Kogan J, Holmboe E, Hauer K. Tools for Direct Observation and

Assessment of Clinical Skills of Medical Trainees: A Systematic Review.

JAMA 2009; 302(12): 1316-1326.

Litzelman D, Stratos G, Marriott D, Skeff K. Factorial Validation of a Widely

Disseminated Educational Framework for Evaluating Clinical Teachers.

Academic Medicine 1998; 73(6)688-695.

1. Outline an approach to evaluate faculty teaching clinical skills in a small group setting using direct observation

2. Implement feedback from the project to improve the course

Data collected (student, peer, and self-assesment) using the SFDP-26 tool is currently being analyzed to compare teaching behaviors before and after the feedback sessions

• Medical Interviewing and Physical Examination Course (M1 and M2 students at Rush Medical College)

• Small Group Workshops introducing students to clinical reasoning and physical examination skills

• 6 Faculty Members • 3 Peer Observers (Current and former course

directors of this course) • Stanford Faculty Development Program-26

(SFDP-26) tool completed by students, faculty member, peer observer

Form: SFDP26

EVALUATION OF CLINICAL TEACHING

TEACHER’S NAME:______________________________________ DATE:_____________

Present level of training (Circle One): MS 1 MS 2 MS 3 MS 4 Intern R1 R2

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements.

During this rotation, my teacher (attending or resident) generally...

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Agree

1. listened to learners ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

2. encouraged learners to participate actively in the discussion..... 1 2 3 4 5

3. expressed respect for learners.................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

4. encouraged learners to bring up problems................................ 1 2 3 4 5

5. called attention to time............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

6. avoided digressions................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

7. discouraged external interruptions........................................... 1 2 3 4 5

8. stated goals clearly and concisely............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

9. stated relevance of goals to learners......................................... 1 2 3 4 5

10. prioritized goals....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

11. repeated goals periodically....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

12. presented well organized material............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

13. explained relationships in materials........................................... 1 2 3 4 5

14. used blackboard or other visual aids......................................... 1 2 3 4 5

15. evaluated learners’ knowledge of factual medical information... 1 2 3 4 5

16. evaluated learners’ ability to analyze or synthesize medical

knowledge............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

17. evaluated learners’ ability to apply medical knowledge to

specific patients....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

18. evaluated learners’ medical skills as they apply to specific

patients................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

19. gave negative (corrective) feedback to learners........................ 1 2 3 4 5

20. explained to learners why he/she was correct or incorrect......... 1 2 3 4 5

21. offered learners suggestions for improvement........................... 1 2 3 4 5

22. gave feedback frequently......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

23. explicitly encouraged further learning...................................... 1 2 3 4 5

24. motivated learners to learn on their own.................................. 1 2 3 4 5

25. encouraged learners to do outside reading............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Very Poor Excellent

26. overall teaching effectiveness.................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Copyright © 1998

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All Rights Reserved.

Stanford Faculty Development Program, Stanford University School of Medicine.

Note: From “Litzelman DK, Stratos GA, Marriott DJ, Skeff KM. Factorial validation of a widely disseminated educational

framework for evaluating clinical teachers. Acad Med 1998;73:688-95. ”

Printed with permission from Debra K. Litzelman, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine.

Clinical educators responsible for educating medical students and residents receive minimal feedback on their teaching behaviors. At Rush Medical College (RMC), a direct observation project was implemented to evaluate the teaching behaviors of faculty during our clinical skills course and provide them with detailed feedback

Pilot of a Direct Observation Program of Faculty Teaching

Clinical Skills Rupel Dedhia, MD; Melanie Gordon, MD; Andem Ekpenyong, MD. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Needs Assessment

Program Objectives

Program Description

References

• Each workshop videotaped

• One-on-One feedback to faculty using video clips and data collected from evaluation tool

• Faculty completion of action plan at end of feedback session

• Faculty completed post project feedback survey

Findings

Lessons Learned

• Ability of faculty to create specific action plans based on multi-component feedback session

• Opportunity to evaluate the faculty’s ability to deliver goals and objectives of the course

• Upgrade the resources of the course

• Enhance faculty orientation • Redesign structure of workshops to

better engage students

UNIVERSITY