Can colleagues’, patients’ and supervisors’ assessments predict successful completion of postgraduate medical training?

Abstract

Based on the findings, we assert that Multisource Feedback, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and Educational Supervisor's Review ratings have validity for predicting performance during training and are thus a useful tool for identifying trainees who are more likely to experience difficulty and could benefit from early additional support.

Selection methods in healthcare professions: where are we now and where next?

“…This is especially problematic when researchers are attempting to explore the criterion-related validity of measures of non-academic attributes. That said, recent research is emerging that examines the quality of selection methods using a variety of outcome measures such as multi-source feedback, patient satisfaction and educational supervisor ratings (Naidoo et al 2016). It is clear however, that each of these types of outcome measures have their own challenges which implies that multiple outcome criteria should be considered in future, where researchers should also consider both the convergent and discriminant validity of different selection methods.…”

A qualitative exploration of the lived experience of GP trainees failing to progress in training

“…GP trainees identified as failing to progress by the Professional Support Unit (PSU) at HEE-EM were invited to participate in the research. Criteria for failing to progress, or at risk of failing to progress, were defined as: (i) failing the CSA, or (ii) concerns raised through either the trainee's educational supervisor or through the Annual Review Competence Progression (ARCP) process, or (iii) identified through a composite risk calculated from their educational supervisor report, multi-source feedback and patient satisfaction questionnaire [22]. Eligible participants were contacted and invited to take part (Supplementary Box 1).…”

“…Whilst knowing factors that predict the likelihood GP trainees failing the CSA is important [20], it is necessary to know the way various factors interact to affect trainees' study and work [21]. Prediction models help identify trainees who may benefit from additional support at the start of their training [22], but not all trainees who fail are detected this way. Understanding how factors manifest themselves through the eyes of trainees and through everyday experiences may provide a new way for educators to identify 'at risk' trainees early in their training.…”

Do Supervised Learning Events reflect clinical competency and support ‘Trainee in Difficulty' identification? Physician Trainees' perceptions.

“…A literature review of trainees' perceptions of SLE value in establishing clinical competency and assessing TiD status identified a paucity of existing published reports, particularly, following SLE introduction. While a limited number of publications have explored the value of assessments as tools for identifying training difficulties, comparisons of pre-and post-SLE introduction have yet to be made [14,19,20]. Multi-rater assessments appear most beneficial in identifying factors relating to training difficulties [14].…”