Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:46:40.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How do I improve the quality of in-training assessment of learners?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Glen Bandiera
Glen Bandiera*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Services, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON
*
Department of Emergency Services, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Suite 1-008e Shuter Wing, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8; bandierag@smh.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Assessing a learner in the course of a hectic emergency department (ED) rotation is a daunting task for both experienced and new supervisors. This is particularly true if the learner is not doing well. In light of numerous impediments provided by the modern ED environment, sticking to basic principles can result in marked improvement in both the process and the outcome of in-training assessment. This article addresses these important principles for assessment as they apply in the clinical realm of the ED, with a focus on matching expectations to both the trainee and the available assessment strategies. It is critical that teachers strive for clarity, consistency, honesty, and adherence to due process in their learner assessments. This article provides an evidence-informed approach to succeeding with such an approach to clinical assessment.

Keywords

assessmentclinical supervisioncompetencybased educationeducationevaluationfeedbackperformance
Type
Education • Enseignement
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , July 2011 , pp. 267 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2011

References

REFERENCES

1.Turnbull, J, Van Barneveld, C. Assessment of clinical performance: in-training evaluation. In: Norman, GR, Van der Vleuten, CPM, Newble, DI, editors. International handbook of research in medical education. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. p. 793–810.Google Scholar
2.Turnbull, J, Gray, J, MacFadyen, J. Improving intraining evaluation programs. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13: 317–23.Google Scholar
3.Bandiera, GW, Lee, S, Tiberius, R. Effective teaching in the emergency department: how effective teachers get it done. Ann Emerg Med 2005;43:253–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Thurgur, L, Bandiera, G, Lee, S, et al. What emergency medicine learners wish their teachers knew. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:856–61.Google Scholar
5.Tenn-Lyn, NA, Leblanc, VA, Bandiera, G. Can we predict what objectives off-service residents have for their emergency medicine rotations? Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Tenn-Lyn, NA, Bandiera, G, Hodges, B, et al. Factors influencing self-directed objective setting by off-service residents in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Pulito, AR, Donnelly, MB, Plymale, M, et al. What do faculty observe of medical students’ clinical performance? Teach Learn Med 2006;18:99–104.Google Scholar
8.Carline, JD, Paauw, DS, Thiede, KW, et al. Factors affecting the reliability of ratings of students’ clinical skills in a medicine clerkship. J Gen Intern Med 1992;7:506–10.Google Scholar
9.Dudek, NL, Marks, MB, Regehr, G. Failure to fail-the perspectives of clinical supervisors. AcadMed 2005;80(10 Suppl):S84-7.Google Scholar
10.Cohen, GS, Blumberg, P, Ryan, NC, et al. Do final grades reflect written qualitative evaluations of student performance? Teach Learn Med 1993;5:10–5.Google Scholar
11.Hatala, R, Norman, GR. In-training evaluation during an internal medicine clerkship. Acad Med 1999;74(10 Suppl): S118-20.Google Scholar
12.Dudek, N, Marks, M, Lee, C, et al. Assessing the quality of supervisors’ completed clinical evaluation reports. Med Educ 2008;42:816–22.Google Scholar