Dataset Information

Effect of resident evaluations of obstetrics and gynecology faculty on promotion.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Promotion for academic faculty depends on a variety of factors, including their research, publications, national leadership, and quality of their teaching. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the importance of resident evaluations of faculty for promotion in obstetrics-gynecology programs. METHODS: A 28-item questionnaire was developed and distributed to 185 department chairs of US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs. RESULTS: Fifty percent (93 of 185) responded, with 40% (37 of 93) stating that teaching has become more important for promotion in the past 10 years. When faculty are being considered for promotion, teaching evaluations were deemed "very important" 60% of the time for clinician track faculty but were rated as mainly "not important" or "not applicable" for research faculty. Sixteen respondents (17%) stated a faculty member had failed to achieve promotion in the past 5 years because of poor teaching evaluations. Positive teaching evaluations outweighed low publication numbers for clinical faculty 24% of the time, compared with 5% for research faculty and 8% for tenured faculty being considered for promotion. The most common reason for rejection for promotion in all tracks was the number of publications. Awards for excellence in teaching improved chances of promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching quality is becoming more important in academic obstetrics-gynecology departments, especially for clinical faculty. Although in most institutions promotion is not achieved without adequate research and publications, the importance of teaching excellence is obvious, with 1 of 6 (17%) departments reporting a promotion had been denied due to poor teaching evaluations.

SUBMITTER: Curran DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3886461 | biostudies-other | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States (US), many obstetrics & gynecology (OB-GYN) trainees feel unprepared to care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, but interest in this topic is rising. Residency program websites are one way that directors can advertise whether this training is offered within their program. We aimed to describe the extent to which LGBTQI content is currently featured on OB-GYN residency websites across the country.MethodsWe identified all OB-GYN residency programs in the United States using a publicly available database. We systematically searched for select LGBTQI keywords on program websites. We collected data on mentions of LGBTQI didactics and rotations. We also searched whether LGTBQI keywords were included in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the characteristics of programs that do and do not include this content. We used STATA SE Version 16.0 for all analyses and set the level of significance at 5%.ResultsWe included 287/295 US OB-GYN residency programs in our analysis (97.3%) and excluded 8 that did not have websites. We identified any LGBTQI content on 50 program websites (17.4%), and specific mention of didactics or rotations on 8 websites (2.8%). On multivariable analysis, programs in the West were more likely to include any LGBTQI content compared to programs in the South (OR 2.81, 95%CI 1.04-7.63), as were programs with 1 or 2 fellowships (OR 3.41, 95%CI 1.43-8.14) or 3 or more fellowships (OR 4.85, 95%CI 2.03-11.57) compared to those without fellowships. Programs in departments led by female chairs were also more likely to include LBTQI content (OR 3.18, 95%CI 1.55-6.51).ConclusionsAcademic programs, West Coast programs, and those with departments led by female chairs are more likely to mention LGBTQI keywords on their websites. Given the increasing interest in LGBTQI education for OB-GYN trainees, program directors should consider providing training opportunities and including this content on their websites.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The importance of effective clinical teaching for the quality of future patient care is globally understood. Due to recent changes in graduate medical education, new tools are needed to provide faculty with reliable and individualized feedback on their teaching qualities. This study validates two instruments underlying the System for Evaluation of Teaching Qualities (SETQ) aimed at measuring and improving the teaching qualities of obstetrics and gynecology faculty. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This cross-sectional multi-center questionnaire study was set in seven general teaching hospitals and two academic medical centers in the Netherlands. Seventy-seven residents and 114 faculty were invited to complete the SETQ instruments in the duration of one month from September 2008 to September 2009. To assess reliability and validity of the instruments, we used exploratory factor analysis, inter-item correlation, reliability coefficient alpha and inter-scale correlations. We also compared composite scales from factor analysis to global ratings. Finally, the number of residents' evaluations needed per faculty for reliable assessments was calculated. A total of 613 evaluations were completed by 66 residents (85.7% response rate). 99 faculty (86.8% response rate) participated in self-evaluation. Factor analysis yielded five scales with high reliability (Cronbach's alpha for residents' and faculty): learning climate (0.86 and 0.75), professional attitude (0.89 and 0.81), communication of learning goals (0.89 and 0.82), evaluation of residents (0.87 and 0.79) and feedback (0.87 and 0.86). Item-total, inter-scale and scale-global rating correlation coefficients were significant (P<0.01). Four to six residents' evaluations are needed per faculty (reliability coefficient 0.60-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Both SETQ instruments were found reliable and valid for evaluating teaching qualities of obstetrics and gynecology faculty. Future research should examine improvement of teaching qualities when using SETQ.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough implicit bias in medical training has long been suspected, it has been difficult to study using objective measures, and the influence of sex and gender in the evaluation of medical trainees is unknown. The emergency medicine (EM) milestones provide a standardized framework for longitudinal resident assessment, allowing for analysis of resident performance across all years and programs at a scope and level of detail never previously possible.ObjectiveTo compare faculty-observed training milestone attainment of male vs female residency training.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, longitudinal, retrospective cohort study took place at 8 community and academic EM training programs across the United States from July 1, 2013, to July 1, 2015, using a real-time, mobile-based, direct-observation evaluation tool. The study examined 33 456 direct-observation subcompetency evaluations of 359 EM residents by 285 faculty members.Main outcomes and measuresMilestone attainment for male and female EM residents as observed by male and female faculty throughout residency and analyzed using multilevel mixed-effects linear regression modeling.ResultsA total of 33 456 direct-observation evaluations were collected from 359 EM residents (237 men [66.0%] and 122 women [34.0%]) by 285 faculty members (194 men [68.1%] and 91 women [31.9%]) during the study period. Female and male residents achieved similar milestone levels during the first year of residency. However, the rate of milestone attainment was 12.7% (0.07 levels per year) higher for male residents through all of residency (95% CI, 0.04-0.09). By graduation, men scored approximately 0.15 milestone levels higher than women, which is equivalent to 3 to 4 months of additional training, given that the average resident gains approximately 0.52 levels per year using our model (95% CI, 0.49-0.54). No statistically significant differences in scores were found based on faculty evaluator gender (effect size difference, 0.02 milestone levels; 95% CI for males, -0.09 to 0.11) or evaluator-evaluatee gender pairing (effect size difference, -0.02 milestone levels; 95% CI for interaction, -0.05 to 0.01).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough male and female residents receive similar evaluations at the beginning of residency, the rate of milestone attainment throughout training was higher for male than female residents across all EM subcompetencies, leading to a gender gap in evaluations that continues until graduation. Faculty should be cognizant of possible gender bias when evaluating medical trainees.

Dataset Information

Effect of resident evaluations of obstetrics and gynecology faculty on promotion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets