Interpreting the judgment of surgical faculty regarding resident competence

Citation
Bc. Warf et al., Interpreting the judgment of surgical faculty regarding resident competence, J SURG RES, 86(1), 1999, pp. 29-35
Citations number
11
Categorie Soggetti
Surgery,"Medical Research Diagnosis & Treatment
Journal title
JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
ISSN journal
00224804 → ACNP
Volume
86
Issue
1
Year of publication
1999
Pages
29 - 35
Database
ISI
SICI code
0022-4804(199909)86:1<29:ITJOSF>2.0.ZU;2-F
Abstract
Background. It is reasonable to propose that competence is a multifaceted c haracteristic defined in part by same minimum level of knowledge and skill, In this study we examined the relationship between surgical faculty's judg ment of clinical competence, as measured by a surgical resident objective s tructured clinical examination (OSCE), and the residents" objective perform ance on the skills being tested. Methods. Fifty-six general surgery residents at all levels of training part icipated in a 30-station OSCE. At the completion of each station, the facul ty proctor made several overall judgments regarding each resident's perform ance, including a global judgment of competent or not competent. The compet ence judgment was applied to the objective percentage performance score in three different ways to construct methods for determining competence based solely upon this objective percentage score. Results. The average mean competent score (MCS) across the stations was 61% , and the average mean noncompetent score (MNCS) was 38%. The difference be tween MCS and MNCS for each station was very consistent. Upper threshold sc ores above which a judgment of competent was always made, and lower thresho ld scores below which a judgment of noncompetent was always made were obser ved. Overall, the average mean and threshold scores for competent and nonco mpetent groups were remarkably similar. For performance scores in the range between the threshold competent and noncompetent scores at each station, m easures other than objective performance on the skills being evaluated dete rmined the judgment of competent or not competent. Conclusions. Empirically determined minimum acceptable standards for object ive performance in clinical skills and knowledge appeared to have been subc onsciously applied to the competence judgment by the faculty evaluators in this study. Other factors appeared to have become determinate when the obje ctive performance score fell within a range of uncertainty. (C) 1999 Academ ic Press.