Prognostic value of resident clinical performance ratings

Reed G. Williams, Gary Dunnington

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study investigated the concurrent and predictive validity of end-of-rotation (EOR) clinical performance ratings. Surgeon EOR ratings of residents were collected and compared with end-of-year (EOY) progress decisions and to EOR and EOY confidential judgments of resident ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Eighty percent to 85% of EOR ratings were Excellent or Very Good. Five percent or fewer were Fair or Poor. Almost all residents receiving Excellent or Very Good EOR ratings also received positive EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Residents rated Fair or Poor received negative EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. As the cumulative percent of Good, Fair, and Poor EOR ratings increased, the number of residents promoted without stipulations at the end of the year decreased and the percentage of faculty members who judged the residents capable of providing effective patient care without direct supervision at the end of the year declined. All residents receiving 40% or more EOR ratings below Very Good had stipulations associated with their promotion. Despite use of descriptive anchors on the scale, clinical performance ratings have no direct meaning. Their meaning needs to be established in the same manner as is done in setting normal values for diagnostic tests, ie, by establishing the relationship between EOR ratings and practice outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)620-627
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume199
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aptitude
Patient Care
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Reference Values
Cohort Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Prognostic value of resident clinical performance ratings. / Williams, Reed G.; Dunnington, Gary.

In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol. 199, No. 4, 10.2004, p. 620-627.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2ed0348e38914e86a12909352a92e19b,
title = "Prognostic value of resident clinical performance ratings",
abstract = "This study investigated the concurrent and predictive validity of end-of-rotation (EOR) clinical performance ratings. Surgeon EOR ratings of residents were collected and compared with end-of-year (EOY) progress decisions and to EOR and EOY confidential judgments of resident ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Eighty percent to 85{\%} of EOR ratings were Excellent or Very Good. Five percent or fewer were Fair or Poor. Almost all residents receiving Excellent or Very Good EOR ratings also received positive EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Residents rated Fair or Poor received negative EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. As the cumulative percent of Good, Fair, and Poor EOR ratings increased, the number of residents promoted without stipulations at the end of the year decreased and the percentage of faculty members who judged the residents capable of providing effective patient care without direct supervision at the end of the year declined. All residents receiving 40{\%} or more EOR ratings below Very Good had stipulations associated with their promotion. Despite use of descriptive anchors on the scale, clinical performance ratings have no direct meaning. Their meaning needs to be established in the same manner as is done in setting normal values for diagnostic tests, ie, by establishing the relationship between EOR ratings and practice outcomes.",
author = "Williams, {Reed G.} and Gary Dunnington",
year = "2004",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.05.273",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "199",
pages = "620--627",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Surgeons",
issn = "1072-7515",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prognostic value of resident clinical performance ratings

AU - Williams, Reed G.

AU - Dunnington, Gary

PY - 2004/10

Y1 - 2004/10

N2 - This study investigated the concurrent and predictive validity of end-of-rotation (EOR) clinical performance ratings. Surgeon EOR ratings of residents were collected and compared with end-of-year (EOY) progress decisions and to EOR and EOY confidential judgments of resident ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Eighty percent to 85% of EOR ratings were Excellent or Very Good. Five percent or fewer were Fair or Poor. Almost all residents receiving Excellent or Very Good EOR ratings also received positive EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Residents rated Fair or Poor received negative EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. As the cumulative percent of Good, Fair, and Poor EOR ratings increased, the number of residents promoted without stipulations at the end of the year decreased and the percentage of faculty members who judged the residents capable of providing effective patient care without direct supervision at the end of the year declined. All residents receiving 40% or more EOR ratings below Very Good had stipulations associated with their promotion. Despite use of descriptive anchors on the scale, clinical performance ratings have no direct meaning. Their meaning needs to be established in the same manner as is done in setting normal values for diagnostic tests, ie, by establishing the relationship between EOR ratings and practice outcomes.

AB - This study investigated the concurrent and predictive validity of end-of-rotation (EOR) clinical performance ratings. Surgeon EOR ratings of residents were collected and compared with end-of-year (EOY) progress decisions and to EOR and EOY confidential judgments of resident ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Eighty percent to 85% of EOR ratings were Excellent or Very Good. Five percent or fewer were Fair or Poor. Almost all residents receiving Excellent or Very Good EOR ratings also received positive EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. Residents rated Fair or Poor received negative EOR judgments about ability to provide patient care without direct supervision. As the cumulative percent of Good, Fair, and Poor EOR ratings increased, the number of residents promoted without stipulations at the end of the year decreased and the percentage of faculty members who judged the residents capable of providing effective patient care without direct supervision at the end of the year declined. All residents receiving 40% or more EOR ratings below Very Good had stipulations associated with their promotion. Despite use of descriptive anchors on the scale, clinical performance ratings have no direct meaning. Their meaning needs to be established in the same manner as is done in setting normal values for diagnostic tests, ie, by establishing the relationship between EOR ratings and practice outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=6944247732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=6944247732&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.05.273

DO - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.05.273

M3 - Article

C2 - 15454149

AN - SCOPUS:6944247732

VL - 199

SP - 620

EP - 627

JO - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

SN - 1072-7515

IS - 4

ER -