Journal article
Effect of Insufficient Interaction on the Evaluation of Anesthesiologists’ Quality of Clinical Supervision by Anesthesiology Residents and Fellows
Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), Vol.14(3), e23500
03/26/2022
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23500
PMCID: PMC9036497
PMID: 35494980
Abstract
Introduction In this study, we tested whether raters’ (residents and fellows) decisions to evaluate (or not) critical care anesthesiologists were significantly associated with clinical interactions documented from electronic health record progress notes and whether that influenced the reliability of supervision scores. We used the de Oliveira Filho clinical supervision scale for the evaluation of faculty anesthesiologists. Email requests were sent to raters who worked one hour or longer with the anesthesiologist the preceding day in an operating room. In contrast, potential raters were requested to evaluate all critical care anesthesiologists scheduled in intensive care units during the preceding week. Methods Over 7.6 years, raters (N=172) received a total of 7764 requests to evaluate 21 critical care anesthesiologists. Each rater received a median/mode of three evaluation requests, one per anesthesiologist on service that week. In this retrospective cohort study, we related responses (2970 selections of “insufficient interaction” to evaluate the faculty, and 3127 completed supervision scores) to progress notes (N=25,469) electronically co-signed by the rater and anesthesiologist combination during that week. Results Raters with few jointly signed notes were more likely to select insufficient interaction for evaluation (P < 0.0001): 62% when no joint notes versus 1% with at least 20 joint notes during the week. Still, rater-anesthesiologist combinations with no co-authored notes accounted not only for most (78%) of the evaluation requests but also most (56%) of the completed evaluations (both P < 0.0001). Among rater and anesthesiologist combinations with each anesthesiologist receiving evaluations from multiple (at least nine) raters and each rater evaluating multiple anesthesiologists, most (72%) rater-anesthesiologist combinations were among raters who had no co-authored notes with the anesthesiologist (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Regular use of the supervision scale should be practiced with raters who were selected not only from their scheduled clinical site but also using electronic health record data verifying joint workload with the anesthesiologist.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Effect of Insufficient Interaction on the Evaluation of Anesthesiologists’ Quality of Clinical Supervision by Anesthesiology Residents and Fellows
- Creators
- Rachel A HadlerFranklin DexterBradley J Hindman
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Publication Details
- Curēus (Palo Alto, CA), Vol.14(3), e23500
- Publisher
- Cureus Inc
- DOI
- 10.7759/cureus.23500
- PMID
- 35494980
- PMCID
- PMC9036497
- eISSN
- 2168-8184
- Language
- English
- Date published
- 03/26/2022
- Academic Unit
- Health Management and Policy; Anesthesia
- Record Identifier
- 9984251626002771
Metrics
8 Record Views