Evaluating the evaluation: A qualitative analysis to understand faculty evaluation programs in hospital medicine.
Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 40099933.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1002/jhm.70028 and PMC identifier 12475954.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC-ND.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Little is known about the structure and desired outcomes of hospitalist performance evaluations at academic medical centers. We conducted a multicenter open-ended survey study with theory-guided qualitative analysis to summarize essential components and key outcomes for successful hospital medicine (HM) faculty evaluation programs. Twenty-two of 107 (20.6%) HM leaders responded to the survey. Frequently identified inputs were human, organizational, and financial resources. The main areas of evaluation were clinical performance and teaching. Performance evaluation or self-assessment forms were the most often utilized evaluation tools. Half of the respondents highlighted faculty appreciation as a main output of the evaluation. Important faculty-level outcomes were academic promotion, while retention and faculty engagement were salient organizational outcomes. Our multi-site study identified important pathways that shape the implementation and maintenance of successful HM faculty evaluation processes. These findings provide a strategic framework for evaluating and refining faculty evaluation programs over time.
Medical subject headings
- Faculty, Medical
- Hospital Medicine
- Program Evaluation
- Hospitalists