Abstract
BACKGROUND: Group discussion of resident performance is an emerging assessment approach in postgraduate medical education. However, groups do not necessarily make better decisions than individuals. OBJECTIVE: This study examined how group meetings concerning the assessment of residents take place, what information is shared during the meetings, and how this influences program directors' judgment of resident performance. METHODS: In 2017, the researchers observed 10 faculty group meetings where resident performance was discussed and interviewed the program directors within a month after the meetings. We used a thematic framework analysis to identify themes from the transcribed meetings and interviews. RESULTS: The information shared by group members during the meetings had 2 aims: (1) forming a judgment about the residents, and (2) faculty development. Most group members shared information without written notes, most discussions were not structured by the program director, the major focus of discussions was on residents with performance concerns, and there was a lack of a shared mental model of resident performance. The program directors who benefited most from the meetings were those who thought group members were engaged and summarized the information after every discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Unstructured discussions and a lack of a shared mental model among group members impede effective information sharing about resident performance with a developmental approach. Structured discussions with an equal amount of discussion time for every resident and creating a shared mental model about the purpose of the discussions and the assessment approach could enhance use of a developmental approach to assessing resident performance.