The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Failure to Fail: The Perspectives of Clinical Supervisors
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical supervisors often do not fail students and residents even though they have judged their performance to be unsatisfactory. This study explored the factors identified by supervisors that affect their willingness to report poor clinical performance when completing In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs). METHOD: Semistructured interviews with 21 clinical supervisors at the University of Ottawa were conducted and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Participants identified four major areas of the evaluation process that act as barriers to reporting a trainee who has performed poorly: (1) lack of documentation, (2) lack of knowledge of what to specifically document, (3) anticipating an appeal process and (4) lack of remediation options. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides insight as to why supervisors fail to fail the poorly performing student and resident. It also offers suggestions of how to support supervisors, increasing the likelihood that they will provide a valid ITER when faced with an underachieving trainee.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742
Cited by
A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose.
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Dijkstra, J., Tigelaar, D., Baartman, L. K. J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.652239 · Cited by 892
A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework
Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12678 · Cited by 554
Giving feedback in clinical settings
Cantillon, P., & Sargeant, J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1961 · Cited by 460
Watling, C. J., & Lingard, L. (2012) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9223-x · Cited by 139
Driessen, E., & Scheele, F. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.798403 · Cited by 110
R2C2 in action: Testing an evidence-based model to facilitate feedback and coaching in residency.
Sargeant, J., Mann, K., Manos, S., Epstein, I., Warren, A., Shearer, C., & Boudreau, M. (2017) · Journal of Graduate Medical Education · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-16-00398.1 · Cited by 98
Rules of Engagement: Residents’ Perceptions of the In-Training Evaluation Process
Watling, C. J., Kenyon, C. F., Zibrowski, E. M., Schulz, V., Goldszmidt, M. A., Singh, I., Maddocks, H. L., & Lingard, L. (2008) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318183e78c · Cited by 86
Examining the barriers to meaningful assessment and feedback in medical training
McQueen, S. A., Petrisor, B., Bhandari, M., Fahim, C., McKinnon, V., & Sonnadara, R. R. (2016) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.10.002 · Cited by 81
Maturational differences in undergraduate medical students’ perceptions about feedback.
Murdoch‐Eaton, D., & Sargeant, J. (2012) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04291.x · Cited by 83
Dijksterhuis, M. G. K., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Braat, D. D. M., Teunissen, P. W., & Scheele, F. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.756576 · Cited by 79
Multiple‐role mentoring: mentors’ conceptualisations, enactments and role conflicts
Meeuwissen, S. N. E., Stalmeijer, R. E., & Govaerts, M. (2019) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13811 · Cited by 62
(2013) · doi:10.4236/ce.2013.46a008 · Cited by 24
Training for staff who support students
Flynn, E., Woodward‐Kron, R., & Hu, W. (2016) · The Clinical Teacher · doi:10.1111/tct.12392 · Cited by 22
Gin, B. C., ten Cate, O., O’Sullivan, P. S., & Boscardin, C. (2024) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-024-10311-9 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Dudek, N. L., Marks, M. B., & Regehr, G.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- Supplement
- Pages
- S84-S87
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2100068953
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
