Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations brief title: General surgery faculty teaching evaluations. American journal of surgery Shellito, A. D., de Virgilio, C. n., Kaji, A. H., Harrington, D. W., Robertson, J. M., Zern, N. K., Spain, D. A., Dickinson, K. J., Smink, D. S., Cho, N. L., Donahue, T. n., Aarons, C. B., Namm, J. P., Amersi, F. n., Tanner, T. N., Frey, E. S., Jarman, B. T., Smith, B. R., Gauvin, J. M., Brasel, K. J., Salcedo, E. S., Murayama, K. n., Poola, V. P., Mpinga, E. n., Inaba, K. n., Calhoun, K. E. 2020

Abstract

Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is an important metric in general surgery training, however considerable variability in faculty teaching evaluation (FE) instruments exists.Twenty-two general surgery programs provided their FE and program demographics. Three clinical education experts performed blinded assessment of FEs, assessing adherence 2018 ACGME common program standards and if the FE was meaningful.Number of questions per FE ranged from 1 to 29. The expert assessments demonstrated that no evaluation addressed all 5 ACGME standards. There were significant differences in the FEs effectiveness of assessing the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching abilities and professionalism rated the highest and scholarly activities the lowest.There was wide variation between programs regarding FEs development and adhered to ACGME standards. Faculty evaluation tools consistently built around all suggested ACGME standards may allow for a more accurate and useful assessment of faculty teaching abilities to target professional development.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.030

View details for PubMedID 33388134