Effect of resident evaluations of obstetrics and gynecology faculty on promotion.

BACKGROUND: Promotion for academic faculty depends on a variety of factors, including their research, publications, national leadership, and quality of their teaching. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the importance of resident evaluations of faculty for promotion in obstetrics-gynecology programs. METHODS: A 28-item questionnaire was developed and distributed to 185 department chairs of US obstetrics-gynecology residency programs. RESULTS: Fifty percent (93 of 185) responded, with 40% (37 of 93) stating that teaching has become more important for promotion in the past 10 years. When faculty are being considered for promotion, teaching evaluations were deemed "very important" 60% of the time for clinician track faculty but were rated as mainly "not important" or "not applicable" for research faculty. Sixteen respondents (17%) stated a faculty member had failed to achieve promotion in the past 5 years because of poor teaching evaluations. Positive teaching evaluations outweighed low publication numbers for clinical faculty 24% of the time, compared with 5% for research faculty and 8% for tenured faculty being considered for promotion. The most common reason for rejection for promotion in all tracks was the number of publications. Awards for excellence in teaching improved chances of promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Teaching quality is becoming more important in academic obstetrics-gynecology departments, especially for clinical faculty. Although in most institutions promotion is not achieved without adequate research and publications, the importance of teaching excellence is obvious, with 1 of 6 (17%) departments reporting a promotion had been denied due to poor teaching evaluations.

Postinterview Communication between Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs and Candidates.

INTRODUCTION: Residency programs seek to match the best candidates with their positions. To avoid ethical conflicts in this process, the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP or Match) has rules regarding appropriate conduct, including guidelines on contact between candidates and programs. Our study examined communication between obstetrics and gynecology (Ob-Gyn) programs and residency candidates after interviewing and prior to ranking. METHODS: Ob-Gyn program directors in the United States were sent a self-administered survey via e-mail. Data were collected and analyzed using descriptive methods to examine communication practices of these programs. RESULTS: The response rate was 40%. The findings showed that respondents had variable interpretations of the NRMP rules and suggest that programs may be communicating their match intentions especially to favored candidates. Respondents' open text comments highlighted program directors' frustrations with current NRMP rules. DISCUSSION: NRMP communication rules are intended to minimize pressure on residency candidates. Our findings suggest they may be leading to unforeseen stresses on program directors and candidates. CONCLUSIONS: As educational leaders in medicine, we must consider what professional communications are acceptable without increasing the pressure on candidates during the ranking and match process.