{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,30]],"date-time":"2026-09-30T06:00:34Z","timestamp":1790748034115,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":17,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,1]],"date-time":"2019-12-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1575158400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,16]],"date-time":"2019-12-16T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1576454400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":15,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Med Educ"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires each residency program to have a Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) but does not specify how the PEC should be designed. We sought to develop a PEC that promotes resident leadership and provides actionable feedback.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Participants were residents and faculty in the Traditional Internal Medicine residency program at Yale School of Medicine (YSM). One resident and one faculty member facilitated a 1-h structured group discussion to obtain resident feedback on each rotation. PEC co-facilitators summarized the feedback in written form, then met with faculty Firm Chiefs overseeing each rotation and with residency program leadership to discuss feedback and generate action plans. This PEC process was implemented in all inpatient and outpatient rotations over a 4-year period. Upon conclusion of the second and fourth years of the PEC initiative, surveys were sent to faculty Firm Chiefs to assess their perceptions regarding the utility of the PEC format in comparison to other, more traditional forms of programmatic feedback. PEC residents and faculty were also surveyed about their experiences as PEC participants.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The PEC process identified many common themes across inpatient and ambulatory rotations. Positives included a high caliber of teaching by faculty, highly diverse and educational patient care experiences, and a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary care. Areas for improvement included educational curricula on various rotations, interactions between medical and non-medical services, technological issues, and workflow problems. In survey assessments, PEC members viewed the PEC process as a rewarding mentorship experience that provided residents with an opportunity to engage in quality improvement and improve facilitation skills. Firm chiefs were more likely to review and make rotation changes in response to PEC feedback than to traditional written resident evaluations but preferred to receive both forms of feedback rather than either alone<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>The PEC process at YSM has transformed our program\u2019s approach to feedback delivery by engaging residents in the feedback process and providing them with mentored quality improvement and leadership experiences while generating actionable feedback for program-wide change. This has led to PEC groups evaluating additional aspects of residency education.<\/jats:p>\n<\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12909-019-1899-x","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,16]],"date-time":"2019-12-16T19:03:26Z","timestamp":1576523006000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":9,"title":["A novel approach to the program evaluation committee"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"19","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-9614-1179","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Amy R.","family":"Schwartz","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mark D.","family":"Siegel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Alfred Ian","family":"Lee","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,12,16]]},"reference":[{"key":"1899_CR1","unstructured":"Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Glossary of Terms. https:\/\/www.acgme.org\/Portals\/0\/PDFs\/ab_ACGMEglossary.pdf?ver=2018-05-14-095126-363 Accessed Oct 17 2019."},{"key":"1899_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e288","DOI":"10.3109\/0142159X.2012.668637","volume":"34","author":"AW Frye","year":"2012","unstructured":"Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Med Teach. 2012;34:e288\u201399.","journal-title":"Med Teach."},{"key":"1899_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"296","DOI":"10.3109\/01421590903480121","volume":"32","author":"DA Cook","year":"2010","unstructured":"Cook DA. Twelve tips for evaluating educational programs. Med Teach. 2010;32:296\u2013301.","journal-title":"Med Teach"},{"key":"1899_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"342","DOI":"10.1111\/medu.12091","volume":"47","author":"F Haji","year":"2013","unstructured":"Haji F, Morin M-P, Parker K. Rethinking programme evaluation in health professions education: beyond \u2018did it work?\u2019. Med Educ. 2013;47:342\u201351.","journal-title":"Med Educ"},{"key":"1899_CR5","first-page":"54","volume":"1","author":"D Kirkpatrick","year":"1996","unstructured":"Kirkpatrick D. Revisiting Kirkpatrick\u2019s four-level model. Train Dev. 1996;1:54\u20139.","journal-title":"Train Dev"},{"key":"1899_CR6","volume-title":"International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Kluwer International Handbooks of Education, vol 9","author":"DL Stufflebeam","year":"2003","unstructured":"Stufflebeam DL. The CIPP Model for Evaluation. In: Kellaghan T, Stufflebeam DL, editors. International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Kluwer International Handbooks of Education, vol 9. Dordrecht: Springer; 2003."},{"key":"1899_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"759","DOI":"10.1097\/00001888-200608000-00015","volume":"81","author":"DW Musick","year":"2006","unstructured":"Musick DW. A conceptual model for program evaluation in graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81:759\u201365.","journal-title":"Acad Med"},{"key":"1899_CR8","unstructured":"Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Common Program Requirements. http:\/\/www.acgme.org\/Portals\/0\/PFAssets\/ProgramRequirements\/CPRs_2017-07-01.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2018."},{"key":"1899_CR9","first-page":"85","volume":"16","author":"RG Amedee","year":"2015","unstructured":"Amedee RG, Piazza JC. Institutional oversight of the graduate medical education enterprise: development of an annual institutional review. Ochsner J. 2015;16:85\u20139.","journal-title":"Ochsner J"},{"key":"1899_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.1186\/1472-6920-10-13","volume":"10","author":"SH Rose","year":"2010","unstructured":"Rose SH, Long TR. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) annual anesthesiology residency and fellowship program review: a \u201creport card\u201d model for continuous improvement. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:13.","journal-title":"BMC Med Educ"},{"key":"1899_CR11","first-page":"32","volume":"44","author":"MT Nadeau","year":"2012","unstructured":"Nadeau MT, Tysinger JW. The annual program review of effectiveness: a process improvement approach. Fam Med. 2012;44:32\u20138.","journal-title":"Fam Med"},{"key":"1899_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"7","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jsurg.2017.06.026","volume":"75","author":"SB Deal","year":"2018","unstructured":"Deal SB, Seabott H, Chang L, Alseidi AA. The program evaluation committee in action: lessons learned from a general surgery residency\u2019s experience. J Surg Educ. 2018;75:7\u201313.","journal-title":"J Surg Educ"},{"key":"1899_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"200","DOI":"10.1007\/s40596-015-0430-x","volume":"40","author":"JM Erickson","year":"2016","unstructured":"Erickson JM, Duncan AM, Arenella PB. Using the program evaluation committee as a dynamic vehicle for improvement in psychiatry training. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40:200\u20131.","journal-title":"Acad Psychiatry"},{"key":"1899_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"132","DOI":"10.1186\/1472-6920-14-132","volume":"14","author":"L Rucker","year":"2014","unstructured":"Rucker L, Shapiro J, Fornwalt C, Hundal K, Reddy S, Singson Z, Trieu K. Using focus groups to understand causes for morale decline after introducing change in an IM residency program. BMC Medical Educ. 2014;14:132.","journal-title":"BMC Medical Educ"},{"key":"1899_CR15","volume-title":"The program evaluation standards: a guide for evaluators and evaluation users","author":"DB Yarbrough","year":"2011","unstructured":"Yarbrough DB, Shulha LM, Hopson RK, Caruthers FA. The program evaluation standards: a guide for evaluators and evaluation users. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.","edition":"3"},{"key":"1899_CR16","unstructured":"SurveyMonkey. http:\/\/www.surveymonkey.com. Accessed 4 June 2018."},{"key":"1899_CR17","volume-title":"Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook","author":"MB Miles","year":"2014","unstructured":"Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. SAGE: Thousand Oaks; 2014.","edition":"3"}],"container-title":["BMC Medical Education"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12909-019-1899-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12909-019-1899-x\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12909-019-1899-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2020,12,15]],"date-time":"2020-12-15T00:20:02Z","timestamp":1607991602000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12909-019-1899-x"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019,12]]},"references-count":17,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,12]]}},"alternative-id":["1899"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12909-019-1899-x","relation":{},"ISSN":["1472-6920"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1472-6920","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2019,12]]},"assertion":[{"value":"10 May 2019","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"4 December 2019","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"16 December 2019","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"The Yale University Human Investigation Committee determined that this project is quality improvement, not requiring IRB review, on 2\/26\/19. Because participation was voluntary and occurred in the course of normal educational activities, written informed consent was considered unnecessary.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"The authors declare that they have no competing interests.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"465"}}