Does faculty development influence the quality of in-training evaluation reports in pharmacy?

Abstract

Background: In-training evaluation reports (ITERs) of student workplace-based learning are completed by clinical supervisors across various health disciplines. However, outside of medicine, the quality of submitted workplace-based assessments is largely uninvestigated. This study assessed the quality of ITERs in pharmacy and whether clinical supervisors could be trained to complete higher quality reports. Methods: A random sample of ITERs submitted in a pharmacy program during 2013-2014 was evaluated. These ITERs served as a historical control (control group 1) for comparison with ITERs submitted in 2015-2016 by clinical supervisors who participated in an interactive faculty development workshop (intervention group) and those who did not (control group 2). Two trained independent raters scored the ITERs using a previously validated nine-item scale assessing report quality, the Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR). The scoring scale for each item is anchored at 1 ("not at all") and 5 ("exemplary"), with 3 categorized as "acceptable". Results: Mean CCERR score for reports completed after the workshop (22.9 � 3.39) did not significantly improve when compared to prospective control group 2 (22.7 � 3.63, p = 0.84) and were worse than historical control group 1 (37.9 � 8.21, p = 0.001). Mean item scores for individual CCERR items were below acceptable thresholds for 5 of the 9 domains in control group 1, including supervisor documented evidence of specific examples to clearly explain weaknesses and concrete recommendations for student improvement. Mean item scores for individual CCERR items were below acceptable thresholds for 6 and 7 of the 9 domains in control group 2 and the intervention group, respectively. Conclusions: This study is the first using CCERR to evaluate ITER quality outside of medicine. Findings demonstrate low baseline CCERR scores in a pharmacy program not demonstrably changed by a faculty development workshop, but strategies are identified to augment future rater training. 1 2017 The Author(s).