Skip Navigation LinksHome > April 2007 - Volume 106 - Issue 4 > Assessment of Competency in Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology:
doi: 10.1097/01.anes.0000264778.02286.4d
Review Article

Assessment of Competency in Anesthesiology

Tetzlaff, John E. M.D.*
Section Editor(s): Warltier, David C. M.D., Ph.D.

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Collapse Box

Abstract

Assessment of competency in traditional graduate medical education has been based on observation of clinical care and classroom teaching. In anesthesiology, this has been relatively easy because of the high volume of care provided by residents under the direct observation of faculty in the operating room. With the movement to create accountability for graduate medical education, there is pressure to move toward assessment of competency. The Outcome Project of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has mandated that residency programs teach six core competencies, create reliable tools to assess learning of the competencies, and use the data for program improvement. General approaches to assessment and how these approaches fit into the context of anesthesiology are highly relevant for academic physicians.
ASSESSMENT of competency in traditional graduate medical education (GME) has been based on observation of clinical care and tests that measure the effectiveness of didactic teaching. In anesthesiology, direct observation of resident performance by staff is the norm, and assessment of competence is often based on global impressions (“I know it when I see it”). In this context, the curricula of anesthesiology residencies have been based on diversity of cases, global assessment, didactic teaching, and measurement of medical knowledge via standard tests such as the in-training examination (ITE), American Board of Anesthesiology written examination or written examinations produced by the Inter Hospital Study Group for Anesthesia Education (Anesthesia Knowledge Tests), or the programs themselves. The penultimate evaluation for many programs has been the 6-month Clinical Competence Committee forms submitted to the American Board of Anesthesiology, although the criteria for “satisfactory” performance are unique to each training program.
Many different forces have created pressure to connect GME with outcomes,1 including the Federal Government because of their huge financial investment in GME and major industrial organizations with outcome measures as a condition of participation in healthcare contracts. The national interest in patient safety is also linked to measurement of competency.
Rather than wait for a legislative mandate, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) decided to initiate linkage of GME to outcomes. A comprehensive review of GME was undertaken with the intent to define specific competencies that could be applied to all residents. The result was published in February 1999 as the ACGME Outcome Project. The general competencies are
* patient care
* medical knowledge
* practice-based learning and improvement
* interpersonal and communication skills
* professionalism
* systems-based practice
Full-text definitions for these competencies were published in September 1999, followed by a 10-yr, three-phase timeline for implementation. Any program reviewed after July 1, 2003, was obligated to demonstrate curriculum and assessment of these competencies. The recognition that the response needed to be unique to each medical specialty allows for specific anesthesiology responses within the terms of the ACGME Outcome Project.
Back to Top | Article Outline

The Initial Response within Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology has responded receptively to the Outcome Project. Once the language was published in February 1999, it was presented at the 1999 Society for Academic Anesthesiology Chairs/Association of Anesthesiology Programs Directors Meeting as a future direction for the specialty. At the spring 2000 meeting of the Society for Education in Anesthesiology, the Residency Curriculum Committee began to work on a template for compliance. After 4 yr of collaborative work, a preliminary version was made available via the Society for Education in Anesthesiology Web site. This work has evolved into a standing committee as an invited liaison for the specialty to the ACGME.
It may be that the nature of training in anesthesiology lends itself to easy acceptance, because a high percentage of direct patient care performed by anesthesiology residents occurs under visual supervision of teaching staff. The blend of clinical care with cognitive and technical teaching is inevitable, because anesthesiology is so intimately tied to acute care medicine. Evaluation of anesthesiology residents by their staff has routinely been based on direct observation of clinical care. The need to transition from global impressions to specific, reliable competency measurement is the challenge for the anesthesiology response to the Outcome Project.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Principles of Assessment

The distinction between evaluation and assessment is a movement toward the use of reliable, quantitative tools with a measurable level of objectivity.2 Assessment can be performed with two different approaches: formative assessment and summative assessment. Formative assessment involves collection of information about a student designed to provide feedback and stimulate learning. An example is the review of case totals at the midpoint of a rotation, with the goal of identifying the learning achieved and to influence clinical assignments for the balance of the rotation.
Summative assessment is used to make outcome decisions. Because it can be used for adverse actions, standardized written examinations have been a major component because of the need for due process. The downside to using summative assessment in this manner is that the assessment tool drives learning, and students “study to the test” with minimal retention of memorized facts. Perhaps more ominous, standardized examinations may not measure the characteristics that they are used to measure. For the US Medical Licensing Examinations (I-III), what is tested is well defined3 and should not be used to measure other elements besides the breadth of medical knowledge.4 There is general evidence that performance on standard examinations can be used to predict clinical performance.5 However, when anesthesiology standard examinations were carefully reviewed to acquire evidence that would predict dangerous clinical performance, there was no direct correlation with actual performance measures for the same resident.6 These examinations do predict performance on other standardized tests7 and measurement of a general fund of knowledge.8 Written knowledge examinations correlate well with competence for physicians in practice.9
There is evidence that challenges the validity of standardized examinations as a measure of clinical performance. High achievement on standardized examinations requires acquisition of knowledge aimed toward the test content but does not necessarily measure higher cognitive functions (e.g., correlation, problem solving).10 The converse is also true: Faculty who have direct knowledge of clinical performance of residents do not successfully predict their ITE results.11
Back to Top | Article Outline

Changes in the Approach to Assessment in GME

Global clinical evaluation and standardized testing represent a typical competency measurement in the traditional model of GME. An evolving alternative is assessment,12 which includes feedback and reinforcement of learning.13 Knowledge acquisition and demonstration of competence for a complex task involving this knowledge can be different14 because measurement of the breadth of knowledge may not reflect the ability to use this knowledge to solve problems.13
Conditions that facilitate learning are ideal when the clinical experience occurs proximate to the assessment event.13 Real-time feedback facilitates learning by creating immediate interest in the subject.15 Assessment tools that are created in an authentic clinical context are more likely to stimulate learning.13 Nontraditional assessment methods that stimulate learning include self-assessment,16 peer review,17 and portfolio.18 An additional advantage to a realistic context is reinforcement of behavior by the linkage with a task,12 with intense reinforcement19 versus “studying to the test” with limited retention.20
Back to Top | Article Outline

Characteristics of an Optimum Assessment Process

Assessment tools must achieve acceptable levels of performance for six characteristics to be useful.20 Reliability is the reproducibility of the results. Two different raters should be able to independently measure performance and achieve similar conclusions. Written examinations based on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are highly reliable in measurement of medical knowledge. Global evaluations of a rotation have low reliability, although this can be improved with intense faculty development to define elements of performance21,22 and by having multiple assessments by different raters.23,24
Validity of an assessment tool is determined by whether it actually measures what it is designed to measure. MCQ examinations are thought to have limited validity in predicting clinical competence.4 Predicting competence in a clinical setting becomes more valid when the assessment occurs in a clinical setting.25–27 Global assessments of clinical performance 7–14 days after a rotation have limited validity.26
Flexibility is determined by how well a given tool can be used to measure performance in different settings. Global evaluation fairs well because of applicability to a wide variety of GME situations. The MCQ examination has limited flexibility, reliably measuring medical knowledge but poorly adaptable to other competencies.
Comprehensiveness is related to the extent that an assessment tool measures all elements of performance. Global assessment achieves an acceptable level for comprehensiveness. The use of MCQ examination as a single tool has limited comprehensiveness.
Feasibility is related to whether an assessment tool can be used in any given GME program. Attempts to achieve assessment with high reliability and/or validity have led to the use of standardized patients (SPs) and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). The administrative structure is easy to create when used in large training programs or in medical schools. In the average residency training program, the logistical needs are oppressive, and good tools such as SPs and OSCEs have serious feasibility issues within the anesthesiology world.28
Timeliness of an assessment tool is determined by when the assessment intervention is performed in relation to the measured behavior. The ideal is real-time assessment with immediate feedback. The opposite extreme is the evaluation that occurs weeks or months after the clinical event, resulting in reduced validity, loss of any reinforcement of learning, with rater bias becoming more likely.28
Accountability is the ability to defend the efficacy of an assessment tool. This is especially important for tools used to make summative assessment decisions. These decisions can be adverse and must be defensible as fair and transparent, ideally with guidelines for action that are objective.29
One way to improve assessment is to move from the “pass-fail” habit in GME (“good” or “excellent”) to descriptive assessment. For undergraduate medical education, Pangaro30 suggested vocabulary for competence, defining skills by whether the student is a “reporter,” an “interpreter,” a “manager,” or an “educator” of these RIME steps. He advocates measuring skills during performance of a task with the student aware of the assessment. The clinical skills assessment in US Medical Licensing Examinations step 2, Clinical Skills, is an example of a high-stakes, performance-based assessment. The Outcome Project uses descriptive competencies. Other data supports that descriptive assessment is effective in detecting deficiencies in medical knowledge,31 professionalism,32 and patient care.33 The idea that sharing data from sequential descriptive assessments can validate the process has also been previously reported34 and shown to demonstrate face validity.35
Back to Top | Article Outline

Assessment of the Core Competencies in the Context of Anesthesiology

The ACGME has mandated that each program must establish the teaching and assessment of these competencies. The challenge for anesthesiology is to make this practical and feasible in the context of anesthesiology residency. The amount of direct supervision and observation of patient care is high within anesthesiology, and the teaching of the competencies should be easily accomplished. Assessment is more problematic. The requirements of the Outcome Project make it mandatory that training programs measure learning and use the data for remediation of individual residents and process improvement of the training program. This requires anesthesiology program directors to select reliable assessment tools for each of the six competencies with a reasonable degree of feasibility. The medical education literature has a large number of reports about assessment tools, and it is worthwhile to define those tools that could potentially be used in anesthesiology residency programs.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome Project—General Competencies: Patient Care

Residents must be able to provide patient care that is compassionate, appropriate, and effective for the treatment of health problems and the promotion of health. Residents are expected to
* communicate effectively and demonstrate caring and respectful behaviors when interacting with patients and their families
* gather essential and accurate information about their patients
* make informed decisions about diagnostic and therapeutic interventions based on patient information and preferences, up-to-date scientific evidence, and clinical judgment
* develop and carry out patient management plans
* counsel and educate patients and their families
* use information technology to support patient care decisions and patient education
* perform competently all medical and invasive procedures considered essential for the area of practice
* provide healthcare services aimed at preventing health problems or maintaining health
* work with healthcare professionals, including those from other disciplines, to provide patient-focused care
Back to Top | Article Outline
Written Examinations
Knowledge is required for good patient care, but measurement of knowledge alone does not directly evaluate patient care skills. A modification of the written examination has been described, where the test is created from distinctive patient scenarios and the questions are designed to cover unique complaints in a surgical clerkship.36
Multiple-choice questions are relatively common assessment tools used in anesthesiology programs. Realistic clinical scenarios are used for some of the stems of written examination questions on the anesthesiology ITE and the American Board of Anesthesiology Written Board Examination. This will increase as the extended match format is added to the ITE/written board question pool. Although MCQ examinations are attractive to program directors because of their reliability, there is serious doubt about the validity of using MCQs to assess patient care skill.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Objective Structured Clinical Examination
The OSCE has been advocated as means of measuring patient care skills.37–40 It can be adapted to the clinical reality of a variety of specialties, including surgery,41–44 internal medicine (IM),45,46 pediatrics,47–52 family medicine (FM),53 and various clinical settings45,54 including both the outpatient42 and hospital-based practices.55,56 In addition to assessment, OSCE enhances learning because of immediate feedback.57 The OSCE format has been applied to the direct assessment of patient care in geriatric medicine,58 emergency medicine (EM),59 psychiatry,60,61 obstetrics and gynecology,62,63 and rheumatology.64
Technical (e.g., simulation of laparoscopy) and bench elements (e.g., identification of tissue with a microscope) can be added in the OSCE format65–68 for surgery as objective structure assessment of technical skills, although surgery residents often do not believe this to be a valid measurement of either knowledge or technical skill.69 The OSCE does discriminate clinical knowledge and technical skills criteria by level of experience (physician assistant, medical student, surgical resident).70 Entry-level clinical skills can be measured reliably with OSCE.66,71 When SPs are used in the OSCE format, they can be trained to provide feedback about the clinical skill of the student.72 Candidates accept the OSCE format with a high level of satisfaction, reporting testing as an active learning experience.73
There has been limited enthusiasm for OSCE in anesthesiology programs. There are serious issues with cost, feasibility,74–77 and reliability.41,45,52,62,78 OSCE programs in the primary care settings (IM, FM, pediatrics) are supplemented by SPs, which are easy to recruit in these specialties, but not in anesthesiology. There are a limited number of anesthesiology programs that use OSCE for assessment of patient care, and evidence of the efficacy and reliability of OSCE in this setting remain unpublished at this time.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Direct Observation
Direct observation is probably the most frequently used assessment tool for patient care skills in anesthesiology. The reliability improves when the person performing the assessment is not directly involved in the clinical care, requiring additional resources.79,80 The optimum feedback format is written, if the goal is to stimulate learning.81 Validity of global assessment improves when structured criteria are used.23 An example of structured criteria is the RIME terminology of Pangaro,2 which uses descriptive terms for ascending skill levels of performance.2 Without structure, the majority of strengths/weaknesses were missed by experienced IM faculty compared with assessments with a structured format.82,83 The reliability issue of the “easy grader” is magnified with global ratings of observed performance.84,85 Interrater reliability is low even with extensive faculty training.86 Longitudinal observations using a template yield superior results compared with observations without a template.87 Preestablished criteria for direct observation are valuable to identify skill levels and the need for remediation of highly technical tasks.88,89 Direct observation on multiple occasions by the same observer is more reliable than observation on a single occasion.90 The reliability of multiple encounter observation is better if criteria are rigid when different observers are used.91
Direct observation of anesthesiology residents for assessment of patient care was indirectly validated by Rhoton et al.,92 who observed a correlation between observed deficiencies in noncognitive skills (confidence, composure, eagerness to learn, interpersonal skills, willingness to take instruction, professional behavior) and critical incidents. The potential for the validation of direct observation of patient care as an assessment tool is excellent if it is linked with simulation using the same observers. Direct observation of clinical performance by an observer not involved in the patient care is an option to improve reliability.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Self-assessment
A relatively underexplored area of assessment of patient care is self-assessment. Accurate self-assessment skill does not come naturally and requires training. Residents were able to arrive at the same evaluation of technical skills as their teachers with a modest amount of training,93 especially if the training included explicit expectations.94 An added advantage is the additional learning from the act of self-assessment.95 Specific training for reflection improves the ultimate product in a system of self-assessment.96 In an obstetrics and gynecology rotation, reflection was taught using the medical literature and applied to clinical situations, improving the student's ability to evaluate their own performance.97 In a general practice setting, reflection about challenging cases combined with journaling and third-party feedback improved self-assessment skills.98 Student performance on self-assessment activities matched their progress in clinical skill acquisition.99 Oral surgery residents were able to accurately identify areas of skill in which they required more experience and teaching.100 When initial attempts at self-assessment by residents were compared with subsequent attempts, training and repetition resulted in improved skill.101 Self-assessment may be more effective when combined with auditing and feedback for residents.102 In general, trained self-assessment is harsher than faculty assessment of the same event.103
Self-assessment has not made significant inroads within anesthesiology education, although one report of self-reporting of medical errors suggested good educational merit.104 A monitoring process could also have the same effect.105 There is potential for self-assessment by anesthesiology residents, if explicit criteria are created by the program along with clear definitions of the evidence that could be used by the resident to establish competency.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Standardized Patients
Use of SPs has been widely accepted as a means of assessing patient care in undergraduate medical education.106–108 SPs can be adults or children,109–111 although children as subjects have feasibility issues.109 Providing the SP with a simple script makes the interaction more active in assessing consultation skills.112 In a highly controlled application, SP provided an effective part of an assessment tool for patient care skills of surgical residents.113 SPs also proved to be a reliable means of assessing technical skills in an EM training program.114 In an IM residency, global evaluations were compared with assessment of clinical skills using SPs and were found to have low correlation, suggesting that the SP experience was measuring something different.115 Videotape review of actual patient care in a postresidency setting was found to be more effective as an assessment tool based on feasibility compared with SP stations.116 In a medical student setting, SP performance correlated well with clinical performance.117
There has been limited application of SPs within anesthesiology because of feasibility issues. The number of students is large in the undergraduate setting, justifying the effort and expense to locate and maintains these patients. The faculty-to-student ratio makes the resource expenditure for faculty development reasonable. It is also practical in the IM, psychiatry,118 and FM residencies because the patients can be easily recruited from continuity clinics, although faculty development effort is considerable.119,120 The most relevant clinical situations within anesthesiology to be evaluated do not easily lend themselves to the SP format (except possibly chronic pain management), and recruitment of SP is not well suited to most anesthesiology residency settings.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Audits
The combination of examining medical records combined with targeted feedback makes auditing an effective tool for assessment of specific elements of patient care.121,122 The completeness of physical examination can be assessed by audit in a primary care setting.123 In clinical settings, auditing is a highly effective assessment tool with the additional advantage of encouraging the preferred clinical behavior.124
Auditing is a regular part of the practice of anesthesiology for administration, billing, and appropriate use of controlled substances. Auditing of anesthesia records for assessment of patient care skills would have a very limited return for the effort, unless combined with a structured tool to measure a specific outcome.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Simulation
To simplify the demands of creating an OSCE, or recruiting and maintaining SPs, there has been a sustained effort to create realistic clinical situations electronically to both teach and assess patient care. Human patient simulation has demonstrated considerable efficacy for assessment of technical elements of patient care, such as emergency thoracotomy,125,126 bronchoscopy,127 endoscopy,128,129 laparoscopy,130 lumbar puncture,131 and various surgical maneuvers.132–134 It has also proven effective for measurement of rapid problem-solving skills in the acute care context.135,136
Simulation has demonstrated considerable promise in anesthesiology for the teaching and assessment of the management of acute clinical crisis,137–139 similar to the simulation of aviation “near-misses.”140 A logical extension would be the use of simulation for certification, which has been implemented for medical licensure in Italy.141 In a surgical residency, simulation performance correlated well with global clinical evaluations of technical performance in the operating room.142 In a medical student setting, simulation assessment was compared with global evaluation and SP performance and found to correlate well.117 Assessment using simulation enhances learning in a way not achieved by didactic teaching143,144 and textbooks.145 Simulation may be an ideal approach to the measurement of acute care skills in anesthesiology.77 Defining behavior related to critical incidents may provide a unique means of assessment of anesthesiology residents.146
Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome Project—General Competencies: Medical Knowledge

Residents must demonstrate knowledge about established and evolving biomedical, clinical, and cognate (e.g., epidemiologic and social-behavioral) sciences and the application of this knowledge to patient care. Residents are expected to
* demonstrate an investigatory and analytic thinking approach to clinical situations
* know and apply the basic and clinically supportive sciences which are appropriate to their discipline
Back to Top | Article Outline
Multiple-choice Question Examinations
The role of the standard written examination using well-constructed MCQs remains the accepted standard for measuring breadth of knowledge. For physicians in practice, a comprehensive written examination compares well to other assessment formats, suggesting MCQs as a practical tool.147 Aside from breadth of knowledge, it is not clear what standard examinations measure, or whether they are a reliable means of high-stakes outcome decisions.148 True-false questions probably should not be used.149 When traditional MCQ tests were compared with OSCE short essay and extended matching for medical students, each measured a different subset of knowledge.150 Using written ITEs in conjunction with some other tools may be a better approach to achieve comprehensive assessment of medical knowledge.20 In a radiology residency, global performance evaluation was used to predict ITE results, with poor correlation.151 ITE performance in a psychiatry residency predicted cognitive skills but did not necessarily predict clinical skills.152 ITE scores did not correlate with global performance evaluations in a surgery residency.153 An IM residency reviewed142 multiple assessment instruments and concluded that combinations of tools were needed to achieve comprehensive assessment.45 The lack of correlation between assessment of knowledge and other measures led a surgery residency to advocate the use of multiple tools to achieve comprehensive assessment.153
It is not clear how well measurement of knowledge via MCQs translates to application of medical knowledge.154,155 Cox et al. looked at the clinical impression of knowledge from program directors compared with the results of the ITE and found a high level of correlation.8 This was also reported in a radiology residency.154,156 There was a low correlation with knowledge assessed using SPs in undergraduate medical education compared with written examination results.107 Case presentation can be used for evaluation of medical knowledge with high reliability, especially if the elements presented are measured against a template.155,156 When MCQs were compared with other styles of assessment (audit, global rating, SP) in an IM residency, it was clear that different elements of training were being assessed and that no one tool was comprehensive.122 For physicians in practice, self-assessment using MCQs seems to be an excellent approach to continuous professional development in a rheumatology setting.157
Multiple-choice question tests have a traditional role in the assessment of medical knowledge within anesthesiology. The ITE examinations can be used for formative assessment and remediation based on the key words for incorrect answers. Some anesthesiology training programs measure the progress of acquisition of knowledge using the Anesthesia Knowledge Test at 1, 6, and 18 months of training. A small number of programs generate internal written examinations used for summative assessment. Standard examinations are considered a reliable measure of the breadth of knowledge of anesthesiology residents, although not necessarily the depth of knowledge, which probably should be measured with another tool.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Oral Examination
Oral examinations have a role in assessment of medical knowledge that is distinct from standardized written examinations.158 Resources must be invested in faculty development to ensure reliability, because oral examinations require both questions and human examiners.159 The conduct of the examination as well as the examiners must be structured to ensure standardization between candidates.160 If oral examinations are to be used for summative assessment, previous exposure to the format in a lower consequence setting is essential, because previous experience with oral examinations format may be minimal.161,162
There is good evidence that oral examinations can provide a valid measure of some elements of medical knowledge, despite concerns about the reliability.163 The variability between oral examinations (reliability) is acceptable,164 correlates well with other criteria of medical knowledge within anesthesiology, and functions reliably in the setting of an anesthesiology residency.165 The American Board of Surgery oral examination has also been shown to correlate well with other measures of performance.166
Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome Project—General Competencies: Practice-based Learning and Improvement

Residents must be able to investigate and evaluate their patient care practices, appraise and assimilate scientific evidence, and improve their patient care practices. Residents are expected to
* analyze practice experience and perform practice-based improvement activities using a systematic methodology
* locate, appraise, and assimilate evidence from scientific studies related to their patients' health problems
* obtain and use information about their own population of patients and the larger population from which their patients are drawn
* apply knowledge of study designs and statistical methods to the appraisal of clinical studies and other information on diagnostic and therapeutic effectiveness
* use information technology to manage information, access on-line medical information, and support their own education
* facilitate the learning of students and other healthcare professionals
There is increasing evidence that previous experiences can influence subsequent clinical performance, if the experiences are properly observed and subject to reflection. Bad behavior in the clinical settings has a clearly negative impact on patient care as well as providing an unprofessional role model to those team members still in training. Even the most inexperienced member of a clinical service can be trained to recognize unethical conduct. Mentorship about the expectations of ethical behavior in the clinical setting creates both learning and assessment of this element of practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).167 There have also been reports of assessment of evidence-based medicine programs, including audits in primary care practice,168 an evidence-based medicine skills test for IM residents,169 and a Web exercise.170
Evidence-based medicine has become a regular element of the practice of anesthesiology with the creation of numerous practice guidelines. A measure of PBLI could be derived from audits of clinical practice where these guidelines apply (e.g., Pre-Anesthesia Testing) although reports of this approach have not been published to date.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Mentorship
One of the oldest forms of PBLI has been mentorship. A trainee has clinical experience, shares it with a senior physician, and receives feedback that leads to improvement.171 This learning and assessment loop has been described for EM.172 Use of mentorship in this manner has not been reported for anesthesiology but certainly could be studied, particularly if combined with mentorship of clinical care in the simulation setting.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Self-reporting
One potentially excellent format for assessment of PBLI is self reporting of elements of patient care. This would accomplish learning and assessment in tandem. Review of critical events is an excellent form of PBLI triggered by self-reporting. This approach has been validated in an anesthesiology residency for self-reporting of medical errors.104 Self-reporting is especially relevant because physicians consistently identify the review of critical incidents and medical errors as the most significant impetus for change.173,174 Self-reporting combined with peer review can be used for the assessment of PBLI for the underperforming physician.175 Self-reporting with group discussion results in PBLI assessment via comparison feedback.176
Videotape and information management technology are excellent adjuncts to the assessment of PBLI by improving the accuracy of self-reporting.177 Handheld computers also have the potential for recording clinical information, which were used after the completion of patient care to measure PBLI in an FM residency setting.178 All informatics have the potential to improve assessment of PBLI in GME.179
Self-reporting is a regular part of continuous quality improvement programs that exist in virtually every anesthesiology practice. If self-reporting were combined with some other form of active data collection, it could be used by faculty for feedback that would likely be very effective for assessment of PBLI.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome Project—General Competencies: Interpersonal and Communication Skills

Residents must be able to demonstrate interpersonal and communication skills that result in effective information exchange and teaming with patients, their patients families, and professional associates. Residents are expected to
* create and sustain a therapeutic and ethically sound relationship with patients
* use effective listening skills and elicit and provide information using effective nonverbal, explanatory, questioning, and writing skills
* work effectively with others as a member or leader of a healthcare team or other professional group
Back to Top | Article Outline
Objective Structured Clinical Examination
The OSCE is a reliable means of measuring communication skills.78,180,181 Many patient outcomes improve with excellent physician-patient interaction. These same variables can be measured by OSCE assessment182,183 or video-assisted OSCE.184 Effective written communication can be taught and measured in an OSCE format that focuses on written communication skills.76,185 OSCE format can be used to measure language skills in international medical school graduates.186
Case presentation is a less demanding alternative to OSCE for measuring verbal communication skills.156,187 Creating scripts for interacting with patients will improve communication, as long as it is observed.188 Sessions where residents viewed tapes of difficult patient interviews resulted in better subsequent patient interviews compared with interviews by residents without the teaching intervention.189 In an excellent example of an integrated project for teaching and assessment, Morgan and Winter190 reported a three-step process starting with a formal presentation of expectations, followed by an interactive seminar, and a session that focused on problem solving in a pediatric residency. A similar multistep teaching process significantly improved interview skills compared with a control group in an IM residency.191 A multistep program for improved writing in medical records has been reported for a psychiatry residency.192
Objective structured clinical examination has not been reported as a tool for assessment of communication skills in anesthesiology residents. Case presentation, however, is a universal part of anesthesiology residency and subject to global assessment, although the results have not been reported. Perhaps most potentially useful would be assessment of communication skills during practice oral examinations.
Back to Top | Article Outline
Peer Review
Properly structured peer review yields useful assessment information about communication skills for physicians in practice,193 interns,194 and first-year medical students.195 The 360-degree review can be used to measure communication skills.196
The peer-review format has limited applicability in anesthesiology training programs, because of the scarcity of situations where residents share the same task, unlike surgery or IM services where groups of residents function as a team. The limited 360-degree review (“snapshot”) is being used in some anesthesiology programs in those areas where there is a high contact level between the residents and those being asked to use the assessment tool, such as preanesthesia testing clinics, postanesthesia care units, intensive care units, and pain management centers.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome Project—General Competencies: Professionalism

Residents must demonstrate a commitment to carrying out professional responsibilities, adherence to ethical principles, and sensitivity to a diverse patient population. Residents are expected to
* demonstrate respect, compassion, and integrity; a responsiveness to the needs of patients and society that supersedes self-interest; accountability to patients, society, and the profession; and a commitment to excellence and ongoing professional development
* demonstrate a commitment to ethical principles pertaining to provision or withholding of clinical care, confidentiality of patient information, informed consent, and business practices
* demonstrate sensitivity and responsiveness to patients' culture, age, sex, and disabilities
Numerous guidelines and standards for ethics and professional behavior of physicians in general186,197–200 and in a variety of specialties, including EM,201,202 orthopedic surgery,203,204 and obstetrics and gynecology205 have been published. More challenging is using these general resources to create measurable endpoints that can be assessed.200 Peer assessment and self-assessment,206 the OSCE format,207 patient feedback,208 role models,209 SPs,194,210,211 and simulation212 have been used to measure ethical behavior and professionalism.
Case-based problem resolution is also a means to measure professionalism.213 Active intervention to resolve episodes of unprofessional behavior is also an effective means to assess professionalism.214
Comprehensive review in the 360-degree format has been reported for assessment of professionalism in medical students,215 for physical medicine and rehabilitation residents,216 and for radiology residents.196 These 360-degree evaluations yielded data, but it required considerable effort (feasibility), resulting in a limited amount of new information.217 The opposite extreme has also been reported, with episodes of unprofessional behavior correlating with critical incidents.92 Identifying residents with behavior issues in clinically relevant settings has been described for EM residents.218
Global assessment of professionalism is a required part of regular resident assessment within anesthesiology (Acquired Characteristics). Establishing more substantial data for comprehensive assessment of professionalism is an important goal.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome Project—General Competencies: Systems-based Practice

Residents must demonstrate an awareness of and responsiveness to the larger context and system of health care and the ability to effectively call on system resources to provide care that is of optimal value. Residents are expected to
* understand how their patient care and other professional practices affect other healthcare professionals, the healthcare organization, and the larger society and how these elements of the system affect their own practice
* know how types of medical practice and delivery systems differ from one another, including methods of controlling health care costs and allocating resources
* practice cost-effective healthcare and resource allocation that does not compromise quality of care
* advocate for quality patient care and assist patients in dealing with system complexities
* know how to partner with healthcare managers and healthcare providers to assess, coordinate, and improve health care and know how these activities can affect system performance
Systems-based practice is perhaps the most difficult of the competencies for assessment within anesthesiology, because the focus is on being able to interface effectively with healthcare systems. This is a challenge for anesthesiology training programs, because of the limited focus outside the operating room.
One example of the assessment of systems-based practice is peer review. For physicians in practice, the peer review was most effective when combined with written feedback, including review by partners, referring physicians and patients in a primary care practice setting.219 In another setting, peers were selected by the evaluee, questionnaires were sent by mail, and the information sought was open-ended.193 The unstructured format primarily yielded information about communication skills, empathy, and interpersonal skills. In another report, rigid response prompts actually suppressed effective peer review, and open-ended responses were highly valuable.220 All of these are assessments of the ability to practice in a healthcare system.
Peer review has been used for evaluation of the underperforming physician as a means of both assessment and performance improvement.175 When peer review is combined with group feedback, assessment and practice improvement occur.176
Continuous quality improvement performance review and incident analysis are fundamental parts of health care and an example of systems-based practice. Changes in practice are inevitable when desired outcomes are defined.221 Use of videotape and information handling technologies can achieve assessment of various endpoints.177 Physician response to community and governmental pressures is an element of systems-based practice that is easy to recognize, harder to define, and problematic for assessment.222–224 Use of continuing medical education as a criterion for licensure is a more tangible means of defining expectations.224 Combining multiple expectations may be the most effective means of ensuring practice change.225 Pressure for quality criteria will likely become a part of continuing medical education, driving continuing medical education providers to focus learning encounters toward these goals and measure subsequent outcomes.226
No single measure of anesthesiology practice performance is likely to comprehensively measure physician interaction with the healthcare system as a whole.158 This is especially true with global assessment for this competency, because the traditional equation of “performance equals competence” has been challenged.227
Back to Top | Article Outline

A Comprehensive Portfolio Approach to Competency Assessment

One attractive approach to satisfying the assessment need for the Outcome Project is a comprehensive portfolio assessment tool. The use of portfolios derives from the graphic arts and has been successfully adopted in professional training and assessment in a wide range of fields.228,229 There are several institutions in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands leading medical education in the use of student portfolios.230–234
The starting point for portfolio assessment in medical education is to define performance in terms of competencies, such as the six competencies in the Outcome Project. The next step is to define standards within these competencies and the kind of evidence that can be used to demonstrate mastery of these standards. In an active portfolio system, the student is responsible to select the evidence to demonstrate mastery, often accompanied by written demonstration (essay) or oral defense of performance. In a passive portfolio system, the evidence is assembled in a similar manner for all being assessed. For summative assessment, the portfolios are reviewed by a group of experts. Before examination of any portfolio, the assessment group reviews each standard to establish a common definition of mastery for each. It is then possible to review each portfolio and, for each competency, define whether the individual student has met the standard, not met the standard, or not provided sufficient evidence. For the Outcome Project, this kind of portfolio assessment could be applied to individual or a subset of competencies, or become the primary means of assessing all of the competencies.
Adoption of the portfolio approach has in part been driven by the search for a tool that encourages reflection and that requires active participation by students in the assessment process.235–236 Reflection is a valuable tool within portfolio assessment because it drives the student to use evidence to improve their own performance and learn in the process. Reflection and self-assessment are key concepts in portfolio assessment systems.237–240 The process of determining mastery of each standard is ideally suited to the creation of a learning plan to modify subsequent training for the resident, and when this feedback is assembled cumulatively for a group of residents, it is well suited for use in program improvement.
The portfolio can be used as a tool for assisting with both formative and summative assessment. During formative portfolio review, students reflect on assessment evidence from their course work and feedback from faculty to self-evaluate progress and set learning goals.241 In this process, ensuring that appropriate progress is occurring and setting learning goals that specify activities addressing areas of weakness is essential.234 When portfolios are used for summative assessment, the portfolio review must determine whether the student has achieved the determined level of mastery of competencies, and this in turn dictates promotion decisions.242
The feasibility of portfolio assessment can be problematic because a large amount of data must be assembled for each portfolio and the review process requires considerable faculty effort.243 The technical difficulty of accumulating the data can be improved with computerization.244 Paper-based portfolios are large, and review for assessment is difficult. These feasibility issues in turn create serious validity concerns. Reliability of portfolio assessment has been challenged when the available evidence is limited.245 Some portfolio assessment projects have been reported in GME, including psychiatry246 and EM.247 Higher test scores as evidence of improved learning as a result of portfolio assessment have been reported in undergraduate medical education.248 The amount of information needed to evaluate a portfolio and the number of faculty to read the portfolio has been reported from a psychiatry residency.249 The use of one portfolio process to assess all six competencies has been described in a psychiatry residency.250 The ACGME is sponsoring a portfolio-design project at several sites, with the intention of creating a structure with the flexibility to be implemented at any ACGME-accredited residency to achieve comprehensive assessment.
The portfolio assessment approach to competency assessment has the potential to be highly useful in anesthesiology residencies. The challenge will be defining the competencies and collecting the type of evidence that can be used by the resident to establish competency. It may be that a portfolio of competencies could be combined with a form of active defense analogous to a thesis defense in graduate school education.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

The evolution away from global evaluations (“I know it when I see it”) and MCQ examinations (“My score is …”) to competency-based assessment is a natural evolution in GME. The transition within anesthesiology should be smooth because of the high volume of direct observations of resident performance and the daily evaluation of medical knowledge, communications skill, and professional behavior that is an inevitable part of acute care medicine. Rose and Burkle251 suggest that it is apparent that what we have been doing for years (the American Board of Anesthesiology Clinical Competence Reports) maps directly to the Outcome Project, in a manner that may even be complementary. The teaching of the Outcome Project competencies should be straightforward. Assessment of learning and using these data to change individual and program outcomes is more challenging. For each competency, a number of different assessment tools can be applied, with variable kinds of data resulting. Specific circumstances of individual programs must determine which tools are used, and unique applications of these tools may need to be created to fit their clinical setting. Combining resources into a comprehensive portfolio assessment may prove to be the best means to link teaching, learning, assessment, outcome, and systematic process improvement within GME and, specifically, within anesthesiology. This could also provide the linkage suggested by Rose and Burkle251 between the American Board of Anesthesiology data and the ACGME competencies, further reinforcing the optimum cycle of assessment that encourages learning.
Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Kassirer JP: Pseudoaccountibility. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134:587–90

2. Pangano L: A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving descriptive in-training evaluations. Acad Med 1999; 74:1203–7

3. O'Donnell MJ, Obenshain SS, Erdmann JB: Background essential to the proper use of results of step 1 and step 2 of the USMLE. Acad Med 1993; 68:734–9

4. Williams RG III: Use of NBME and USMLE examinations to evaluate medical programs. Acad Med 1993; 68:748–52

5. Berner ES, Brooks CM, Erdmann JB: Use of the USMLE to select residents. Acad Med 1993; 68:753–5

6. Slogoff S, Hughes FP: Validity of scoring “dangerous answers” on a written certification examination. J Med Educ 1987; 62:625–31

7. Kearney RA, Sullivan P, Skakun E: Performance on ABA-ASA in-training examination predicts success for RCPSC certification. Can J Anesth 2000; 47:914–8

8. Cox SM, Herbert WNP, Grosswald SJ, Carpentieri AM, Visscher HC, Laube DW: Assessment of the in-training examination in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84:1051–4

9. Ram P, vander Vleuten C, Rethans JJ, Schouten B, Hobma S, Grol R: Assessment in general practice: The predictive value of written-knowledge tests and a multiple-station examination for actual medical performance in daily practice. Med Educ 1999; 33:197–203

10. Ferland JJ, Dorval J, Levasseur L: Measuring higher cognitive levels by multiple choice questions: A myth? Med Educ 1987; 21:109–13

11. Hawkins RE, Sumption KF, Gaglione MM, Holmbor ES: The in-training examination in internal medicine: Resident perceptions and the lack of correlation between resident scores and faculty predictions of resident performance. Am J Med 1999; 106:206–10

12. Delandshere G, Petrosky AR: Capturing teachers' knowledge: Performance assessment. Educ Researcher 1994; 23:11–8

13. Friedman Ben-David M: The role of assessment in expanding professional horizons. Med Teacher 2000; 22:9–16

14. Harden RM, Crosby JR, Davis MH, Friedman M: Outcome-based education: V. From competency to metacompetency: A model for the specification of learning outcomes. Med Teacher 1999; 21:546–52

15. Abraham S: Gynaecological examination: A teaching package integrating assessment with learning. Med Educ 1998; 32:76–81

16. Gordon MJ: Cutting the Gordian knot: A two part approach to the evaluation and professional development of resident. Acad Med 1997; 72:876–80

17. Ramsay PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JC, Invi TS, Larson EB, Lo Gerfo JP: Use of peer rating to evaluate physician performance. JAMA 1993; 269:1655–60

18. Pitts J, Coles C, Thomas P: Educational portfolios in the assessment of general practice trainers: Reliability of assessor. Med Educ 1999; 33:478–9

19. Dauphinee WD: Assessing clinical performance: Where do we stand and what might we expect? JAMA 1995; 274:741–3

20. Turnbull J, Gray J, MacFadyen J: Improving in-training evaluation programs. J Gen Int Med 1998; 13:317–23

21. Haber RJ, Avins AL: Do ratings on the American Board of Internal Medicine resident evaluation form detect differences in clinical competence? J Gen Intern Med 1994; 9:140–5

22. Borman WC: Effect of instruction to avoid halo error on reliability and validity of performance evaluation rating. J App Psychol 1975; 60:556–60

23. Vander Vleuten CPM, Norman GF, de Graaf E: Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: Issues of reliability. Med Educ 1991; 25:110–8

24. Maxim BR, Dielman TE: Dimensionality, internal consistency and inter rater reliability of clinical performance ratings. Med Educ 1987; 27:130–7

25. Phelan S: Evaluation of the non-cognitive professional traits of medical students. Acad Med 1993; 68:799–803

26. Norman GR, vander Vleuten CPM, de Graaff E: Pitfalls in the pursuit of objectivity: Issues of validity, efficiency and acceptability. Med Educ 1991; 25:119–26

27. McGuire C: Perspectives in assessment. Acad Med 1993; 68:53–8

28. Hunt DD: Functional and dysfunctional characteristics of the prevailing model of clinical evaluation systems in North American medical schools. Acad Med 1992; 67:254–9

29. Phillips SE: Legal issues in performance assessment. Wests Educ Law Q 1993; 2:329–58

30. Pangaro LN: Investing in descriptive evaluation: A vision for the future of assessment. Med Teacher 2000; 22:478–81

31. Hemmer PA, Pangaro LN: The effect of formal evaluation sessions during clinical clerkships in better identifying students with marginal fund of knowledge. Acad Med 1997; 72:641–3

32. Hemmer PA, Hawkins R, Jackson JL, Pangaro LN: Assessing how well three evaluation methods detect deficiencies in medical students' professionalism in two settings of an internal medicine clerkship. Acad Med 2000; 75:167–73

33. Lavin B, Pangaro LN: Internship ratings as a validity measure for an evaluation system to identify inadequate clerkship performance. Acad Med 1998; 75:998–1002

34. Harden RM, Grant J, Buckley G, Hart IR: BEME Guide No. 1: Best evidence medical education. Med Teacher 1999; 21:553–62

35. Kane M: Model-based practice analysis and test specifications. Appl Meas Educ 1997; 10:5–18

36. Dunn MM, Wooliscroft JO: Assessment of a pattern-recognition examination in a clinical clerkship. Acad Med 1994; 69:683–4

37. Schwartz RW, Donnelly MB, Sloan DA, Johnson SB, Strodel WE: The relationship between faculty ward evaluations, OSCE, and the ABSITE as measures of surgical intern performance. Am J Surg 1995; 169:414–7

38. Schwartz RW, Witzke DB, Donnnelly MB, Stratton T, Blue AV, Sloan DA: Assessing resident's clinical performance: Cumulative results of a four-year study with the objective structured clinical examination. Surgery 1998; 124:307–12

39. Sloan DA, Donnelly MB, Schwartz RW, Strodel WE: The objective structured clinical examination: The new gold standard for evaluating postgraduate clinical performance. Ann Surg 1995; 222:735–42

40. Davis MH: OSCE: The Dundee experience. Med Teacher 2003; 25:255–61

41. Alatif A: An examination of the examinations: The reliability of the objective structured clinical examination. Med Teacher 1992; 14:179–83

42. Chalabian J, Garman K, Wallace P, Dunnington G: Clinical breast evaluation skills of house officers and students. Am Surg 1996; 62:840–6

43. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Hurnaghan J, Hutchinson C, Brown M: Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997; 84:273–8

44. MacRae H, Regehr G, Leadbetter W, Reznick RK: A comprehensive examination for senior surgical residents. Am J Surg 2000; 179:190–3

45. Hull AL, Hodder S, Berger B, Ginsberg D, Lindhein N, Quan J, Kleinhenz ME: Validity of three clinical performance assessments of internal medicine clerks. Acad Med 1995; 70:517–22

46. Dupras DM, Li JTC: Use of an objective structured clinical examination to determine clinical competence. Acad Med 1995; 70:1029–34

47. Frost GJ, Cater JI, Forsyth JC: The use of the objective structured clinical exam in pediatrics. Med Teacher 1986; 8:261–9

48. Martsell DG, Wolfish M, Hsu E: Reliability and validity of the objective structured clinical examination in pediatrics. Med Educ 1991; 25:293–9

49. Jograbchi B, Devries JM: Evaluation of clinical competence: The gap between expectation and performance. Pediatr 1996; 97:179–84

50. Trivino X, Vasquez A, Mena A, Lopez A, Aldunate M, Varas M, Lillo R, Wright A: Application of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for pediatric internship assessment in two schools of medicine. Rev Med Chil 2002; 130:817–24

51. Carraccio C, Englander R: The objective structured clinical examination: A step in the direction of competency-based evaluation. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000; 154:736–41

52. Matsell DG, Wolfish NM, Hsu E: Reliability and validity of the objective structured clinical examination in paediatrics. Med Educ 1991; 25:293–9

53. Hamadeh G, Lancaster C, Johnson A: Introducing the objective structured clinical examination to a family practice residency program. Fam Med 1993; 25:237–41

54. Sisley AC, Johnson SB, Erickson W, Fortune JB: Use of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for the assessment of physician performance in the ultrasound evaluation of trauma. J Trauma 1999; 47:627–31

55. Sloan DA, Donnelly MB, Schwartz RW, McGrath PC, Kenady DE, Wood DP, Strodel WE: Measuring the ability of residents to manage oncologic problems. J Surg Oncol 1997; 64:135–42

56. Langford NJ, Landray M, Martin U, Kendall MJ, Ferner RE: Testing the practical aspects of therapeutics by objective structured clinical examination. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004; 29:263–6

57. Sloan DA, Donnelly MB, Schwartz RW, Felts JL, Blue AV, Strodel WE: The use of the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for evaluation and instruction in graduate medical education. J Surg Res 1996; 63:225–30

58. Karani R, Leipzig RM, Callahan EH, Thomas DC: An unfolding case with a linked objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): A curriculum in inpatient geriatric medicine. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52:1191–8

59. Kwolek DS, Witzke DB, Bove AV, Schwartz RW, Sloan DA: Using an OSCE to assess the ability of residents to manage problems in women's health. Acad Med 1997; 72:548–50

60. Park RS, Chibnall JT, Blaskiewicz RJ, Furman GE, Powell JK, Mohr C: Construct validity of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in psychiatry: Associations with the clinical skills examination and other indicators. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28:122–8

61. McLay RN, Rodenhauser P, Anderson DS, Stanton ML, Markert RJ: Simulating a full-length psychiatric interview with a complex patient: An OSCE for medical students. Acad Psychiatry 2002; 26:162–7

62. Lentz GM, Mandel LS, Lee D, Gardella C, Melville J, Goff BA: Testing surgical skills of obstetric and gynecology residents in a bench laboratory setting: Validity and reliability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184:1462–70

63. Rymer AT: The new MRCOG Objective Structured Clinical Examination: The examiners evaluation. J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 21:103–6

64. Hassell AB, West Midlands Rheumatology Services and Training Committee: Assessment of specialist registrars in rheumatology: Experience an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002; 41:1323–8

65. MacRae H, Regehr G, Leadbetter W, Reznick R: A comprehensive examination for senior surgery residents. Am J Surg 2000; 179:190–3

66. Bann S, Datta V, Khan M, Darzi A: The surgical error examination is a novel method for objective technical knowledge assessment. Am J Surg 2003; 185:507–11

67. Sloan DA, Plymale MA, Donnelly MB, Schwartz RW, Edwards MJ, Blake KI: Enhancing the clinical skills of surgical residents through structured cancer education. Ann Surg 2004; 239:561–6

68. Munz Y, Moorthy K, Bann S, Shah J, Ivanova S, Darzi SA: Ceiling effect in technical skills of surgical residents. Am J Surg 2004; 188:294–300

69. Zyromski NJ, Staren ED, Merrick HW: Surgery residents' perception of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Curr Surg 2003; 60:533–7

70. Meerick HW, Nowacek GA, Boyer J, Padgett B, Francis P, Gohara SF, Staren ED: Ability of the objective structured clinical examination to differentiate surgical residents, medical students, and physician assistant students. J Surg Res 2002; 106:319–22

71. Lypson ML, Frohna JG, Gruppen LD, Woolliscroft JO: Assessing residents' competencies at baseline: Identifying the gaps. Acad Med 2004; 79:564–70

72. Wilkinson TJ, Fontaine S: Patients' global ratings of student competence: Unreliable contamination or gold standard? Med Educ 2002; 36:1117–21

73. Elman D, Hooks R, Tabak D, Regehr G, Freeman R: The effectiveness of unannounced standardized patients in the clinical setting as a teaching intervention. Med Educ 2004; 38:969–73

74. Kaufman DM, Mann KV, Muijtjens AMM, vander Vleutens CPM: A comparison of standard setting procedures for an OSCE in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med 2000; 75:267–71

75. Newble DL, Swanson DB: Psychometric characteristics of the objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ 1988; 22:325–34

76. Verhoven BH, Hammerson JGHC, Scherpiers AJJA: The effect on reliability of adding a separate written assessment components to an objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ 2000; 34:525–9

77. Boulet JR, Murray D, Kras J, Woodhouse J, McAllister J, Ziv A: Reliability and validity of a simulation-based acute care skills assessment for medical students and residents. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:1270–80

78. Cohen R, Rothman AI, Bilan S, Ross J: Analysis of the psychometric properties of eight administrations of an objective structured clinical examination used to assess international medical graduates. Acad Med 1996; 71:522–4

79. Cudulka R, Emerman C, Jouriles N: Evaluation of resident performance and intensive bedside teaching during direct observation. Acad Emerg Med 1996; 3:345–51

80. Alnasir FA: The Watched Structure Clinical Examination (WASCE) as a tool of assessment. Saudi Med J 2004; 25:71–4

81. Bing-You RG, Greenberg LW, Widerman BL, Smith CS: A randomized multicenter trial to improve resident teaching with written feedback. Teach Learn Med 1997; 9:10–13

82. Noel G, Herbers J, Caplow M, Cooper G, Pangaro L, Harvey J: How well do internal medicine faculty members evaluate the clinical skills of residents? Ann Int Med 1992; 117:757–65

83. Herberts J, Gordon N, Cooper G, Harvey J, Pangaro L, Weaver M: How accurate are faculty evaluations of clinical competence? J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4:202–8

84. Marienfeld RD, Reid JC: Six-year documentation of the easy grader in the medical clerkship setting. J Med Educ 1984; 59:589–91

85. Littlefield JH, DaRosa DA, Anderson KD, Bell RM, Nicholas GG, Wolfson PJ: Assessing performance in clerkships. Acad Med 1991; 66:516–8

86. Kroboth FJ, Hanusa BH, Parker S, Coulehan JL, Kapoor W, Brown FH, Karff M, Levey GS: The inter-rater reliability and internal consistency of a clinical evaluation exercise. J Gen Intern Med 1992; 7:174–9

87. Fowell SL, Southgate LT, Bligh FG: Evaluating assessment; the missing link? Med Educ 1999; 33:276–81

88. Holman JR, Marshall RC, Jordan B, Vogelman L: Technical competency in flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001; 14:424–9

89. Paisley AM, Baldwin P, Paterson-Brown S: Feasibility, reliability and validity of a new assessment form with basic surgical trainees. Am J Surg 2001; 182:24–9

90. Turnbull J, MacFadyen J, van Barneveld C, Norman G: Clinical work sampling: A new approach to the problem of in-training evaluation. J Gen Int Med 2000; 15:556–61

91. Brennan B, Norman GR: Use of encounter cards for evaluation of residents in obstetrics. Acad Med 1997; 72:543–4

92. Rhoton MF, Barnes A, Flashburg M, Ronai A, Springman S: Influence of anesthesiology residents noncognitive skills on the occurrences of critical incidents and the residents' overall performance. Acad Med 1991; 66:359–61

93. Abrams RG, Kelley ML: Student self-evaluation in a pediatric-operative technique course. J Dent Educ 1974; 38:385–91

94. Sclabassi SE, Woelfel SK: Development of self-assessment skills in medical students. Med Educ 1984; 84:226–231

95. Arnold L, Willoughby TL, Calkins EV: Self-evaluation in undergraduate medical education: A longitudinal perspective. J Med Educ 1985; 60:21–8

96. Pee B, Woodman T, Fry H, Davenport E: Practice-based learning: Views on the development of a reflective learning tool. Med Educ 2000; 34:754–61

97. Grimes D, Bachicha J, Learman L: Teaching critical appraisal to medial students in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92:877–82

98. Al-Shehri A: Learning by reflection in general practice: A study report. Educ Gen Pract 1995; 7:237–48

99. Fitzgerald JT, White CB, Gruppen LD: A longitudinal study of self-assessment accuracy. Med Educ 2003; 37:645–9

100. Wanigasooriya N: Student self-assessment of essential skills in dental surgery. Br Dent J 2004; (suppl):11–4

101. Gordon MJ: A review of the validity and accuracy of self-assessment in health professions training. Acad Med 1991; 66:762–9

102. Leaf DA, Neighbor WE, Schaad D, Scott CS: A comparison of self-report and chart audit in studying resident physician assessment of cardiac risk factors J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10:194–8

103. Stuart MR, Goldstein HS, Snope FC: Self-evaluation by residents in family medicine. J Fam Pract 1980; 10:639–42

104. Chopra V, Bovill JG, Spierdijk J, Koornneef F: Reported significant observations during anaesthesia: A prospective analysis over an 18-month period. Br J Anaesth 1992; 68:13–7

105. Kanfer FH: Self-monitoring: Methodological limitations and clinical applications. J Consul Clin Psychol 1970; 35:148–52

106. Anderson MB, Kassebaun DG: Proceedings of the AAMC's consensus conference on the issue of standardized patients in the teaching and evaluation of clinical skills. Acad Med 1993; 68:437–9

107. Gomez JM, Prieto L, Pujol R, Arbizu T, Vilar L, Borrell F, Roma J, Martinez-Carretero JM: Clinical skills assessment with standardized patients. Med Educ 1997; 31:94–8

108. Colliver JA, Swartz MH: Assessing clinical performance with standardized patients. JAMA 1997; 278:79–91

109. Lane JL, Ziu A, Boulet JR: A pediatric clinical skills assessment using children as standardized patients. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999; 153:637–44

110. Tsai TC: Using children as standardized patients for assessing clinical competence in paediatrics. Arch Dis Child 2004; 89:1117–20

111. Hanson M, Tiberius R, Hodges B, MacKay S, McNaughton N, Dickens S, Regehr G: Adolescent standardized patients: Method of selection and assessment of benefits and risks. Teach Learn Med 2002; 14:104–13

112. Mansfield F: Supervised role-play in the teaching of the process of consultation. Med Educ 1991; 25:485–90

113. MacRae HM, Choen R, Regehr G, Reznick R, Burnstein M: A new assessment tool: The patient assessment and management examination. Surgery 1997; 122:335–44

114. Burdick WP, Friedman BM, Swisher L, Becher J, Magee D, McNamara R, Zwanger M: Reliability of performance-based clinical skill assessment of emergency medicine residents. Acad Emerg Med 1996; 3:1119–23

115. Stillman PL, Swanson DB, Sydney S, Stillman AE, Ebert TH, Emmel VS, Caslowitz J, Greene L, Hamolsky M, Hatem C, Levinson DJ, Levin R, Levisson G, Ley B, Morgan J, Parrino T, Robinson S, Williams J: Assessing clinical skills of residents with standardized patients. Ann Int Med 1986; 105:762–71

116. Ram P, vander Vleuten C, Rethans J, Grol R, Aretz K: Assessment of practicing family physicians: Comparison of observation in a multiple-station examination suing standardized patients with observation of consultations in daily practice. Acad Med 1999; 74:62–9

117. Edelstein R, Reid RD, Usatine R, Wilkes M: A Comparative study of measures to evaluate medical students' performance. Acad Med 2000; 75:825–33

118. Hall MJ, Adamo G, McCurry L, Lacy T, Waits W, Chow J, Rawn L, Ursano RJ: Use of standardized patients to enhance a psychiatry clerkship. Acad Med 2004; 79:28–31

119. Feeley TH, Manyon AT, Servoss TJ, Panzarella KJ: Toward validation of an assessment tool designed to measure medical students' integration of scientific knowledge and clinical communication skills. Eval Health Prof 2003; 26:222–33

120. Amano H, Sano T, Gotoh K, Kakuta S, Suganuma T, Kimura Y, Tsukasaki H, Miyashita H, Okano T, Goto N, Saeki H: Strategies for training standardized patient instructors for a competency exam. J Dent Educ 2004; 68:1104–11

121. Holmboe E, Scranton R, Sumption K, Hawkins R: Effect of medical record audit and feedback on residents' compliance with preventative health care guidelines. Acad Med 1998; 73:901–3

122. Ramsdell JW, Berry CC: Evaluation of general and traditional internal medicine residencies utilizing a medical records audit based on educational objectives. Med Care 1983; 21:1144–53

123. Ognibene AJ, Jarjoura DG, Illera VA, Blend DA, Cugino AE, Whittier F: Using chart reviews to assess residents' performances of components of physical examinations: A pilot study. Acad Med 1994; 69:583–7

124. Wainwright JR, Sullivan FM, Morrison JM, MacNaughton RJ, McConnadrie A: Audit encourages an evidence-based approach to medical practice. Med Educ 1999; 33:907–14

125. Chapman DM, Rhee JK, Marx JA, Honigman B, Panacek EA, Martinez D, Brofeldt BT, Cavanaugh SH: Open thoracotomy procedural competency: Validity study of teaching and assessment modalities. Ann Emerg Med 1996; 28:641–7

126. Chapman Dm, Marx JA, Honigman B, Rosen P, Cavanaugh SH: Emergency thoracotomy: Comparison of medical student, resident, and faculty performances on written, computer, and animal-model assessments. Acad Emerg Med 1994; 1:373–81

127. Crawford SW, Colt HG: Virtual reality and written assessments are of potential value to determine knowledge and skill in flexible bronchoscopy. Respiration 2004; 71:269–75

128. Macmillan AIM, Cushieri A: Assessment of innate ability and skills for endoscopic manipulations by the advanced Dundee endoscopic psychomotor tester: Predictive and concurrent validity. Am J Surg 1999; 177:274–7

129. Sedlack RE, Kolars JC, Alexander JA: Computer simulation training enhances patient comfort during endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2:348–52

130. Taffinder N, Sutton C, Fishwick RJ, McManus IC, Darzi A: Validation of virtual reality to teach and assess psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery: Results from randomized controlled studies using the MIST VR laparoscopic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 1998; 50:124–30

131. Moorthy K, Jiwanji M, Shah J, Bello F, Munz Y, Darzi A: Validation of a web-based training tool for lumbar puncture. Stud Health Technol Inform 2003; 94:219–25

132. Paisley AM, Baldwin PJ, Paterson-Brown S: Validity of surgical simulation for the assessment of operative skill. Br J Surg 2001; 88:1525–32

133. Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J, McCulloch W: Testing technical skill via an innovative “Bench Station” examination. Am J Surg 1996; 172:226–30

134. Szalay D, MacRae H, Regehr G, Reznick R: Using operative outcome to assess technical skill. Am J Surg 2000; 180:234–7

135. Stringer J, Moreno EA: Computers in simulation: Applications in medical education. A computer literacy requirement for medical students. Acad Med 1996; 71:522–4

136. McLaughlin SA, Doezema D, Sklar DP: Human simulation in emergency medicine training: A model curriculum. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:1310–8

137. Gaba DM, Howard SK, Flanagan B, Smith BE, Fish KJ, Botney R: Assessment of clinical performance during simulated crises using both technical and behavioral ratings. Anesthesiology 1998; 89:8–18

138. Murray DJ, Boulet JR, Kras JF, Woodhouse JA, Cox T, McAllister JD: Acute care skills in anesthesia practice: A simulation-based resident performance assessment. Anesthesiology 2004; 101:1084–95

139. Schwid HA, Rooke GA, Carline J, Steadman RH, Murray WB, Olympio M, Tarver S, Steckner K, Wetstone S, Anesthesia Simulator Research Consortium: Evaluation of anesthesia residents using mannequin-based simulation: A multi-institutional study. Anesthesiology 2002; 97:1434–44

140. Helmreich RL, Davies JM: Anaesthetic simulation and lessons to be learned from aviation. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44:907–12

141. Guagnano MT, Merlitti D, Manigrasso MR, Pace-Palitti V, Sensi S: New medical licensing examination using computer-based case simulations and standardized patients. Acad Med 2002; 77:87–90

142. Scott D, Valentine J, Bergen P, Rege R, Laycock R, Tesfay S, Jones D: Evaluating surgical competency with the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination, skill testing, and intraoperative assessment. Surgery 2000; 128:613–22

143. McMahon GT, Monaghan C, Falchuk K, Gordon JA, Alexander EK: A simulator-based curriculum to promote comparative and reflective analysis in an internal medicine clerkship. Acad Med 2005; 80:84–9

144. Hudson JN: Computer-aided learning in the real world of medical education: Does the quality of interaction with the computer affect student learning? Med Educ 2004; 28:887

145. Qayumi AK, Kurihara Y, Imai M, Pachev G, Seo H, Hoshino Y, Cheifet R, Matsuura K, Momo M, Saleem M, Lara-Guerra H, Miki Y, Kariya Y: Comparison of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) versus traditional textbook methods for training in abdominal examination (Japanese experience). Med Educ 2004; 38:1080–8

146. Altmaier EM, From RP, Pearson KS, Gorbatenko-Roth KG, Ugolini KA: A prospective study to select and evaluate anesthesiology resident: Phase 1, the critical incident technique. J Clin Anesth 1997; 9:629–36

147. Norcini JJ, Swanson DB, Grosso LF, Shea JA, Webster GD: A comparison of knowledge, synthesis and clinical judgment: Multiple choice questions in the assessment of physician competence. Eval Health Professional 1984; 7:485–500

148. vander Vleuten CPM: Validity of final examinations in undergraduate medical training. BMJ 2000; 321:1217–9

149. Anderson J: Multiple choice questions revisited. Med Teacher 2004; 26:110–3

150. Wass V, McGibbon D, vander Vleuten G: Composite undergraduate clinical examinations: How should the components be combined to maximize reliability. Med Educ 2001; 35:326–30

151. Wise S, Stagg L, Szucs R, Gay S, Mauger D, Hartman D: Assessment of resident knowledge: Subjective assessment versus performance on the ACR In-Training Examination. Radiol Educ 1999; 6:66–71

152. Webb L, Sexson S, Scully J, Reynolds C, Shore M: Training directors' opinions about the psychiatry resident In-Training Examination (PRITE). Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149:521–4

153. Schwartz R, Donnelly M, Sloan D, Johnson S, Strodel W: Assessing senior residents' knowledge and performance: An integrated evaluation program. Surgery 1994; 116:634–40

154. Adusumilli S, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, Fitzgerald JT, Oh MS: Correlation between radiology resident rotation performance and examination scores. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:920–6

155. Schuwirth LWT, Southgate L, Page GG, Paget NS, Lescop JMJ, Lew SR, Wade WB, Baron-Maldonado M: When enough is enough: A conceptual basis for fair and defensible practice performance assessment. Med Educ 2002; 36:925–30

156. Blane CE, Calhoun JG: Objectively evaluating student case presentations. Invest Radiol 1985; 20:121–3

157. Beyeler C, Westkamper R, Villiger PM, Aeschlimann A: Self assessment in continuous professional development: A valuable tool for individual physicians and scientific societies. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63:1684–6.

158. Eagle CJ, Martineau R, Hamilton K: The oral examination in anesthetic resident evaluation. Can J Anaesth 1993; 40:947–53

159. Des Marchais JE, Jean P: Effects of examiner training on open-ended, higher taxonomic level questioning in oral examinations. Teach Learn Med 1993; 5:24–8

160. Ferron D: Guidelines for conduct of oral examinations. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Canada 1998; 31:28–31

161. James FM: Oral practice examinations: Are they worth it? Anesthesiology 1999; 91:4–6

162. Pope WDB: Anaesthesia oral examination. Can J Anaesth 1993; 40:907–10

163. Quattlebaum TG, Darden PM, Sperry JB: In-training examinations as predictors of resident clinical performance. Pediatrics 1989; 84:165–72

164. Kearney Ra, Puchalski SA, Yang HYH, Skakun EN: The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of a new Canadian oral examination format in anesthesia is fair to good. Can J Anesth 2002;49:232–6.

165. Schubert A, Tetzlaff JE, Tan M, Ryckman JV, Mascha E: Consistency, inter-rater reliability and validity of 441 consecutive mock oral examinations in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 1999; 91:288–98

166. Wade TP, Andrus CH, Kaminski DL: Evaluations of surgery resident performance correlate with success in board examinations. Surgery 1993; 113:644–8

167. Baldwin DC, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD: Unethical and unprofessional conduct observed by residents during their first year of training. Acad Med 1998; 73:1195–200

168. Sweeney K: How can evidence-based medicine help patients in general practice? Fam Pract 1996; 13:489–90

169. Smith CA, Ganschow PS, Reilly BM, Evans AT, McNutt RA, Osei A, Saquib M, Surabhi S, Yadar S: Teaching residents evidence-based medicine skills. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15:710–5

170. Lloyd FJ, Reyna VF: A web exercise in evidence-based medicine using cognitive theory. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16:94–9

171. Connor MP, Bynoe AG, Redfern N, Pokora J, Clarke J: Developing senior doctors as mentors: A form of continuing professional development. Report of an initiative to develop a network of senior doctors as mentors: 1994-99. Med Educ 2000; 34:747–53

172. Galicia AR, Klima RR, Date ES: Mentorship in physical medicine and rehabilitation residencies. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 76:268–75

173. Allery LA, Owen PA, Robling MR: Why general practitioners and consultants change their clinical practice: A critical incident study. BMJ 1997; 314:870–4

174. Campbell C, Parboosingh J, Gondocz T, Babitskaya G, Pham B: Learning, change and practicing physicians: A study of the factors that influence physicians' commitments to change their practices using learning diaries. Acad Med 1999; 74:S34–36

175. Southgate L, Cox J, David T, Hatch D, Howes A, Johnson N, Jolly B, Macdonald E, McAvoy P, McCrorie P, Turner J: The assessment of poorly performing doctors: The development of the assessment programmes for the General Medical Councils' performance procedures. Med Educ 2001; 35:2–8

176. Winickoff RN, Coltin KL, Morgan MM, Buxbaum RC, Barnett GO: Improving physician performance through peer comparison feedback. Med Care 1984; 22:527–34

177. Barnes BE: Creating the practice-learning environment: Using information technology to support a new model of continuing medical education. Acad Med 1998; 73:278–81

178. Garvin R, Otto F, McRae D: Using handheld computers to document family practice resident procedure experience. Fam Med 2000; 32:115–8

179. Jerant AF: Training residents in medical informatics. Fam Med 1993; 31:465–72

180. Hodges B, Trunbull J, Cohen R, Bienenstock A, Norman G: Evaluation of communication skills in an objective structured clinical examination format: Reliability and generalizability. Med Educ 1996; 30:38–44

181. Yudkowsky R, Alseidi A, Cintron J: Beyond fulfilling the core competencies: An objective structured clinical examination to assess communication and interpersonal skills in a surgical residency. Curr Surg 2004; 61:499–503

182. Stewart M, Brown JB, Boon H, Galajda J, Meredith L, Sangster M: Evidence on patient-doctor communication. Cancer Prev Control 1999; 3:25–30

183. Stewart MA: Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 152:1423–32

184. Humphris GM, Kineu S: The objective structured video exam for assessment of communication skills. Med Educ 2000; 34:939–45

185. Keely E, Myers K, Dojeiji S: Can written communication skills be tested in an objective structured clinical examination format? Acad Med 2002; 77:82–6

186. Rothman DJ: Medical professionalism: Focusing on the real issues. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1284–6

187. Roth CS, Watson KV, Harris IB: A communication assessment and skill-building exercise (CASE) for first-year residents. Acad Med 2002; 77:746–7

188. Boulton M, Griffiths J, Hall D, McIntyre M, Oliver B, Woodward J: Improving communication: A practical programme for teaching trainees about communication issues in the general practice consultation. Med Educ 1984; 18:269–74

189. Roter DL, Hall JA, Kern DE, Barber LR, Cole KA, Roca RP: Improving physicians' interview skills and reducing patients' emotional distress. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155:1877–84

190. Morgan ER, Winter RJ: Teaching communication skills: An essential part of residency training. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996; 150:638–42

191. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Mettler J, Stoeffelmayr BE, Van Egeren LF, Marshall AA, Gardner JC: The effectiveness of intensive training for residents in interviewing. Ann Int Med 1998; 128:118–26

192. Tinsley JA: An educational intervention to improve residents' inpatient charting. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28:136–9

193. Ramsey PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfo JP: Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. JAMA 1993; 269:1655–60

194. Kegel-Flom P: Predicting supervisor, peer, and self ratings of intern performance. J Med Educ 1975; 50:812–5

195. Rudy DW, Fejfar MC, Griffith CH III, Wilson JF: Self-and peer assessment in a first-year communication and interviewing course. Eval Health Prof 2001; 24:436–45

196. Wood J, Collins J, Burnside ES, Albanese MA, Propeck PA, Kelcz F, Spilde JM, Schmaltz LM: Patient, faculty, and self-assessment of radiology resident performance: A 360-degree method of measuring professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:931–9

197. ABIM Foundation, ACP-ASIM Foundation, European Federation of Internal Medicine: Medical professionalism in the new millennium: A physician charter. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136:243–6

198. Pellegrino ED: Medical professionalism: Can it, should it survive? J Am Board Fam Pract 2000; 12:147–9

199. Pellegrino ED, Relman AS: Professional medical associations: Ethical and practical guidelines. JAMA 1999; 282:984–6

200. Swick HM: Toward a normative definition of medical professionalism. Acad Med 2000; 75:612–6

201. Adams J, Schmidt T, Sanders A, Larkin GL, Knopp R: Professionalism in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 1998; 5:1193–9

202. Larkin GL, Binder L, Houry D, Adams J: Defining and evaluating professionalism: A core competency for graduate emergency medicine education. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:1249–56

203. Baldwin Jr DC Bunch WH: Moral reasoning, professionalism, and the teaching of ethics to Orthopaedic Surgeons. Clin Ortho Rel Research 2000; 378:97–103

204. Rowley BD, Baldwin DC, Bay RC, Cannula M: Can professional values be taught? A look at residency training. Clin Ortho Rel Research 2000; 378:110–4

205. Fries MH: Professionalism in obstetrics-gynecology residency education: The view of program directors. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95:314–6

206. Asch E, Saltzbert D, Kaiser S: Reinforcement of self-directed learning and the development of professional attitudes through peer-and self-assessment. Acad Med 1998; 73:575

207. Singer PA, Robb A, Cohen R, Norman G, Turnbull J: Performance-bases assessment of clinical ethics using an objective structured clinical examination. Acad Med 1996; 74:495–8

208. Laine C, Davidoff F: Patient-centered medicine: A professional evolution. JAMA 1996; 275:152–6

209. Wright SM, Kern DE, Kolodner K, Howard DM, Brancati LF: Attributes of excellent attending-physician role models. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:1986–93

210. Smith SR, Balint JA, Krause KC, Moore-West M, Viles PH: Performance-based assessment of moral reasoning and ethical judgment among medical students. Acad Med 1994; 69:381–6

211. Stern DT, Frohna AZ, Gruppen LD: The prediction of professional behaviour. Med Educ 2005; 39:75–82

212. Gisondi MA, Smith-Coggins R, Harter PM, Soltysik RC, Yarnold PR: Assessment of resident professionalism using high-fidelity simulation of ethical dilemmas. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11:931–7

213. Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Hatala R: Context, conflict and resolution: A new conceptual framework for evaluating professionalism. Acad Med 2000; 75:S6–10

214. Papadakis MA, Osborn EHS, Cooke M, Healy K: A strategy for the detection and evaluation of unprofessional behavior in medical students. Acad Med 1999; 74:980–90

215. Rees C, Shepherd M: The acceptability of 360-degree judgments as a method of assessing undergraduate medical students' personal and professional behaviours. Med Educ 2005; 39:49–57

216. Musick DW, McDowell SM, Clark N, Salcido R: Pilot study of a 360-degree assessment instrument for physical medicine &rehabilitation residency programs. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82:394–402

217. Weigelt JA, Brasel KJ, Bragg D, Simpson D: The 360-degree evaluation: Increased work with little return? Curr Surg 2004; 61:616–26

218. Marco CA: Ethics seminars: Teaching professionalism to “problem” residents. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:1001–6

219. Albanese M, Prucha C, Barnet JH: Student attitudes in evaluating courses, faculty, and peers: Labeling each response option and the direction of the positive options impacts student course ratings. Acad Med 1997; 27:S4–6

220. Thomas PA, Gebo KA, Hellmann DB: A pilot study of peer review in residency training. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14:551–4

221. Berwick DM: Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. N Engl J Med 1989; 320:53–56

222. Frankford DM: Community, professionals, and participation. J Health Polit Policy Law 1997; 22:101–4

223. Cruess SR, Cruess RL: Professionalism: A contract between medicine and society. CMAJ 2000; 162:668–71

224. Fox RD, Bennett NL: Learning and change; implications for continuing medical education. BMJ 1998; 316:466–8

225. Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM: Changing physicians' practices. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:1271–4

226. Davis D, O'Brien M, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmania P, Taylor-Vaisey A: Impact of formal continuing medical education. JAMA 1999; 282:867–74

227. Rethans J, Van Leeuwe Y, Drop R, vander Vlueten C, Sturmans F: Competence and performance: Two different concepts in the assessment of quality of medical care. Fam Pract 1990; 7:168–74

228. Jasper MA: The potential of the professional portfolio for nursing. J Clin Nurs 1995; 4:249–55

229. Koretz D: Large-scale portfolio assessments in the US: Evidence pertaining to the quality of measurement. Assess Educ Principles Policy Pract 1998; 5:309–35

230. Driessen EW, Van Tartwizk J, Vermunt JD, vander Vleuten CPM: Use of portfolios in early undergraduate medical training. Med Teacher 2003; 25:18–23

231. Challis M: AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 11 (revised): Portfolio-based learning and assessment in medical education. Med Teacher 1999; 21:370–86

232. Challis M: Portfolios and assessment: Meeting the challenge. Med Teacher 2001; 23:27–31

233. Friedman Ben-David M, Davis MH, Harden RM, Howie PW, Ker J, Pippard MJ: AEE Medical Education Guide No. 24: Portfolios as a method of student assessment. Med Teacher 2001; 23:535–51

234. Snadden D, Thomas M: The use of portfolio learning in medical education. Med Teacher 1998; 20:192–9

235. Friedman Ben-David M: The role of assessment in expanding professional horizons. Med Teacher 2000; 22:27–32

236. Friedman Ben-David M: AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 3. Assessment in outcome-based education. Med Teacher 1999; 21:33–6

237. Schon DA: Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning Professions. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1987

238. Murdock-Eaton D: Reflective practice skills in undergraduates. Acad Med 2002; 77:734

239. Jensen GM, Saylor C: Portfolios and professional development in the health professions. Eval Health Professions 1994; 17:344–57

240. Jarvinen A, Kohonen V: Promoting professional development in higher education through portfolio assessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ 1995; 20:25–32

241. Gordon J: Assessing student's personal and professional development using portfolios and interviews. Med Educ 2003; 37:335–40

242. Davis MH, Friedman Ben-David M, Harden RM, Howie P, Ker C, Mcghee C, Pippard MJ, Snadden D: Portfolio assessment. Med Teacher 2001; 23:357–66

243. Scholes J, Webb C, Gray M, Endacott R, Miller C, Jasper M, McMullan M: Making portfolios work in practice. J Adv Nurs 2004; 46:595–603

244. Parboosingh J: Learning portfolios: Potential to assist health professionals with self-directed learning. J Cont Ed Health Prof 1996; 16:75–81

245. Herman JL, Winters L: Portfolio research: A slim collection. Educ Leadership 1994; 10:48–55

246. O'Sullivan PS, Cogbill KK, McClain T, Reckase MD, Clardy JA: Portfolios as a novel approach for residency evaluation. Acad Psych 2002; 26:173–9

247. O'Sullivan P, Greene C: Portfolios: Possibilities for addressing emergency medicine resident competencies. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:1305–9

248. Finlay IG, Maughan TS, Webster DJT: A randomized controlled study of portfolio learning in undergraduate cancer education. Med Educ 1998; 32:172–6

249. O'Sullivan PS, Reackase MD, McClain T, Savidge MA, Clardy JA: Demonstration of portfolios to assess competency of residents. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004; 9:309–23

250. Jarvis RM, O'Sullivan PS, McClain T, Clardy JA: Can one portfolio measure the six ACGME general competencies? Acad Psych 2004; 28:190–6

251. Rose SH, Burkle CM: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies and the American Board of Anesthesiology clinical competence committee: A comparison. Anesth Analg 2006; 102:212–6

† Available at: www.acgme.org/Outcome. Accessed November 30, 2006. Cited Here...

Cited By:

This article has been cited 12 time(s).

Medical Teacher
Validation and piloting of direct observation of practical skills tool to assess intubation in the Chilean context
Delfino, AE; Chandratilake, M; Altermatt, FR; Echevarria, G
Medical Teacher, 35(3): 231-236.
10.3109/0142159X.2012.737967
CrossRef
Academic Emergency Medicine
Hybrid Simulation Combining a High Fidelity Scenario with a Pelvic Ultrasound Task Trainer Enhances the Training and Evaluation of Endovaginal Ultrasound Skills
Girzadas, DV; Antonis, MS; Zerth, H; Lambert, M; Clay, L; Bose, S; Harwood, R
Academic Emergency Medicine, 16(5): 429-435.
10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00399.x
CrossRef
Journal of Surgical Education
Complexity Theory and the "Puzzling" Competencies: Systems-Based Practice and Practice-Based Learning Explored
Gonnering, RS
Journal of Surgical Education, 67(2): 122-124.
10.1016/j.jsurg.2009.12.001
CrossRef
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie
Introducing information literacy into anesthesia curricula
Demczuk, L; Gottschalk, T; Littleford, J
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, 56(4): 327-335.
10.1007/s12630-009-9063-4
CrossRef
Anaesthesia
Developing an OSCE style interview process including medical simulation for selection to anaesthesia specialist training
Shulman, MS; Vellayappan, U
Anaesthesia, 63(8): 913-914.

Anaesthesia
Validation of simulation for recruitment to training posts in anaesthesia
Adams, D; Sice, P; Anderson, I; Gale, T; Lam, H; Langton, J; Davies, P; Carr, A
Anaesthesia, 64(7): 805-806.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
Teaching and evaluating group competency in systems-based practice in anesthesiology
Delphin, E; Davidson, M
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 106(6): 1837-1843.
10.1213/ane.0b013e318173216e
CrossRef
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Assessment of procedural skills in anaesthesia
Bould, MD; Crabtree, NA; Naik, VN
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 103(4): 472-483.
10.1093/bja/aep241
CrossRef
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology
Teamwork and the legal and ethical responsibility of the anaesthetist
Booij, LH; van Leeuwen, E
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, 21(2): 178-182.
10.1097/ACO.0b013e3282f5ff87
PDF (75) | CrossRef
Anesthesiology
Development of a System for the Evaluation of the Teaching Qualities of Anesthesiology Faculty
Lombarts, KM; Bucx, MJ; Arah, OA
Anesthesiology, 111(4): 709-716.
10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181b76516
PDF (352) | CrossRef
Academic Medicine
Do Residency Applicants Know What the ACGME Core Competencies Are? One Program's Experience
Wasnick, J; Chang, L; Russell, C; Gadsden, J
Academic Medicine, 85(5): 791-793.
10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d71d7b
PDF (103) | CrossRef
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology
Assessment of competence in anesthesiology
Tetzlaff, JE
Current Opinion in Anesthesiology, 22(6): 809-813.
10.1097/ACO.0b013e3283326958
PDF (289) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline

© 2007 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.
Login

Article Tools

Share