RESUMO
PURPOSE: Feedback and evaluation from peers is fundamental to trainees' professional development but may be uncomfortable to provide non-anonymously. We aimed to understand resident perception of anonymous and open written evaluation systems and to analyze evaluations in each of these systems. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We compared two years of intern peer evaluations at a large United States-based pediatric residency program - the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 years during which intern peer evaluations were anonymous and open, respectively. We electronically surveyed interns about their perceptions of peer evaluations and analyzed four aspects of the evaluations themselves: (1) orientation, (2) caliber, (3) Likert-scale, and (4) word count. RESULTS: 40 (78%) and 38 (75%) interns participated in the survey in the anonymous and open years, respectively. Respondents reported being more likely to avoid writing constructive comments in the open year. There were more high caliber comments in the open year. Likert-scale ratings of peers were lower in the open year. Word count was longer in the open year. CONCLUSIONS: While interns expressed more discomfort evaluating peers in an open evaluation system, they wrote longer and more high caliber comments in an open system than in an anonymous system. Residency programs should consider professional development in writing peer evaluation.
Residents are uncomfortable writing constructive comments in peer evaluations, particularly in open formats.Residents write similar numbers of constructive comments whether the evaluation is delivered anonymously or in an open format.Residents write more high caliber comments when evaluations are delivered in an open format than when delivered anonymously.Residents write longer comments when evaluations are in an open format.Program leaders should weigh the increased number of high caliber peer evaluations in an open system with resident preference for an anonymous system when designing their peer evaluation systems.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: A large portion of residency education occurs in inpatient teaching services without widely accepted consensus regarding the essential components that constitute a teaching service. We sought to generate consensus around this topic, with the goal of developing criteria programs that can be used when creating, redesigning, or evaluating teaching services. METHODS: A list of potential components of teaching services was developed from a literature search, interviews, and focus groups. Eighteen pediatric medical education experts participated in a modified Delphi method, responding to a series of surveys rating the importance of the proposed components. Each iterative survey was amended on the basis of the results of the previous survey. A final survey evaluating the (1) effort and (2) impact of implementing components that had reached consensus as recommended was distributed. RESULTS: Each survey had 100% panelist response. Five survey rounds were conducted. Fourteen attending physician characteristics and 7 system characteristics reached consensus as essential components of a teaching service. An additional 25 items reached consensus as recommended. When evaluating the effort and impact of these items, the implementation of attending characteristics was perceived as requiring less effort than system characteristics but as having similar impact. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on the essential and recommended components of a resident teaching service was achieved by using the modified Delphi method. Although the items that reached consensus as essential are similar to those proposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, those that reached consensus as recommended are less commonly discussed and should be strongly considered by institutions.