Faculty Self-Evaluation of Experiences with Delivering Feedback to Trainees Across Academic Ranks.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The ability to provide feedback is a developable faculty skill; however, it is unclear how academic rank impacts experiences with feedback delivery.Methods
A survey was distributed to 1258 physicians of all academic ranks at a large academic medical center. Questions explored the respondent's feedback delivery beliefs and barriers.Results
In total, 96% of respondents agreed feedback is important to resident education. Higher academic rank correlated with increased comfort with feedback delivery, and 89% of respondents experienced at least 1 barrier to feedback delivery.Conclusion
Feedback experiences vary across academic ranks, with full professors being more comfortable with feedback delivery and less likely to experience barriers.Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01196-5.
SUBMITTER: McCutcheon S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7787874 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty review workshops to obtain faculty feedback. Postdoctoral trainees were trained and hired as course teaching assistants and facilitated weekly meetings and review workshops. Over the last six years, the annual Bootcamp has provided 525 doctoral students and postdocs with multi-level feedback (peer and faculty). Proposals from Bootcamp participants were almost twice as likely to be funded than proposals from non-Bootcamp trainees. Overall, this structured program provided opportunities for feedback from multiple peer and faculty reviewers, increased the participants' confidence in developing and submitting research proposals, while accommodating a large number of participants.
| S-EPMC7769268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveFeedback from fellows-in-training (FITs) is important for faculty development and to enrich clinical teaching. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional online evaluations and a novel compiled verbal feedback mechanism.MethodsAn annual feedback system was implemented in our rheumatology division in which FITs provided verbal feedback on all faculty to a facilitator who compiled, deidentified, and shared the feedback with individual faculty members. FITs also completed standard online annual evaluations of faculty. FITs and faculty completed surveys assessing the perceived effectiveness and confidentiality of each feedback mechanism.ResultsThirteen of 15 eligible faculty and all 4 eligible FITs completed both surveys. Responses by FITs and faculty regarding the quality of online evaluations were generally unfavorable or neutral. Faculty responses regarding compiled verbal feedback were more favorable in all questions and significantly more favorable with respect to the feedback's ability to explain strengths (54% favorable for online evaluations vs 100% for compiled verbal feedback), the feedback's specificity (0% vs 54%), and the feedback's actionable nature (15% vs 62%). All FITs' responses regarding quality of compiled verbal feedback were favorable. FITs had concerns regarding confidentiality with both online evaluations (0% favorable) and compiled verbal feedback (25% favorable), though FITs had less concern for future faculty interactions with compiled verbal feedback (100% favorable) than with online evaluations (0% favorable).ConclusionCompiled verbal feedback by FITs produced more actionable and effective feedback for faculty, with less concerns regarding future faculty interactions compared with traditional online evaluations. Further study of this method across different programs and institutions is warranted.
| S-EPMC10933622 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5526590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about the climate of the scientific fieldwork setting as it relates to gendered experiences, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. We conducted an internet-based survey of field scientists (N = 666) to characterize these experiences. Codes of conduct and sexual harassment policies were not regularly encountered by respondents, while harassment and assault were commonly experienced by respondents during trainee career stages. Women trainees were the primary targets; their perpetrators were predominantly senior to them professionally within the research team. Male trainees were more often targeted by their peers at the research site. Few respondents were aware of mechanisms to report incidents; most who did report were unsatisfied with the outcome. These findings suggest that policies emphasizing safety, inclusivity, and collegiality have the potential to improve field experiences of a diversity of researchers, especially during early career stages. These include better awareness of mechanisms for direct and oblique reporting of harassment and assault and, the implementation of productive response mechanisms when such behaviors are reported. Principal investigators are particularly well positioned to influence workplace culture at their field sites.
| S-EPMC4100871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite the increasing diversity of individuals entering medicine, physicians from racial and sexual minority groups continue to experience bias and discrimination in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine the current experiences and perceptions of discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation among academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of EM faculty across six programs. Survey items included the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale adapted for race and sexual orientation, and the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination. Group comparisons were made using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and relationships between race or sexual orientation, and we evaluated physicians' experiences using correlation analyses.ResultsA total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Non-White physicians reported higher mean racial OGDW scores than their White counterparts (13.4 vs 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference, -7.7 - -2.9). Non-White EM faculty were also more likely to report having experienced discriminatory treatment based on race than were White EM faculty (48.0% vs 12.6%; CI for difference, 16.6% - 54.2%), although both groups were equally likely to report having observed race-based discrimination of another physician. EM faculty who identified as sexual minorities reported higher mean sexual minority OGDW scores than their heterosexual counterparts (11.1 vs 7.1; 95% CI for difference, -7.3 - -0.6). There were no significant differences between sexual minority and heterosexual faculty in their reports of experiencing or observing discrimination based on sexual orientation.ConclusionEM faculty from racial and sexual minority groups perceived more discrimination based on race or sexual orientation in their workplace than their majority counterparts. EM faculty regardless of race or sexual orientation were similar in their observations of discriminatory treatment of another physician based on race or sexual orientation.
| S-EPMC7514380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFormative evaluations of clinical teaching for emergency medicine (EM) faculty are limited. The goal of this study was to develop a behaviorally-based tool for evaluating and providing feedback to EM faculty based on their clinical teaching skills during a shift.MethodsWe used a three-phase structured development process. Phase 1 used the nominal group technique with a group of faculty first and then with residents to generate potential evaluation items. Phase 2 included separate focus groups and used a modified Delphi technique with faculty and residents, as well as a group of experts to evaluate the items generated in Phase 1. Following this, residents classified the items into novice, intermediate, and advanced educator skills. Once items were determined for inclusion and subsequently ranked they were built into the tool by the investigators (Phase 3).ResultsThe final instrument, the "Faculty Shift Card," is a behaviorally-anchored evaluation and feedback tool used to facilitate feedback to EM faculty about their teaching skills during a shift. The tool has four domains: teaching clinical decision-making; teaching interpersonal skills; teaching procedural skills; and general teaching strategies. Each domain contains novice, intermediate, and advanced sections with 2-5 concrete examples for each level of performance.ConclusionThis structured process resulted in a well-grounded and systematically developed evaluation tool for EM faculty that can provide real-time actionable feedback to faculty and support improved clinical teaching.
| S-EPMC6324693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Mistreatment of physicians by patients is a long-standing phenomenon that has garnered increased attention recently. Medical students and residents also experience mistreatment, and many supervising physicians do not know how to recognize it or respond appropriately. Little guidance exists as to how faculty should best address these situations. We developed, taught, and evaluated a stepwise approach to help faculty physicians manage patient mistreatment of trainees (residents and students). Methods:Our approach is summarized by the acronym ERASE: (1) Expect that mistreatment will occur. (2) Recognize episodes of mistreatment. (3) Address the situation in real time. (4) Support the learner after the event. (5) Establish/encourage a positive culture. We designed an interactive, case-based educator development session to teach ERASE and surveyed participants before and after to evaluate the session. Sixty-nine participants attended one of four workshops between November 2017 and January 2018. Results:Nearly 80% of attendees reported having received no prior training in managing mistreatment of trainees by patients. Participants noted significant changes in their confidence in recognizing and responding to episodes of mistreatment after the session compared with just prior to it. Discussion:ERASE fills an important void in medical education by introducing a novel, easy-to-understand approach that faculty can employ to manage mistreatment of trainees. We have continued to disseminate this model to faculty and residents in various departments around our medical center and at national conferences. This resource will allow educators to disseminate the ERASE model at their home institutions.
| S-EPMC7012314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProfessionals and trainees in the medical and scientific fields may receive high e-mail volumes for conferences and journals. In this report, we analyze the amount and characteristics of unsolicited e-mails for journals, conferences, and webinars received by faculty and trainees in a pathology department at an academic medical center.MethodsWith informed consent, we analyzed 7 consecutive days of e-mails from faculty and trainees who voluntarily participated in the study and saved unsolicited e-mails from their institutional e-mail address (including junk e-mail folder) for medical/scientific journals, conferences, and webinars. All e-mails were examined for characteristics such as reply receipts, domain name, and spam likelihood. Journal e-mails were specifically analyzed for claims in the message body (for example, peer review, indexing in databases/resources, rapid publication) and actual inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources.ResultsA total of 17 faculty (4 assistant, 4 associate, and 9 full professors) and 9 trainees (5 medical students, 2 pathology residents, and 2 pathology fellows) completed the study. A total of 755 e-mails met study criteria (417 e-mails from 328 unique journals, 244 for conferences, and 94 for webinars). Overall, 44.4% of e-mails were flagged as potential spam by the institutional default settings, and 13.8% requested reply receipts. The highest burden of e-mails in 7 days was by associate and full professors (maximum 158 or approximately 8200 per year), although some trainees and assistant professors had over 30 e-mails in 7 days (approximately 1560 per year). Common characteristics of journal e-mails were mention of "peer review" in the message body and low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources, with 76.4% not found in any of 9 journal databases/resources. The location for conferences in e-mails included 31 different countries, with the most common being the United States (33.2%), Italy (9.8%), China (4.9%), United Kingdom (4.9%), and Canada (4.5%).ConclusionsThe present study in an academic pathology department shows a high burden of unsolicited e-mails for medical/scientific journals, conferences, and webinars, especially to associate and full professors. We also demonstrate that some pathology trainees and junior faculty are receiving an estimated 1500 unsolicited e-mails per year.
| S-EPMC6537630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBullying, a severe form of mistreatment, occurs when an individual in an authority position intentionally imposes negative persistent behaviors on a target. In academic medicine, bullying is used to impede the target's professional growth. While there is abundant literature on how to disrupt other forms of mistreatment, the literature related to bullying among academic medical faculty members is scarce.MethodsWe developed an interactive workshop on disrupting faculty-on-faculty bullying in academic medicine, with a focus on gender-based bullying, following Kern's model of curriculum development. The workshop consisted of three didactics on the scope of bullying in academic medicine: identifying bullying behaviors, learning strategies to mitigate bullying, and understanding what constitutes comprehensive antibullying policies. The workshop also included three small-group activities to reinforce learned concepts.ResultsEighty-seven faculty attended one of three workshops held over a 6-month period. We received 24 completed evaluations for a 28% rate of return. Most participants rated workshop activities as being well taught and of great value. Many respondents commented that after participating in the workshop, they realized they had likely experienced or witnessed bullying in their careers and that mitigating bullying required effort at multiple levels (individual, institutional, national).DiscussionThis workshop fills a need in academic medicine through addressing how faculty members and institutions can help themselves and others to disrupt bullying. We will continue to disseminate this workshop at national conferences and at individual institutions. This resource will allow other educators to offer the workshop at their home institutions.
| S-EPMC10545817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite equal numbers of men and women entering medical school, women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic medicine and receive less compensation and research funding. Citation-related publication productivity metrics, such as the h-index, are increasingly used for hiring, salary, grants, retention, promotion, and tenure decisions. Exploring sex differences in these metrics across academic medicine provides deeper insight into why differences are observed in career outcomes.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the available literature on sex differences in h-index of academic faculty physicians across all medical specialties and all levels of academic rank.Data sourcesMedical literature with the term h-index found in PubMed and published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, was used.Study selectionA PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) selection protocol was used to find observational studies that published h-indexes for faculty physicians that were stratified by sex. Studies were excluded if they were review articles, retracted, or unavailable online. Ultimately, 14 of 786 studies (1.78%) met the inclusion criteria.Data extraction and synthesisData from 9 studies across 16 specialties were examined using weighted random-effects meta-analyses. Five studies were excluded because of overlapping specialties with another study or because they were missing appropriate statistics for the meta-analysis. Four of these studies were included in qualitative synthesis to bring the total to 13 studies.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcome was the h-index.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 10 665 North American unique academic physicians across 9 different studies from the years 2009 to 2018. Of the 10 665 physicians, 2655 (24.89%) were women. Summary effect sizes for mean h-indexes of men and women and mean h-index difference between men and women were determined for all faculty physicians and at each academic rank. Overall, female faculty had lower h-indexes than male faculty (mean difference, -4.09; 95% CI, -5.44 to -2.73; P < .001). When adjusting for academic rank, female faculty still had lower h-indexes than male faculty at the ranks of assistant professor (mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.72; P < .001), associate professor (mean difference, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.40 to -0.78; P = .002), and professor (mean difference, -3.41; 95% CI, -6.24 to -0.58; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, women had lower h-indexes than men across most specialties and at all academic ranks, but it is unclear why these differences exist. These findings suggest that future investigation should be conducted regarding the causes of lower h-indexes in women and that interventions should be developed to provide a more equitable environment for all physicians regardless of sex.
| S-EPMC8243235 | biostudies-literature