Dataset Information

Effect of the learning climate of residency programs on faculty's teaching performance as evaluated by residents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To understand teaching performance of individual faculty, the climate in which residents' learning takes place, the learning climate, may be important. There is emerging evidence that specific climates do predict specific outcomes. Until now, the effect of learning climate on the performance of the individual faculty who actually do the teaching was unknown.

Objectives

THIS STUDY: (i) tested the hypothesis that a positive learning climate was associated with better teaching performance of individual faculty as evaluated by residents, and (ii) explored which dimensions of learning climate were associated with faculty's teaching performance.

Methods and materials

We conducted two cross-sectional questionnaire surveys amongst residents from 45 residency training programs and multiple specialties in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. Residents evaluated the teaching performance of individual faculty using the robust System for Evaluating Teaching Qualities (SETQ) and evaluated the learning climate of residency programs using the Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT). The validated D-RECT questionnaire consisted of 11 subscales of learning climate. Main outcome measure was faculty's overall teaching (SETQ) score. We used multivariable adjusted linear mixed models to estimate the separate associations of overall learning climate and each of its subscales with faculty's teaching performance.

Results

In total 451 residents completed 3569 SETQ evaluations of 502 faculty. Residents also evaluated the learning climate of 45 residency programs in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. Overall learning climate was positively associated with faculty's teaching performance (regression coefficient 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). Three out of 11 learning climate subscales were substantially associated with better teaching performance: 'coaching and assessment', 'work is adapted to residents' competence', and 'formal education'.

Conclusions

Individual faculty's teaching performance evaluations are positively affected by better learning climate of residency programs.

SUBMITTER: Lombarts KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3904911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPostgraduate education is transitioning to a competency-based curriculum in an effort to standardize the quality of graduating trainees. The learning experiences and opportunities in each institution are likely variable, as no standard exists regarding the teaching curriculum offered through residency. The objective of this study is to examine the various teaching curricula among different Canadian urology residency programs and to identify which teaching modalities are prioritized by program directors.MethodsA 10-question anonymous survey was sent electronically to program directors at all 12 urology residency programs across Canada. Questions were designed to quantify the time allotted for teaching and to assess the various teaching session types prioritized by programs to ensure the successful training of their graduates. We assessed each program's perceived value of written exams, oral exams, didactic teaching session, and simulation sessions. Responses were assessed using a Likert-scale and a ranking format. Descriptive statistics were performed.ResultsOverall survey response rate from residency program directors was 75% (9/12). Sixty-seven percent of programs designated one day of teaching per week, whereas 33% split resident teaching over two days. Review of chapters directly from Campbell-Walsh Urology textbook were deemed the most valuable teaching session. Practice oral exams were also prioritized, whereas most programs felt that simulation labs contributed the least to residency education. All programs included review of the core urology textbook in their weekly teaching, while only 67% of programs included faculty-led didactic sessions and case presentations. Forty-four percent of programs included resident-led didactic sessions. Practice oral exams and simulation labs were the least commonly included teaching modalities.ConclusionsAlthough most program directors prioritize the review of chapters in the core urology textbook, we found significant heterogeneity in the teaching sessions prioritized and offered in current urology residency curricula. As we move to standardize the quality of graduating trainees, understanding the impact of variable educational opportunities on residency training may become increasingly important.

Project description:BackgroundThe Canadian Pharmacy Residency Board (CPRB) specifies the competencies that pharmacy residents must attain and the need for assessment and evaluation. Methods of assessment and evaluation are left to the discretion of individual programs. There is a scarcity of published literature compiling and comparing the strategies used by Canadian residency programs.ObjectivesTo determine curricular components used for assessment and evaluation; to describe the tools used by programs; to characterize the scheduling, frequency, and repetition of curricular components; and to determine the individuals or groups involved.MethodsCoordinators of hospital pharmacy residency programs with CPRB accreditation or accreditation pending were surveyed to collect information about the assessment and evaluation of select CPRB standards.ResultsFrom the 37 eligible residency programs, 20 unique responses (54%) were received. All respondents were general practice programs (100%) in predominantly multicentre organizations (70%). Programs were similar in terms of assessment components used, with all respondents citing care plan review, direct observation of patient care, journal clubs, creation of project timelines, and ethics submission. The predominant evaluation components were within-department presentations (100%), written manuscripts (95%), drug information rotations (85%), and longitudinal evaluations (75%). Standardized forms (70%-100%) defined by Bloom's taxonomy (65%) and the CPRB "levels and ranges" document (60%) were the principle means used. Assessments for patient care and for provision of education were generally carried out immediately (80% and 95%, respectively), whereas project management skills were assessed predominantly at final evaluation (75%). Self-assessment and assessment by pharmacy team members occurred for every competency, whereas patients (0%-10%) and allied health professionals (5%) were less frequently involved.ConclusionsThe assessment and evaluation strategies reported by programs were congruent. The results provide a summary of national practices and will allow existing and developing programs to examine their approach to assessment and evaluation for alignment with national standards.

Project description:ObjectivesIndividuals with disabilities experience significant health care disparities due to a multitude of barriers to effective care, which include a lack of adequate physician training on this topic and negative attitudes of physicians. This results in disparities through inadequate physical examination and diagnostic testing, withholding or inferior treatment, and neglecting preventative care. While much has been published about disability education in undergraduate medical education, little is known about the current state of disability education in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs.MethodsIn 2019, a total of 237 EM residency program directors (PDs) in the United States were surveyed about the actual and desired number of hours of disability health instruction, perceived barriers to disability health education, prevalence of residents and faculty with disabilities, and confidence in providing accommodations to residents with disabilities.ResultsA total of 104 surveys were completed (104/237, 43.9% response rate); 43% of respondents included disability-specific content in their residency curricula for an average of 1.5 total hours annually, in contrast to average desired hours of 4.16 hours. Reported barriers to disability health education included lack of time and lack of faculty expertise. A minority of residency programs have faculty members (13.5%) or residents (26%) with disabilities. The prevalence of EM residents with disabilities was 4.02%. Programs with residents with disabilities reported more hours devoted to disability curricula (5 hours vs 1.54 hours, p = 0.017) and increased confidence in providing workplace accommodations for certain disabilities including mobility disability (p = 0.002), chronic health conditions (p = 0.022), and psychological disabilities (p = 0.018).ConclusionsA minority of EM PDs in our study included disability health content in their residency curricula. The presence of faculty and residents with disabilities is associated with positive effects on training programs, including a greater number of hours devoted to disability health education and greater confidence in accommodating learners with disabilities. To reduce health care disparities for patients with disabilities, we recommend that a dedicated disability health curriculum be integrated into all aspects of the EM residency curriculum, including lectures, journal clubs, and simulations and include direct interaction with individuals with disabilities. We further recommend that disability be recognized as an aspect of diversity when hiring faculty and recruiting residents to EM programs, to address this training gap and to promote a diverse and inclusive learning environment.