V.A. Resident Evaluation

V.A.1. Feedback and Evaluation

Background and Intent

Feedback is ongoing information provided regarding aspects of one's performance, knowledge, or understanding. The faculty empower residents to provide much of that feedback themselves in a spirit of continuous learning and self-reflection. Feedback from faculty members in the context of routine clinical care should be frequent, and need not always be formally documented.

Formative and summative evaluation have distinct definitions. Formative evaluation is monitoring resident learning and providing ongoing feedback that can be used by residents to improve their learning in the context of provision of patient care or other educational opportunities. More specifically, formative evaluations help: 

  • residents identify their strengths and weaknesses and target areas that need work
  • program directors and faculty members recognize where residents are struggling and address problems immediately

Summative evaluation is evaluating a resident's learning by comparing the residents against the goals and objectives of the rotation and program, respectively. Summative evaluation is utilized to make decisions about promotion to the next level of training, or program completion.

End-of-rotation and end-of-year evaluations have both summative and formative components. Information from a summative evaluation can be used formatively when residents or faculty members use it to guide their efforts and activities in subsequent rotations and to successfully complete the residency program.

Feedback, formative evaluation, and summative evaluation compare intentions with accomplishments, enabling the transformation of a neophyte physician to one with growing expertise. 

V.A.1.a) Faculty members must directly observe, evaluate, and frequently provide feedback on resident performance during each rotation or similar educational assignment. (Core)

V.A.1.b) Evaluation must be documented at the completion of the assignment. (Core)

V.A.1.b).(1) For block rotations of greater than three months in duration, evaluation must be documented at least every three months. (Core)

V.A.1.b).(2) Longitudinal experiences, such as continuity clinic in the context of other clinical responsibilities, must be evaluated at least every three months and at completion. (Core)

V.A.1.c) The program must provide an objective performance evaluation based on the Competencies and the specialty-specific Milestones, and must: (Core)

V.A.1.c).(1) use multiple evaluators (e.g., faculty members, peers, patients, self, and other professional staff members); and, (Core)

V.A.1.c).(2) provide that information to the Clinical Competency Committee for its synthesis of progressive resident performance and improvement toward unsupervised practice. (Core)

V.A.1.d) The program director or their designee, with input from the Clinical Competency Committee, must:

V.A.1.d).(1) meet with and review with each resident their documented semi-annual evaluation of performance, including progress along the specialty-specific Milestones; (Core)

V.A.1.d).(2) assist residents in developing individualized learning plans to capitalize on their strengths and identify areas for growth; and, (Core)

V.A.1.d).(3) develop plans for residents failing to progress, following institutional policies and procedures. (Core)

Background and Intent

Learning is an active process that requires effort from the teacher and the learner. Faculty members evaluate a resident's performance at least at the end of each rotation. The program director or their designee will review those evaluations, including their progress on the Milestones, at a minimum of every six months. Residents should be encouraged to reflect upon the evaluation, using the information to reinforce well-performed tasks or knowledge or to modify deficiencies in knowledge or practice. Working together with the faculty members, residents should develop an individualized learning plan.

Residents who are experiencing difficulties with achieving progress along the Milestones may require intervention to address specific deficiencies. Such intervention, documented in an individual remediation plan developed by the program director or a faculty mentor and the resident, will take a variety of forms based on the specific learning needs of the resident. However, the ACGME recognizes that there are situations which require more significant intervention that may alter the time course of resident progression. To ensure due process, it is essential that the program director follow institutional policies and procedures. 

V.A.1.e) At least annually, there must be a summative evaluation of each resident that includes their readiness to progress to the next year of the program, if applicable. (Core)

V.A.1.f) The evaluations of a resident's performance must be accessible for review by the resident. (Core)

V.A.2  Final Evaluation

V.A.2.a) The program director must provide a final evaluation for each resident upon completion of the program. (Core)

V.A.2.a).(1) The specialty-specific Milestones, and when applicable the specialty-specific Case Logs, must be used as tools to ensure residents are able to engage in autonomous practice upon completion of the program. (Core)

V.A.2.a).(2) The final evaluation must:

V.A.2.a).(2).(a) become part of the resident's permanent record maintained by the institution, and must be accessible for review by the resident in accordance with institutional policy; (Core)

V.A.2.a).(2).(b) verify that the resident has demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and behaviors necessary to enter autonomous practice; (Core)

V.A.2.a).(2).(c) consider recommendations from the Clinical Competency Committee; and, (Core)

V.A.2.a).(2).(d) be shared with the resident upon completion of the program. (Core)

V.A.3. A Clinical Competency Committee must be appointed by the program director. (Core)

V.A.3.a) At a minimum, the Clinical Competency Committee must include three members of the program faculty, at least one of whom is a core faculty member. (Core)

V.A.3.a).(1). Additional members must be faculty members from the same program or other programs, or other health professionals who have extensive contact and experience with the program's residents. (Core)

Background and Intent

The requirements regarding the Clinical Competency Committee do not preclude or limit a program director's participation on the Clinical Competency Committee. The intent is to leave flexibility for each program to decide the best structure for its own circumstances, but a program should consider: its program director's presence on the other Clinical Competency Committee members' discussions and decisions; the size of the program faculty; and other program-relevant factors. The program director has final responsibility for resident evaluation and promotion decisions.

Program faculty may include more than the physician faculty members, such as other physicians and non-physicians who teach and evaluate the program's residents. There may be additional members of the Clinical Competency Committee. Chief residents who have completed core residency programs in their specialty may be members of the Clinical Competency Committee.

V.A.3.b) The Clinical Competency Committee must:

V.A.3.b).(1) review all resident evaluations at least semi-annually; (Core)

V.A.3.b).(2) determine each resident's progress on achievement of the specialty-specific Milestones; and, (Core)

V.A.3.b).(3) meet prior to the residents' semi-annual evaluations and advise the program director regarding each resident's progress. (Core)

LSU GME Knowledge Base

Copyright 2020 LSU School of Medicine unless otherwise specified.