Effect of resident evaluations of obstetrics and gynecology faculty on promotion

Developing as an Academic Medical Educator in Obstetrics and Gynecology

The lack of a defined framework for advancement and development of professional identity as a medical educator may discourage faculty from pursuing or progressing through a career in academic medical education. Although career advancement has historically been linked to clinical work and research, promotion for teaching has not been supported at the same level. Despite potential challenges, a career in academic medicine has its share of rewards. This article by the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics Undergraduate Medical Education Committee will describe how to develop as an academic medical educator in obstetrics and gynecology, providing tips on how to start, advance, and succeed in an academic career, and provide an overview of available resources and opportunities.

The Association Between Pediatric Faculty Factors and Resident Physician Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness

Background. Faculty factors not inherently related to teaching effectiveness can influence teaching ratings. No studies have focused on pediatric faculty who possess unique differences from general medical faculty. Methods. We designed a retrospective observational study to compare faculty teaching ratings with measured factors across 3 academic pediatric institutions. Results. Our study included 196 faculty members. The majority (76%) of variation in teaching effectiveness ratings was not accounted for by any measured variable, but 24% was attributed to measurable factors. Increased resident exposure (sequential r 2 = .10, P < .0001) significantly affected teaching effectiveness. Variation between resident ratings of pediatric faculty teaching can be partially explained by measured factors not necessarily related to teaching effectiveness. Conclusions. The identification of faculty factors that significantly contribute to rating variation can enhance interpretation of these rating.

A Feedback and Evaluation System That Provokes Minimal Retaliation by Trainees

BACKGROUND

Grade inflation is pervasive in educational settings in the United States. One driver of grade inflation may be faculty concern that assigning lower clinical performance scores to trainees will cause them to retaliate and assign lower teaching scores to the faculty member. The finding of near-zero retaliation would be important to faculty members who evaluate trainees.

METHODS

The authors used a bidirectional confidential evaluation and feedback system to test the hypothesis that faculty members who assign lower clinical performance scores to residents subsequently receive lower clinical teaching scores. From September 1, 2008, to February 15, 2013, 177 faculty members evaluated 188 anesthesia residents (n = 27,561 evaluations), and 188 anesthesia residents evaluated 204 faculty members (n = 25,058 evaluations). The authors analyzed the relationship between clinical performance scores assigned by faculty members and the clinical teaching scores received using linear regression. The authors used complete dyads between faculty members and resident pairs to conduct a mixed effects model analysis. All analyses were repeated for three different epochs, each with different administrative attributes that might influence retaliation.

RESULTS

There was no relationship between mean clinical performance scores assigned by faculty members and mean clinical teaching scores received in any epoch (P ≥ 0.45). Using only complete dyads, the authors' mixed effects model analysis demonstrated a very small retaliation effect in each epoch (effect sizes of 0.10, 0.06, and 0.12; P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These results imply that faculty members can provide confidential evaluations and written feedback to trainees with near-zero impact on their mean teaching scores.

Student Evaluation of Faculty Physicians: Gender Differences in Teaching Evaluations

PURPOSE

To investigate whether there is a difference in medical student teaching evaluations for male and female clinical physician faculty.

METHODS

The authors examined all teaching evaluations completed by clinical students at one North American medical school in the surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and internal medicine clinical rotations from 2008 to 2012. The authors focused on how students rated physician faculty on their "overall quality of teaching" using a 5-point response scale (1 = Poor to 5 = Excellent). Linear mixed-effects models provided estimated mean differences in evaluation outcomes by faculty gender.

RESULTS

There were 14,107 teaching evaluations of 965 physician faculty. Of these evaluations, 7688 (54%) were for male physician faculty and 6419 (46%) were for female physician faculty. Female physicians received significantly lower mean evaluation scores in all four rotations. The discrepancy was largest in the surgery rotation (males = 4.23, females = 4.01, p = 0.003). Pediatrics showed the next greatest difference (males = 4.44, females = 4.29, p = 0.009), followed by obstetrics and gynecology (males = 4.38, females = 4.26, p = 0.026), and internal medicine (males = 4.35, females = 4.27, p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Female physicians received lower teaching evaluations in all four core clinical rotations. This comprehensive examination adds to the medical literature by illuminating subtle differences in evaluations based on physician gender, and provides further evidence of disparities for women in academic medicine.