Faculty Development and Supervision Flashcards

A PGY-3 resident is physically present supervising a PGY-1 in the ICU. The attending is in their office one floor above, reachable by pager within 5 minutes. From the perspective of ACGME supervision levels, what type of supervision is the attending providing to the PGY-1?

Answer: Indirect supervision with direct supervision immediately available, because the attending can arrive quickly and the PGY-3 provides physical oversight

ACGME defines 'indirect supervision with direct supervision immediately available' as the supervisor being physically within the hospital or available by phone/pager and able to arrive promptly. The PGY-3 is the direct supervisor of the PGY-1, while the attending—who can arrive within minutes—provides indirect supervision with immediate availability. Oversight supervision applies to retrospective review of trainee performance, not real-time physical proximity.

A GME office evaluates a faculty development intervention on peer feedback using pre/post knowledge tests, resident ratings of faculty feedback quality 3 months later, and faculty self-reported confidence. Which Kirkpatrick level is LEAST represented by this evaluation strategy?

Answer: Level 1 – Reaction

Kirkpatrick Level 1 (Reaction) measures participants' immediate satisfaction or perceived value of the training—typically via end-of-session surveys. The described strategy captures Level 2 (knowledge change via pre/post tests), Level 3 (behavior change via resident ratings at 3 months), and partially Level 2/3 (self-reported confidence). No measure of participant reaction to the session itself is included, making Level 1 the absent element.

A program director has documented three episodes over six months in which a faculty member provided non-specific, delayed evaluations and received consistently poor resident teaching ratings. When confronted, the faculty member attributes the issues to clinical workload. The faculty member has no prior written documentation of performance concerns. What is the program director's MOST appropriate next step?

Answer: Develop a written faculty improvement plan with specific, measurable behavioral goals, a defined timeline, and scheduled check-ins

Best practice in faculty remediation mirrors trainee remediation: the first formal response to documented performance concerns should be a written improvement plan that is specific, measurable, time-bound, and supported—not punitive removal or immediate escalation. Escalation to GMEC or the department chair may be appropriate if the improvement plan fails or if the behavior is egregious, but a structured improvement plan is the evidence-supported first step when no prior written warnings exist.

According to ACGME Common Program Requirements, which statement MOST accurately characterizes the faculty development mandate?

Answer: Programs must document that faculty receive ongoing education in teaching, assessment, feedback, and the learning environment, with frequency and format determined by the program

ACGME Common Program Requirements mandate that programs ensure faculty members are educated in effective teaching, supervision, assessment, feedback, and the learning environment—but deliberately leave frequency and format to program discretion. Programs must document participation; however, ACGME sets no minimum hour requirement. The mandate extends to all faculty with teaching or supervisory roles, not only CCC members, and cannot be fully delegated to the Sponsoring Institution.

A clinician-educator begins working with a junior faculty member who struggles with facilitating small-group discussions. They meet monthly: the educator observes a session, identifies specific behavioral gaps, co-creates short-term goals with the junior faculty member, and tracks progress over time. This relationship is BEST described as which of the following?

Answer: Coaching, because it centers on structured observation, specific goal-setting, and iterative skill-focused feedback

Coaching is defined by its focus on specific, observable skill development through structured observation, co-created goals, and iterative feedback cycles—not on broader career navigation. Mentoring is a longer-term, relationship-centered guidance primarily addressing career development, identity formation, and networking. Sponsoring involves actively advocating for someone's advancement. Precepting is clinical teaching with immediate oversight of patient care. The scenario describes coaching's hallmark elements.

A residency program is designing a new faculty development curriculum on delivering milestone-based feedback. Which needs assessment approach would provide the HIGHEST-validity foundation for curriculum prioritization?

Answer: Triangulating data from faculty self-assessment, blinded resident evaluations of faculty feedback quality, and direct observation scores

Multi-source (360-degree) triangulation is the highest-validity approach because it reconciles self-perception bias (faculty self-assessment), trainee-level outcomes (resident evaluations reflecting actual feedback quality), and objective behavioral data (direct observation). Faculty self-assessment alone has well-documented low correlation with actual performance. Benchmarking and literature review are useful inputs but do not reflect the specific performance gaps of a given faculty group. Triangulation aligns with contemporary needs assessment theory and produces a program-specific, behaviorally grounded curriculum.