Predictors of faculty narrative evaluation quality in medical school clerkships.

INTRODUCTION: Narrative approaches to assessment provide meaningful and valid representations of trainee performance. Yet, narratives are frequently perceived as vague, nonspecific and low quality. To date, there is little research examining factors associated with narrative evaluation quality, particularly in undergraduate medical education. The purpose of this study was to examine associations of faculty- and student-level characteristics with the quality of faculty member's narrative evaluations of clerkship students. METHODS: The authors reviewed faculty narrative evaluations of 50 students' clinical performance in their inpatient medicine and neurology clerkships, resulting in 165 and 87 unique evaluations in the respective clerkships. The authors evaluated narrative quality using the Narrative Evaluation Quality Instrument (NEQI). The authors used linear mixed effects modelling to predict total NEQI score. Explanatory covariates included the following: time to evaluation completion, number of weeks spent with student, faculty total weeks on service per year, total faculty years in clinical education, student gender, faculty gender, and an interaction term between student and faculty gender. RESULTS: Significantly higher narrative evaluation quality was associated with a shorter time to evaluation completion, with NEQI scores decreasing by approximately 0.3 points every 10 days following students' rotations (p = .004). Additionally, women faculty had statistically higher quality narrative evaluations with NEQI scores 1.92 points greater than men faculty (p = .012). All other covariates were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of faculty members' narrative evaluations of medical students was associated with time to evaluation completion and faculty gender but not faculty experience in clinical education, faculty weeks on service, or the amount of time spent with students. Findings advance understanding on ways to improve the quality of narrative evaluations which are imperative given assessment models that will increase the volume and reliance on narratives.

Maximizing teaching on the wards: review and application of the One-Minute Preceptor and SNAPPS models.

Hospitalist educators face a number of challenges in teaching clinical reasoning to residents and medical students. Helping to develop trainees' clinical acumen is an essential and highly nuanced process, yet complex patients, documentation requirements, and productivity goals compete with teaching time. Workplace-based assessment is particularly important for residents with the institution of the developmental milestones for meeting Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies. Two frameworks for facilitating the clinical reasoning discussion-the One-Minute Preceptor preceptor and SNAPPS-have been well studied in the outpatient setting with positive results. Both models show promise for use in the inpatient teaching environment with little modification. This narrative review compares and contrasts these 2 teaching frameworks and discusses their application to the inpatient teaching environment. These models can provide opportunities for hospitalist educators to better assess trainees, integrate regular feedback, and encourage self-directed learning. These teaching frameworks can also allow hospitalists to provide more focused education to trainees without taking additional valuable time.