background Multi-source evaluation has demonstrated value for trainees, but is not generally provided to residency or fellowship program directors (PDs). Objective To develop, implement, and evaluate a PD multi-source evaluation process. Methods Tools were developed for PD evaluation by trainees, department chairs, and graduate medical education (GME) leadership. Evaluation questions were based on PD responsibilities, including Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements. A follow-up survey assessed the process. Results Evaluation completion rates were as follows: trainees in academic year 2012–2013, 53% (958 of 1824), and in academic year 2013–2014, 42% (800 of 1898); GME directors in 2013–2014, 100% (95 of 95); and chairs/chiefs in 2013–2014, 92% (109 of 118). Results of a follow-up survey of PDs (66%, 59 of 90) and chairs (74%, 48 of 65) supports the evaluations' value, with 45% of responding PDs (25 of 56) and 50% of responding chairs (21 of 42) characterizing them as “extremely” or “quite” useful. Most indicated this was the first written evaluation they had received (PDs 78%, 46 of 59) or provided (chairs 69%, 33 of 48) regarding the PD role. More than 60% of PD (30 of 49) and chair respondents (24 of 40) indicated trainee feedback was “extremely” or “quite” useful, and nearly 50% of PDs (29 of 59) and 21% of chairs (10 of 48) planned changes based on the results. Trainee response rates improved in 2014–2015 (52%, 971 of 1872) and 2015–2016 (69%, 1276 of 1837). Conclusions In our institution, multi-source evaluation of PDs was sustained over 4 years with acceptable and improving evaluation completion rates. The process and assessment tools are potentially transferrable to other institutions.

Download Full-text

Formal Versus Informal Judgments: Faculty Experiences With Entrustment in Graduate Medical Education

Journal of Graduate Medical Education ◽

10.4300/jgme-d-18-00120.1 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. 537-542 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Karsten A. van Loon ◽

Pim W. Teunissen ◽

Erik W. Driessen ◽

Fedde Scheele

Keyword(s):

Medical Education ◽

Graduate Medical Education ◽

Program Directors ◽

Faculty Members ◽

Extensive Experience ◽

Faculty Experiences ◽

Graduate Medical ◽

Medical Education Program ◽

Technical Competencies ◽

Competency Based

ABSTRACT Background Entrustment of residents has been formalized in many competency-based graduate medical education programs, but its relationship with informal decisions to entrust residents with clinical tasks is unclear. In addition, the effects of formal entrustment on training practice are still unknown. Objective Our objective was to learn from faculty members in training programs with extensive experience in formal entrustment how formal entrustment relates to informal entrustment decisions. Methods A questionnaire was e-mailed to all Dutch obstetrics and gynecology program directors to gather information on how faculty entrusts residents with clinical independence. We also interviewed faculty members to explore the relationship between formal entrustment and informal entrustment. Interviews were analyzed with conventional content analysis. Results Of 92 programs, 54 program directors completed the questionnaire (59% response rate). Results showed that formal entrustment was seen as valuable for generating formative feedback and giving insight into residents' progress in technical competencies. Interviewed faculty members (n = 12) used both formal and informal entrustment to determine the level of resident independence. Faculty reported they tended to favor informal entrustment because it can be reconsidered. In contrast, formal entrustment was reported to feel like a fixed state. Conclusions In a graduate medical education program where formal entrustment has been used for more than a decade, faculty used a combination of formal and informal entrustment. Informal entrustment is key in deciding if a resident can work independently. Faculty members reported being unsure how to optimally use formal entrustment in practice next to their informal decisions.

Download Full-text