Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39081631›Full record

ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2024

What/Why/When/Where/How Framework and Faculty Development Workshop to Improve the Utility of Narrative Evaluations for Assessing Internal Medicine Residents.

Dheepa R Sekar, Kristen Ann Ehrenberger, Allie Dakroub, Scott Rothenberger, Thomas Grau, Andrea E Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dheepa R SekarAssistant Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-8871-0100
Kristen Ann EhrenbergerAssistant Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine and Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
Allie DakroubAssistant Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine and Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
Scott RothenbergerAssistant Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
Thomas GrauAssociate Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Associate Chief of Staff of Education, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System.
Andrea E CarterAssistant Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical competency committees (CCCs) rely on narrative evaluations to assess resident competency. Despite the emphasis on these evaluations, their utility is frequently hindered by lack of sufficient detail for use by CCCs. Prior resources have sought to improve specificity of comments and use of evaluations by residents but not their utility for CCCs in assessing trainee performance. Methods: We developed a 1-hour faculty development workshop focused on a newly devised framework for Department of Medicine faculty supervising internal medicine residents. The what/why/when/where/how framework highlighted key features of useful narrative evaluations: behaviors of strength and growth, contextualized observations, improvement over time, and actionable next steps. Workshop sessions were implemented at a large multisite internal medicine residency program. We assessed the workshop by measuring attendee confidence and skill in writing narrative evaluations useful for CCCs. Skill was assessed through a rubric adapted from literature on the utility of narrative evaluations. Results: Fifty-four participants started the presurvey, and 33 completed the workshop, for a response rate of 61%. Participant confidence improved pre-, post-, and 3 months postworkshop. Total utility scores improved in mock evaluations from 12.4 to 15.5 and in real evaluations from 13.7 to 15.0, but only some subcomponent scores improved, with fewer improving in the real evaluations. Discussion: A short workshop focusing on our framework improves confidence and utility of narrative evaluations of internal medicine residents for use by CCCs. Next steps should include developing more challenging components of narrative evaluations for continued improvement in trainee performance and faculty assessment.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementInternal MedicineInternship and ResidencyEducationFaculty, MedicalHumansNarrationStaff DevelopmentAssessmentClinical Competency CommitteeCompetency-Based Medical Education (Competencies, Milestones, EPAs)Faculty DevelopmentInternal MedicineNarrative Evaluations

Identifiers

PMID39081631
PMCPMC11286767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.