Reliability and Validity of Performance Evaluations of Pain Medicine Clinical Faculty by Residents and Fellows Using a Supervision Scale

Lack of Benefit of Adjusting Adaptively Daily Invitations for the Evaluation of the Quality of Anesthesiologists' Supervision and Nurse Anesthetists' Work Habits

Introduction Whenever a department implements the evaluation of professionals, a reasonable operational goal is to request as few evaluations as possible. In anesthesiology, evaluations of anesthesiologists (by trainees) and nurse anesthetists (by anesthesiologists) with valid and psychometrically reliable scales have been made by requesting daily evaluations of the ratee's performance on the immediately preceding day. However, some trainees or nurse anesthetists are paired with the same anesthesiologist for multiple days of the same week. Multiple evaluations from the same rater during a given week may contribute little incremental information versus one evaluation from that rater for the week. We address whether daily evaluation requests could be adjusted adaptively to be made once per week, hopefully substantively reducing the number of evaluation requests. Methods Every day since 1 July 2013 at the studied department, anesthesia residents and fellows have been requested by email to evaluate anesthesiologists' quality of supervision provided during the preceding day using the De Oliveira Filho supervision scale. Every day since 29 March 2015, the anesthesiologists have been requested by email to evaluate the work habits of the nurse anesthetists during the preceding day. Both types of evaluations were made for interactions throughout the workday together, not for individual cases. The criterion for an electronic request to be sent is that the pair worked together for at least one hour that day. The current study was performed using evaluations of anesthesiologists' supervision and nurse anesthetists' work habits through 30 June 2023. Results If every evaluation request were completed by trainees on the same day it was requested, trainees would have received 13.5% fewer requests to evaluate anesthesiologists (9367/69,420), the maximum possible reduction. If anesthesiologists were to do the same for their evaluations of nurse anesthetists, the maximum possible reduction would be 7.1% fewer requests (4794/67,274). However, because most evaluations were completed after the day of the request (71%, 96,451/136,694), there would be fewer requests only if the evaluation were completed before or on the day of the next pairing. Consequently, in actual practice, there would have been only 2.4% fewer evaluation requests to trainees and 1.5% fewer to anesthesiologists, both decreases being significantly less than 5% (both adjusted P <0.0001). Among the trainees' evaluations of faculty anesthesiologists, there were 1.4% with very low scores, specifically, a mean score of less than three out of four (708/41,778). Using Bernoulli cumulative sum (CUSUM) among successive evaluations, 72 flags were raised over the 10 years. Among those, there were 36% with more than one rater giving an exceptionally low score during the same week (26/72). There were 97% (70/72) with at least one rater contributing more than one score to the recent cumulative sum. Conclusion Conceptually, evaluation requests could be skipped if a rater has already evaluated the ratee that week during an earlier day working together. Our results show that the opportunity for reductions in evaluation requests is significantly less than 5%. There may also be impaired monitoring for the detection of sudden major decreases in ratee performance. Thus, the simpler strategy of requesting evaluations daily after working together is warranted.

Overall anesthesia department quality of clinical supervision of trainees over a year evaluated using mixed effects models

BACKGROUND

Earlier studies of supervision in anesthesiology focused on how to evaluate the quality of individual anesthesiologist's clinical supervision of trainees. What is unknown is how to evaluate clinical supervision collectively, as provided by the department's faculty anesthesiologists. This information can be a metric that departments report annually or use to evaluate the effect of programs on the quality of clinical supervision over time.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used all 48,788 evaluations of the 115 faculty anesthesiologists using the De Oliveira Filho supervision scale completed by 202 residents and fellows over nine academic years at one department.

RESULTS

The distributions of mean scores among raters had marked negative skewness and were inconsistent with normal distributions. Consequently, accurate confidence intervals were impracticably wide, and their interpretation suggested lack of validity. In contrast, the logits of the proportions of scores equaling the maximum possible value, calculated for each rater, followed distributions sufficiently close to normal for statistically reliable use in random effects modeling. Parameters and confidence intervals were estimated using the intercept only random effects models, and then inverses computed to convert results from the logit scale to proportions. That approach is analogous to random effect meta-analysis of proportional incidence (or prevalence). Departments that chose to use semi-annual or annual surveys of trainees regarding supervision quality, and report those raw counts, will have far lower estimates of supervision quality versus when calculated accurately using daily evaluations of individual anesthesiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Random effects meta-analysis of percentage incidences of maximum scores is a suitable statistical approach to analyze the daily supervision scores of individual anesthesiologists to evaluate the overall quality of clinical supervision provided to the trainees by the department over a year.

The influence of resident and faculty gender on assessments in anesthesia competency-based medical education

PURPOSE

Competency-based medical education (CBME) relies on frequent workplace-based assessments of trainees, providing opportunities for conscious and implicit biases to reflect in these assessments. We aimed to examine the influence of resident and faculty gender on performance ratings of residents within a CBME system.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study took place from August 2017 to January 2021 using resident assessment data from two workplace-based assessments: the Anesthesia Clinical Encounter Assessment (ACEA) and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). Self-reported gender data were also extracted. The primary outcome-gender-based differences in entrustment ratings of residents on the ACEA and EPAs-was evaluated using mixed-effects logistic regression, with differences reported through odds ratios and confidence intervals (α = 0.01). Gender-based differences in the receipt of free-text comments on the ACEA and EPAs were also explored.

RESULTS

In total, 14,376 ACEA and 4,467 EPA assessments were analyzed. There were no significant differences in entrustment ratings on either assessment tool between men and women residents. Regardless of whether assessments were completed by men or women faculty, entrustment rates between men and women residents were not significantly different for any postgraduate year level. Additionally, men and women residents received strengths-related and actions-related comments on both assessments at comparable frequencies, irrespective of faculty gender.

CONCLUSION

We found no gender-based differences in entrustment ratings for both the ACEA and EPAs, which suggests an absence of resident gender bias within this CBME system. Given considerable heterogeneity in rater leniency, future work would be strengthened by using rater leniency-adjusted scores rather than raw scores.

Effect of Insufficient Interaction on the Evaluation of Anesthesiologists’ Quality of Clinical Supervision by Anesthesiology Residents and Fellows

Introduction

In this study, we tested whether raters’ (residents and fellows) decisions to evaluate (or not) critical care anesthesiologists were significantly associated with clinical interactions documented from electronic health record progress notes and whether that influenced the reliability of supervision scores. We used the de Oliveira Filho clinical supervision scale for the evaluation of faculty anesthesiologists. Email requests were sent to raters who worked one hour or longer with the anesthesiologist the preceding day in an operating room. In contrast, potential raters were requested to evaluate all critical care anesthesiologists scheduled in intensive care units during the preceding week.

Methods

Over 7.6 years, raters (N=172) received a total of 7764 requests to evaluate 21 critical care anesthesiologists. Each rater received a median/mode of three evaluation requests, one per anesthesiologist on service that week. In this retrospective cohort study, we related responses (2970 selections of “insufficient interaction” to evaluate the faculty, and 3127 completed supervision scores) to progress notes (N=25,469) electronically co-signed by the rater and anesthesiologist combination during that week.

Results

Raters with few jointly signed notes were more likely to select insufficient interaction for evaluation (P < 0.0001): 62% when no joint notes versus 1% with at least 20 joint notes during the week. Still, rater-anesthesiologist combinations with no co-authored notes accounted not only for most (78%) of the evaluation requests but also most (56%) of the completed evaluations (both P < 0.0001). Among rater and anesthesiologist combinations with each anesthesiologist receiving evaluations from multiple (at least nine) raters and each rater evaluating multiple anesthesiologists, most (72%) rater-anesthesiologist combinations were among raters who had no co-authored notes with the anesthesiologist (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Regular use of the supervision scale should be practiced with raters who were selected not only from their scheduled clinical site but also using electronic health record data verifying joint workload with the anesthesiologist.

Association between leniency of anesthesiologists when evaluating certified registered nurse anesthetists and when evaluating didactic lectures

Daily evaluations of certified registered nurse anesthetists' (CRNAs') work habits by anesthesiologists should be adjusted for rater leniency. The current study tested the hypothesis that there is a pairwise association by rater between leniencies of evaluations of CRNAs' daily work habits and of didactic lectures. The historical cohorts were anesthesiologists' evaluations over 53 months of CRNAs' daily work habits and 65 months of didactic lectures by visiting professors and faculty. The binary endpoints were the Likert scale scores for all 6 and 10 items, respectively, equaling the maximums of 5 for all items, or not. Mixed effects logistic regression estimated the odds of each ratee performing above or below average adjusted for rater leniency. Bivariate errors in variables least squares linear regression estimated the association between the leniency of the anesthesiologists' evaluations of work habits and didactic lectures. There were 29/107 (27%) raters who were more severe in their evaluations of CRNAs' work habits than other anesthesiologists (two-sided P < 0.01); 34/107 (32%) raters were more lenient. When evaluating lectures, 3/81 (4%) raters were more severe and 8/81 (10%) more lenient. Among the 67 anesthesiologists rating both, leniency (or severity) for work habits was not associated with that for lectures (P = 0.90, unitless slope between logits 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.30). Rater leniency is of large magnitude when making daily clinical evaluations, even when using a valid and psychometrically reliable instrument. Rater leniency was context dependent, not solely a reflection of raters' personality or rating style.