OBJECTIVES This study was intended to develop a conceptual framework of the factors impacting on faculty members' judgements and ratings of resident doctors (residents) after direct observation with patients. METHODSIn 2009, 44 general internal medicine faculty members responsible for out-patient resident teaching in 16 internal medicine residency programmes in a large urban area in the eastern USA watched four videotaped scenarios and two live scenarios of standardised residents engaged in clinical encounters with standardised patients. After each, faculty members rated the resident using a mini-clinical evaluation exercise and were individually interviewed using a semi-structured interview. Interviews were videotaped, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methods.RESULTS Four primary themes that provide insights into the variability of faculty assessments of residents' performance were identified: (i) the frames of reference used by faculty members when translating observations into judgements and ratings are variable; (ii) high levels of inference are used during the direct observation process; (iii) the methods by which judgements are synthesised into numerical ratings are variable, and (iv) factors external to resident performance influence ratings. From these themes, a conceptual model was developed to describe the process of observation, interpretation, synthesis and rating.CONCLUSIONS It is likely that multiple factors account for the variability in faculty ratings of residents. Understanding these factors informs potential new approaches to faculty development to improve the accuracy, reliability and utility of clinical skills assessment.

CONTEXT Performance-based workplace assessments are increasingly important in clinical training. Given the inaccuracy of self-assessment, the provision of external feedback to residents about their clinical skills is necessary for the development of expertise. However, little is known about the processes used by faculty members in giving feedback to residents after observing them with patients. This study explores the factors that underpin faculty members' decisions regarding the feedback they give to residents after directly observing them with patients and the factors that influence how feedback is delivered.METHODS In 2009, 44 general internal medicine faculty staff responsible for out-patient resident teaching from 16 internal medicine residency programmes watched four videotaped scenarios and two live scenarios of standardised residents (SRs) with standardised patients and rated the SRs using the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) format. Faculty staff also provided feedback to the SRs after the live encounters. After each encounter, faculty staff were individually interviewed using a semi-structured interview. Interviews were videotaped, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methods.RESULTS Two broad themes were identified in faculty members' descriptions of the feedback process: variability in feedback techniques, and the factors that influence how faculty staff think and feel about delivering feedback. Multiple approaches to feedback delivery were observed. Faculty members' tensions in balancing positive and negative feedback, their own perceived self-efficacy, their perceptions of the resident's insight, receptivity, skill and potential, the faculty member-resident relationship and contextual factors impacted the feedback process.CONCLUSIONS The provision of feedback by faculty staff to residents after observing resident-patient interactions is a complex and dynamic process and is influenced by many factors. Understanding these cognitive and affective factors may provide insight into potential new approaches to faculty development to improve faculty staff's feedback skills and the effectiveness of their feedback.

Research is urgently needed on the effects of transitions on trainees, faculty staff, non-doctor health care providers and patients in order to optimise future competency-based training models and confirm or refute current assumptions.

These findings challenge the value of the traditional "rotating" model in residency. As residents adapt to frequent transitioning, they implicitly learn to value flexibility and efficiency over relationship building and deep system knowledge. These findings raise significant implications for professional development and patient care and highlight an important element of the hidden curriculum embedded within the current training model.

Rater training using PDT and a modified approach to FoRT can provide faculty staff with assessment skills that are congruent with principles of criterion-referenced assessment and entrustment, and foundational principles of competency-based education, while providing them with opportunities to reflect on their own clinical skills. However, multiple challenges to incorporating new forms of training exist. Ongoing efforts to improve WBA are needed to address institutional and cultural contexts, and systems of care delivery.

Studies show that patients want to be more involved in their own health care. Yet insufficient attention has been paid to the specific competencies of both patients and providers that are needed to optimize such patient engagement and shared decision making. In this article we address the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that patients, physicians, and health care systems require to effectively engage patients in their health care. For example, many patient-physician interactions still follow the traditional office visit format, in which the patient is passive, trusting, and compliant. We recommend imaginative models for redesigned office care, restructured reimbursement schemes, and increased support services for patients and professionals. We present three clinical scenarios to illustrate how these competencies must work together. We conclude that effective shared decision making takes time to deliver proficiently and that among other measures, policy makers must change payment models to focus on value and support education and discussion of competencies for a modern health care system.

Professionalism remains a substantive theme in medical literature. There is an emerging emphasis on sociological and complex adaptive systems perspectives that refocuses attention from just the individual role to working within one's system to enact professionalism in practice. Reflecting on responses to professional dilemmas may be one method to help practicing physicians identify both internal and external factors contributing to (un) professional behavior. We present a rationale and theoretical framework that supports and guides a reflective approach to the self assessment of professionalism. Guided by principles grounded in this theoretical framework, we developed and piloted a set of vignettes on professionally challenging situations, designed to stimulate reflection in practicing physicians. Findings show that participants found the vignettes to be authentic and typical, and reported the group experience as facilitative around discussions of professional ambiguity. Providing an opportunity for physicians to reflect on professional behavior in an open and safe forum may be a practical way to guide physicians to assess themselves on professional behavior and engage with the complexities of their work. The finding that the focus groups led to reflection at a group level suggests that effective reflection on professional behavior may require a socially interactive process. Emphasizing both the behaviors and the internal and external context in which they occur can thus be viewed as critically important for understanding professionalism in practicing physicians.

Background: Physicians in small to moderate primary care practices in the United States (U.S.) (<25 physicians) face unique challenges in implementing quality improvement (QI) initiatives, including limited resources, small staffs, and inadequate information technology systems 23,36. This qualitative study sought to identify and understand the characteristics and organizational cultures of physicians working in smaller practices who are actively engaged in measurement and quality improvement initiatives.