A multi-institutional study assessing general surgery faculty teaching evaluations.

Area of Science:

• Medical Education
• Surgical Training
• Faculty Development

Background:

• Resident evaluation of faculty teaching is crucial in general surgery training.
• Existing faculty evaluation (FE) instruments show significant variability.
• This variability impacts the consistency and utility of feedback.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the adherence of current faculty evaluation instruments to ACGME standards.
• To evaluate the meaningfulness and effectiveness of these instruments in general surgery programs.
• To identify areas for improvement in faculty evaluation tools.

Main Methods:

• Twenty-two general surgery programs submitted their faculty evaluation forms and demographic data.
• Three independent clinical education experts conducted blinded assessments of the submitted FEs.
• Assessments focused on adherence to the 2018 ACGME common program standards and the meaningfulness of the evaluations.

Main Results:

• Faculty evaluation instruments ranged from 1 to 29 questions.
• No single evaluation form met all 5 ACGME standards.
• Significant differences were observed in the effectiveness of FEs across the 5 ACGME standards (p < 0.001), with teaching and professionalism rated highest, and scholarly activities lowest.

Conclusions:

• There is considerable variation in faculty evaluation tool development and adherence to ACGME standards across programs.
• Developing standardized faculty evaluation tools aligned with all ACGME standards is recommended.
• Such standardization could lead to more accurate assessments of faculty teaching and better-targeted professional development.