Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jan 8;19(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1446-1.

Judging residents' performance: a qualitative study using grounded theory.

Author information

1
Department of Internal Medicine and Health Academy, Radboud Health Academy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Gerard van Swietenlaan 4, Postbus 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Marloes.Duitsman@radboudumc.nl.
2
Health Academy, Department of Research in Learning and Education, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
3
Martini Hospital, Groningen, the Netherlands.
4
Centre for Education Development and Research in Health Professions, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
5
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
6
Department of Internal Medicine, Radboudumc Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Although program directors judge residents' performance for summative decisions, little is known about how they do this. This study examined what information program directors use and how they value this information in making a judgment of residents' performance and what residents think of this process.

METHODS:

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were held with residents and program directors from different hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015-2016. Participants were recruited from internal medicine, surgery and radiology. Transcripts were analysed using grounded theory methodology. Concepts and themes were identified by iterative constant comparison.

RESULTS:

When approaching semi-annual meetings with residents, program directors report primarily gathering information from the following: assessment tools, faculty members and from their own experience with residents. They put more value on faculty's comments during meetings and in the corridors than on feedback provided in the assessment tools. They are influenced by their own beliefs about learning and education in valuing feedback. Residents are aware that faculty members discuss their performance in meetings, but they believe the assessment tools provide the most important proof to demonstrate their clinical competency.

CONCLUSIONS:

Residents think that feedback in the assessment tools is the most important proof to demonstrate their performance, whereas program directors scarcely use this feedback to form a judgment about residents' performance. They rely heavily on remarks of faculty in meetings instead. Therefore, residents' performance may be better judged in group meetings that are organised to enhance optimal information sharing and decision making about residents' performance.

KEYWORDS:

Assessment; Grounded theory; Postgraduate medical education; Program directors; resident’s performance

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center