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
_version_ 1785039670879453184
author Rajeev-Kumar, Greeshma
Manjunath, Rajashri
Hasan, Yasmin
author_facet Rajeev-Kumar, Greeshma
Manjunath, Rajashri
Hasan, Yasmin
author_sort Rajeev-Kumar, Greeshma
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10172714
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101727142023-05-12 Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions Rajeev-Kumar, Greeshma Manjunath, Rajashri Hasan, Yasmin Adv Radiat Oncol Scientific Article 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. Elsevier 2023-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10172714/ /pubmed/37179902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2023.101230 Text en © 2023 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Scientific Article
Rajeev-Kumar, Greeshma
Manjunath, Rajashri
Hasan, Yasmin
Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions
title Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions
title_full Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions
title_fullStr Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions
title_full_unstemmed Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions
title_short Radiation Oncology Resident Evaluations: Current Methods and Resident Perceptions
title_sort radiation oncology resident evaluations: current methods and resident perceptions
topic Scientific Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT rajeevkumargreeshma radiationoncologyresidentevaluationscurrentmethodsandresidentperceptions
AT manjunathrajashri radiationoncologyresidentevaluationscurrentmethodsandresidentperceptions
AT hasanyasmin radiationoncologyresidentevaluationscurrentmethodsandresidentperceptions