Cargando…

Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment

INTRODUCTION: Competency-based medical education (CBME) hinges on robust assessment. However, integrating regular workplace-based assessment within demanding and sometimes chaotic clinical environments remains challenging. Many faculty lack assessment expertise, and some programs lack the infrastruc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burm, Sarah, Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S., Van Koughnett, Julie Ann, Watling, Christopher J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7459015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32504448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00594-0
_version_ 1783576302223097856
author Burm, Sarah
Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
Van Koughnett, Julie Ann
Watling, Christopher J.
author_facet Burm, Sarah
Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
Van Koughnett, Julie Ann
Watling, Christopher J.
author_sort Burm, Sarah
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Competency-based medical education (CBME) hinges on robust assessment. However, integrating regular workplace-based assessment within demanding and sometimes chaotic clinical environments remains challenging. Many faculty lack assessment expertise, and some programs lack the infrastructure and faculty numbers to fulfill CBME’s mandate. Recognizing this, we designed and implemented an assessment innovation that trains and deploys a cadre of faculty to assess in specialties outside their own. Specifically, we explored trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to this novel assessment approach. METHODS: Within Western University’s Surgical Foundations program, 27 PGY‑1 trainees were formatively assessed by trained non-surgeons on a basic laparoscopic surgical skill. These assessments did not impact trainees’ progression. Four focus groups were conducted to gauge residents’ sentiments about the experience of cross-specialty assessment. Data were then analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: While a few trainees found the experience motivating, more often trainees questioned the feedback they received and the practicality of this assessment approach to advance their procedural skill acquisition. What trainees wanted were strategies for improvement, not merely an assessment of performance. DISCUSSION: Trainees’ trepidation at the idea of using outside assessors to meet increased assessment demands appeared grounded in their expectations for assessment. What trainees appeared to desire was a coach—someone who could break their performance into its critical individual components—as opposed to an assessor whose role was limited to scoring their performance. Understanding trainees’ receptivity to new assessment approaches is crucial; otherwise training programs run the risk of generating more assessments without added value. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-020-00594-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7459015
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74590152020-09-15 Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment Burm, Sarah Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S. Van Koughnett, Julie Ann Watling, Christopher J. Perspect Med Educ Original Article INTRODUCTION: Competency-based medical education (CBME) hinges on robust assessment. However, integrating regular workplace-based assessment within demanding and sometimes chaotic clinical environments remains challenging. Many faculty lack assessment expertise, and some programs lack the infrastructure and faculty numbers to fulfill CBME’s mandate. Recognizing this, we designed and implemented an assessment innovation that trains and deploys a cadre of faculty to assess in specialties outside their own. Specifically, we explored trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to this novel assessment approach. METHODS: Within Western University’s Surgical Foundations program, 27 PGY‑1 trainees were formatively assessed by trained non-surgeons on a basic laparoscopic surgical skill. These assessments did not impact trainees’ progression. Four focus groups were conducted to gauge residents’ sentiments about the experience of cross-specialty assessment. Data were then analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: While a few trainees found the experience motivating, more often trainees questioned the feedback they received and the practicality of this assessment approach to advance their procedural skill acquisition. What trainees wanted were strategies for improvement, not merely an assessment of performance. DISCUSSION: Trainees’ trepidation at the idea of using outside assessors to meet increased assessment demands appeared grounded in their expectations for assessment. What trainees appeared to desire was a coach—someone who could break their performance into its critical individual components—as opposed to an assessor whose role was limited to scoring their performance. Understanding trainees’ receptivity to new assessment approaches is crucial; otherwise training programs run the risk of generating more assessments without added value. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40037-020-00594-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2020-06-05 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7459015/ /pubmed/32504448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00594-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Burm, Sarah
Sebok-Syer, Stefanie S.
Van Koughnett, Julie Ann
Watling, Christopher J.
Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment
title Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment
title_full Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment
title_fullStr Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment
title_full_unstemmed Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment
title_short Are we generating more assessments without added value? Surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment
title_sort are we generating more assessments without added value? surgical trainees’ perceptions of and receptiveness to cross-specialty assessment
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7459015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32504448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00594-0
work_keys_str_mv AT burmsarah arewegeneratingmoreassessmentswithoutaddedvaluesurgicaltraineesperceptionsofandreceptivenesstocrossspecialtyassessment
AT seboksyerstefanies arewegeneratingmoreassessmentswithoutaddedvaluesurgicaltraineesperceptionsofandreceptivenesstocrossspecialtyassessment
AT vankoughnettjulieann arewegeneratingmoreassessmentswithoutaddedvaluesurgicaltraineesperceptionsofandreceptivenesstocrossspecialtyassessment
AT watlingchristopherj arewegeneratingmoreassessmentswithoutaddedvaluesurgicaltraineesperceptionsofandreceptivenesstocrossspecialtyassessment