NP Fellowship: Evaluation of fellows, faculty and program

Evaluation of Fellows

Whenever possible, the Verinform system is used for completing evaluations. Evaluations are always treated confidentially.

  1. Summative Evaluations

    Three over-lapping and complementary methods are used to evaluate fellows. The first is a service based evaluation process. Fellows receive daily/weekly real-time evaluations from the faculty at the time of intraoperative consultations, surgical and autopsy microscopic sign outs, review of reports, and conference presentations. On-going oral feedback is given during the daily service work as needed, and a summative written evaluation is completed quarterly. The three neuropathology faculty members, as well as any others who have worked closely with the fellow, complete this evaluation. The evaluation forms are accessed through Verinform and responsible faculty members are reminded by email of the need to complete the forms in a timely manner. Fellows have access to these documents upon completion of their evaluations of the program and teaching faculty. Formal presentations, such as Pathology Grand Rounds or student/resident lectures, receive separate written evaluations.
     
  2. Formative Evaluations

    A program of formative evaluations is the second method for evaluations. These consist of tasks identified by the department as representative of core competencies needed to practice neuropathology. Tasks will be appropriate to the trainee's level of training and will include elements of the 6 core competencies identified by ACGME. Mastery of individual tasks is documented by staff signature and progress will be documented in the six-month evaluation described below.
     
  3. Semi-annual Evaluations

    The third method of evaluation is through semi-annual division faculty meetings. At these meetings, the written evaluations are reviewed and the trainee's overall progress is discussed. The emphasis of this meeting is on whether the trainee is at the level of performance expected based on his/her level of training. Topics that are discussed include the six core competencies, as defined by the ACGME (Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, Interpersonal and Communication Skills, Practice-Based Learning and Environment, Professionalism, and Systems-Based Practice). Comments made about each trainee during the evaluation meeting (and derived from submitted written evaluations) are assembled by the Program Director into a single, comprehensive review that is then presented to the trainee. Trainees are given the opportunity to respond to any issues raised in the review and, when necessary, corrections are made. The trainee has the right to attach an explanatory document to the 6-month evaluation whenever they see fit. The review session is documented by having the trainee and program director sign the 6-month evaluation with any attached documents. Signed documents are retained in the trainee's permanent file.

    At the end of the fellowship, a final evaluation/exit interview occurs between the fellow and program director. A written statement regarding the fellow's competency for practice is placed in the fellow's file at that time.
     
Faculty Evaluation

Evaluation forms are submitted electronically by the fellow at 6 month intervals regarding the quality of their training and the teaching effectiveness of the supervising faculty. These evaluations are confidential. To maintain confidentiality in this small program, the evaluations are given to the AP/CP Residency Program Director and the Chairman of the Pathology department, rather than directly to the Neuropathology fellowship director. Feedback on the fellowship is integrated with feedback from rotating AP/CP residents (and may be edited by the Residency Program Director if needed) to maintain confidentiality. The AP/CP Residency Program Director then gives feedback on the training program to the Neuropathology Fellowship Director and faculty. Evaluations of the faculty go directly to the Department Chair.

Program Evaluation

The educational effectiveness of the program is evaluated semi-annually by the Program Director, teaching faculty and at least one resident or fellow via a documented division faculty meeting. The meeting evaluates the effectiveness of the program in meeting its goals and objectives. Data points considered at this include some or all of the following: confidential written evaluations of the program prepared by the trainees (fellows evaluations are pooled with rotating AP/CP residents to maintain confidentiality), RISE exam results, surveys of graduated residents and fellows, board certification examination results, and Internal and External Reviews of the program by GMEC and RRC. Both formative and summative evaluations of the residents and fellows are reviewed in the context of the structure of the training program, to assess whether the program is meeting the training goals. An approved plan of action is documented in the minutes of the meeting if deficiencies are noted. A summary of the program evaluation is presented every other year to the Pathology Education committee, which oversees all educational activities.