Faculty evaluation methodology in residency education: a critical interpretive synthesis

The research question studied is, what is known about the effectiveness, variability, and implementation of resident evaluations of faculty physicians in graduate medical education? The ACGME requires that all medical residency programs evaluate faculty at least annually. No systematic literature reviews exist to guide medical education leaders on this topic. Given the relative paucity of literature, a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) is a worthwhile approach, generating new theories and concepts and move the science of medical education forward. PubMed and Google Scholar searches with the terms “faculty,” “evaluations,” “residency,” and combinations such as “resident evaluations of faculty” were conducted. Search results were compared with the references in manuscripts identified as newer and/or most relevant, to ensure completeness of literature review. The relevant literature has been organized into thematic groups by common words or phrases, and gaps have been identified based on this analysis. CIS methodology yielded a paucity of literature in faculty evaluations, with most being primary, single-site studies. Thematic areas include evaluation development and implementation; personnel characteristics; evaluation outcomes; and analysis and reliability of evaluation methods. Faculty evaluations play a critical role in the successful maintenance of residency program quality. Current literature yields some clues as to best practices, with little consistency. The results of this CIS suggest a few unifying themes to the current literature; iterative steps toward best practices; as well as future research directions.