Cargando…

Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions

PURPOSE: This study analyzes assessments within radiation oncology (RO) to determine characteristics of existing assessment methods and then report resident perceptions of these methods. We hypothesize familiarity with evaluation methods is predictive of the perceived utility of evaluations and beha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rajeev-Kumar, Greeshma, Manjunath, Rajashri, Hasan, Yasmin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10172714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37179902
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2023.101230
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: This study analyzes assessments within radiation oncology (RO) to determine characteristics of existing assessment methods and then report resident perceptions of these methods. We hypothesize familiarity with evaluation methods is predictive of the perceived utility of evaluations and behavioral changes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study was conducted in 2 phases. Phase 1 involved requesting resident evaluation forms from RO residency programs to assess the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 6 Core Competencies. Analysis of variance was used to determine any significant differences between institutions or categories of questions. In phase 2, RO residents were surveyed about familiarity with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones and their perceptions about the current methods. Responses to questions were further analyzed using linear regression models. RESULTS: In phase 1, forms were obtained from 13 institutions, and they were based on the 6 Core Competencies with an average of 19 questions (standard deviation, 11; range, 5-47) in total. Analysis of variance did not show significant variation in the number of questions between the categories (F = 0.78, P = .6). A significant difference in the mean number of questions used for assessing each of the competencies was found between institutions (F = 6.6, P < .01). In phase 2, a majority of surveyed residents reported being “not” or only “slightly familiar” with the competencies (59.6%) and the factors used to assess them (73.1%). Resident-reported familiarity with the evaluation methods was not found to be a significant predictor of likelihood of changing postevaluation (coefficient = 0.41, P = .204), intimidation from receiving evaluations (coefficient = -0.06, P = .792), stress of receiving evaluations (coefficient = -0.11, P = .62), or usefulness of evaluations (coefficient = -0.02, P = .83). CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity with evaluation methods is not correlated with perceptions or behavioral changes necessitating further investigation of alternative predictor variables. Despite the low familiarity with evaluation tools, most residents reported that evaluations were useful and likely to elicit changes in their behaviors and practice, highlighting the value of current evaluation methods.