Evaluation

Satisfied that evaluations of faculty are confidential/Satisfied with feedback after assignments. Currently residents are evaluated at the end of each rotation during the monthly section meetings using the current milestones. The CCC committee meets bi-annually and provides a cumulative evaluation for each resident. The PD meets 1: 1 with each resident individually at which time detailed review of case logs, duty hours, ISE Scores, and the CCC evaluations/recommendations, as well as research productivity are discussed. A written evaluation including pertinent information and plan of action (when necessary) is provided. The PD documents this using med hub including all the above data signed by the PD and the Resident. A copy is saved in the resident file and effective March 2014 a copy will be given to each mentor. The residency program is discussed monthly at faculty meetings and each resident is individually evaluated with input from faculty during the monthly departmental meeting. We also discuss the program during our departmental yearly retreat and residents will actively participate in the process.

Plan:

• Faculty evaluation/yearly. Residents will provide an after rotation evaluation/biannually

• Beginning of each rotation the goals and expectations will be discussed by the section chief

• Mid/end of rotation evaluation will be conducted by the section chief or his/her designee. End of surgical procedure evaluation (available in the OR)

• Chiefs evaluate PGY1&2 and vice versa. Also PGY4 to evaluate PGY3 and vice versa

Evaluation Process

Continuous evaluation of the program, faculty, and residents is an important part of maintaining high quality training. The evaluation process at the University of Michigan is as follows:

A. PROGRAM

A formal program evaluation is done twice yearly, once at the Department Retreat in the Fall and by the Graduate Medical Education Committee. Faculty and residents discuss specific concerns and opportunities for improvement and minutes are kept. In addition, residents and faculty anonymously evaluate the program yearly in a written survey.

Outcome assessment of the program includes review of qualifying and certifying exam results of the American Board of Urology.

At least every five years, an internal review of the program is done by the Institutional GME Office. The last ACGME site visit was in June 2012. 

B. FACULTY

Yearly written, anonymous evaluations of the faculty are done by each resident and collated by the Training Program Administrator. Each faculty is given an overall summary of their evaluations to ensure resident anonymity. The Program Director and Department Chair are also given a summary of all faculty evaluations.

Yearly, the residents give two awards to faculty. The Silver Cystoscope Award is given to a person who has contributed most to teaching. The Outstanding Achievement Award is given in recognition of scholarly accomplishments.

C. RESIDENTS

Resident progress is discussed at each faculty meeting. Overall resident evaluation is done twice yearly at a faculty meeting using a written evaluation form. Twice yearly, the Program Director meets individually with each resident to evaluate clinical progress, academic progress, including In-Service Exam scores, surgical experience based on review of surgical logs, scholarly activity based on review of updated CV, career plans, and any interpersonal, ethical, or family issues. Residents are formally evaluated by faculty after completion of each rotation block via Med Hub. Med Hub is an internet based password protected institutionally sponsored tool which provides an anonymous evaluation process.

D. CLINICAL COMPETENCY COMMITTEE AND RESIDENT PROMOTION

Individual resident review is completed by the faculty and the administrative chief resident twice yearly at a faculty meeting. Standardized review forms are used. Twice yearly, the Program Director will meet with each resident individually to discuss progress in medical knowledge, in-service scores, procedural skills, general competencies, operative logs, academic productivity, career goals, and personal issues. A written summary is provided to each resident. At the completion of the residency, a final evaluation is performed and signed by the completing resident and the Program Director. In addition, residents are encouraged to meet with their assigned faculty mentor to review their progress.

Residents are promoted yearly based on a consensus evaluation of the resident by the faculty with the final decision the responsibility of the Program Director. Each resident will co-sign along with the Program Director/Chairman a yearly contract

E. 1st Year Residents

Will be assigned faculty mentors to assist residents in academic and surgical progress throughout their residency. In addition, the faculty mentor will provide career choice guidance. Faculty mentor and resident will arrange a schedule of meetings but it is encouraged that faculty and resident meet at least quarterly.

F. RESIDENT DISMISSAL AND DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS

  • Disciplinary hearings may be conducted by one or more persons, appointed by the Chairman of the Department. The hearing officer or committee may have an advisor, who may be an attorney.
  • A resident accused of misconduct shall be given notice of the specific allegations, copies of all documents provided to the hearing officer or committee, a copy of these procedures, and notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing.
  • At the hearing, the resident will be given an opportunity to appear and present his or her case. The resident shall be permitted to review all documents and written statements considered by the hearing officer or committee and may question any witnesses who testify. The resident also may present evidence and witnesses on his or her behalf. Each witness will be asked to affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful.
  • If the resident fails or refuses to appear, the hearing officer or hearing committee may either deem the absence to be an admission that the resident committed the acts alleged or may proceed to hear the case and make findings and recommendations without the resident’s participation.
  • The resident may be accompanied at the hearing by a personal advisor, who may be an attorney; however, the advisor may not participate directly in the proceedings, but may only advise the resident. For example, the advisor may not question witnesses or make presentations. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the personal advisor may not appear in lieu of the resident’s appearance.
  • The Chairman may appoint an individual to represent the position adverse to the resident. This individual shall have the same rights as the resident, including rights to be present and review evidence, call and question witnesses, and have an advisor.
  • The hearing shall be closed to the public and may be tape-recorded. The resident shall be provided with a copy of the tape. Witnesses may only be present during the time of their testimony. 
  • The hearing officer or hearing committee shall deliberate in private. Decisions shall be made based on a preponderance of the evidence.
  • After reviewing the case, the hearing officer or hearing committee shall submit a report to the Chairman. The report shall include a brief summary of the factual findings and recommendations for sanctions or other actions, if any. The resident shall be provided with a copy of the report. 
  • The Chairman shall review the report and decide what action to take. The decision shall be communicated to the resident.
  • The resident may appeal the decision of the Chairman in accord with Department of Urology appeals process for house officers. Further, appeal, beyond the Department, may be available in accord with the GME Program grievance procedures.

G. Program Evaluation Committee

Our program recently underwent site review by the ACGME and Residency Review Committee. We have been granted continued accreditation and our next site visit is planned for March 2022.

H. Faculty Evaluation

The teaching ability, commitment, clinical knowledge, and scholarly activities of faculty require review and confidential evaluation at least annually. A summary of the review must be communicated directly to each faculty member by the program director. Confidential resident evaluation must be a part of this review.