The Bridges Curriculum evaluation approach is designed to be iterative and builds on UCSF’s ongoing rigorous evaluation program and continuous quality improvement. The Bridges Curriculum evaluation plan uses both short- and long-term processes and includes both quantitative and qualitative data collection. The data collection methods are represented in the figure above.
Q. What are the characteristics of effective feedback about an educator?
A. There are multiple characteristics of effective feedback. Feedback is focused on behavior rather than on the person. It is important that the evaluator refer to what a person does rather than to what they think the person is. Feedback should be specific rather than general. To be told that a small group facilitator is "dominating" will not be as useful as to say that "He was not listening to what the others said, but I felt I had to agree with him since he is an instructor."
Feedback should be provided to help, not hurt, the person receiving it and be directed toward behavior that the receiver can improve. Feedback is destructive when it serves one's own needs, such as venting.
Feedback is about what or how something is said or done, not why it is done. It is risky to assume we know why a person says or does something, or what they "really" mean, or trying to accomplish. If we are uncertain of the person's motives or intent, this uncertainty itself is feedback and should be revealed. For more examples on providing constructive feedback, please review the F1 Evaluations Orientation.
Q. What is reinforcing feedback?
A. Reinforcing feedback is when students identify and share with course directors and/or educators educational experiences they feel positively about and would like to see maintained and expanded in the curriculum. On the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form, students are encouraged to report positive experiences related to education generally and Anti-Oppression education specifically. This feedback is shared with course directors and/or educators to help them identify areas of strength.
Q. What kinds of questions and ratings scales are used in the UCSF SOM evaluation forms?
A. Evaluations are composed of ratings on a 5-point response scale and a section for comments. Our instructors and course directors strive to earn ratings of 4 and above on this scale. Any score below 4 is considered an area for improvement. While "3 = Good", an educator interprets a score of 3 as equivalent to a solid 75 (just above passing) on a 100 point exam. It is important to be honest and thoughtful in your evaluations and to give scores that are appropriate. A rating of "1 = Poor" means that the instructor or course-related item is not conducive to student learning or wellbeing. A rating of "5 = Excellent" means that the content or instructor quality is the best it can be. Ratings of 2 and below are considered low and will trigger notifications to course and clerkship directors alerting them to the low rating.
Q. What is the software used for evaluation purposes?
A. MedHub is the online evaluation tool used to manage evaluations and schedules in Foundations 2 and Career Launch. MedHub is accessible on your MyAccess Portal using your Single Sign-On login credentials.
eValue is the online evaluation tool used to manage evaluations for Foundations 1. eValue generates e-mail notifications specific to each student with a hyperlink to a list of evaluation assignments or the user can log into the system to complete and view evaluations.
In some instances, Qualtrics is another online survey tool used for collecting evaluation data. A School of Medicine evaluation survey in Qualtrics will bear the following statement: This survey is endorsed by the School of Medicine for the purpose of improving our programs and services.
Q. What is the difference between ‘mandatory’ and ‘optional’ evaluations?
Course evaluations through eValue and MedHub will either be mandatory or optional. Students are required to complete mandatory evaluations assigned to them. Evaluation completion rates are monitored and are considered part of the Professionalism competency.
The Educational Evaluations Team monitors each student's evaluation completion rate and ensures that each student meets the minimum 70% evaluation completion requirement for mandatory evaluations. When reviewing completion rates, the Educational Evaluations team cannot see the specific ratings or feedback a student reported, only whether they have complete the evaluation. Students’ evaluation compliance is regularly shared with each student, their Coach, and the Associate Deans for the purpose of supporting students to meet the Professionalism competency. If a student continues to fall below the 70% threshold, the Associate Dean(s) and/or Coaches will contact the student and strategize with the student about how best to meet this competency.
To reduce the burden of completing too many evaluations, mandatory evaluations are assigned to a rotating subset of each class. The remaining students will be able to complete optional course and educator evaluations if they wish to provide feedback. While optional evaluations are not required and completion is not monitored, optional feedback is taken seriously by course leadership and is considered in course review.
Q. Is it possible for an instructor to get the name of a student who completed a specific evaluation?
A. Instructors do not know who the student is UNLESS a student chooses to self-identify. However, preceptor-student relationships are one-on-one and thus preceptors will usually know who the student evaluator is even though student names are not on the completed evaluation.
The SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form can be used to submit anonymous feedback.
Q. What happens to our evaluations after they are submitted? Do course directors and faculty actually listen to our comments?
A. Yes. Course and faculty evaluations are taken very seriously by educational leadership for ongoing course continuous quality improvement, as well as by departments for faculty promotion and tenure decisions. For example, faculty are not asked to return to teach if their low teaching scores do not show improvement. Student feedback also influences course continuous quality improvement and decisions about curriculum design. For example, because of student feedback, course content has been moved to other blocks and times of year to ensure optimal learning.
Q. Students feel reluctant to give honest evaluations for fear of individually directed retaliation. What systems are in place to ensure that students are not subjected to repercussions from writing constructive comments in evaluations on faculty and residents?
A. Students' fears of repercussions have been heard. That is why the course and clerkship directors and the Educational Evaluations Team have developed ways to ensure that students are protected. For starters, faculty cannot see student names on evaluations. Second, clinical faculty cannot see their evaluations until they have completed a reciprocal evaluation about the student. Third, completed teaching evaluations are not available for viewing to the faculty within a designated number of days to enhance the anonymity of the evaluations by aggregating more ratings and comments. If students want to anonymously provide feedback they can use the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form. This information is shared with the Associate Deans and clerkship director(s) and is anonymous unless a student chooses to self-identify
Q. How can students report when they have experienced mistreatment by an educator?
The School of Medicine is committed to addressing mistreatment of students by residents and faculty. Students can use the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form to confidentially or anonymously report mistreatment. Feedback about mistreatment will be responded to by the Associate Dean for Students.
The RESPECT questions distributed through our course evaluation system and managed by your course curriculum team can also be used to report mistreatment. The Associate Dean for Students monitors evaluations of residents and attendings who receive low scores ("1" and "2") by students on the two Respect questions ("I was treated with respect by this individual" and "I observed others (students, residents, staff, patients) being treated with respect by this individual"). These low scores are brought to the attention of the departments to provide feedback to individual residents and attendings, and to address systems issues. A rating of "3" or below on the Respect questions will require student to provide an explanation so that the School can better address any mistreatment issues. Please see the Medical Student Mistreatment Policy for more details.
Q. Can students evaluate faculty members they are not formally assigned to evaluate?
A. While the School of Medicine takes measures to reduce the evaluation burden on students, students are provided an opportunity to evaluate all faculty members and residents with whom they work. There are many methods for students to provide feedback but it may be difficult, at times, to navigate through the process, please see the Methods for Student Feedback table for more details. On occasion, a student will work with a stellar or problematic faculty member or resident but is not asked to evaluate that individual, as each course and clerkship may have slightly different procedures for evaluation assignments. In that situation, students can contact the course or clerkship coordinator to request for an evaluation. Students can also use the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form to share their praise or concerns confidentially or anonymously. This information on the SAFE Form is sent to the course or clerkship director and the Associate Deans.
Q. What will happen to students’ eValue and MedHub accounts upon graduation?
Q. What is expected of students in terms of evaluations in Foundations 1? How does the assignment of evaluations work in Foundations 1?
A. Students are expected to complete all mandatory evaluations assigned to them. Students who complete less than 70% of the evaluations assigned to them during a course will be contacted by the Educational Evaluations Team and encouraged to complete at least 70% of their evaluations by the end of the subsequent course. Please see the F1 Evaluations Orientation.
All students must evaluate their small group leaders, Coaches, CMC experience, and other program evaluations. However, other evaluations are structured to minimize the number of evaluations a given student has to complete.
Specifically, the overall class is divided into randomized subsets to complete the full set of mandatory evaluations for each Foundations 1 course, which includes the overall course, lecturer(s), and lab instructor(s) evaluations. Randomized subsets of students will also be asked to evaluate educational interventions for Foundations 1. All students can complete optional course and educator evaluations if they wish to provide feedback. While optional evaluations are not required optional feedback is taken seriously by course leadership and is considered in course review.
Clinical Years: Foundations 2 and Career Launch
Q. How do evaluations work in the clinical years?
A. For a general overview of teaching and clerkship evaluations in the clinical years, please review the clinical years orientation to evaluations . In addition, each clerkship will have its own specific procedures on evaluations that you will learn from the clerkship. Evaluations are done in MedHub.
Q. When students submit evaluations are they sent directly to the clinical educator and is our confidentiality protected?
A. During clinical training, evaluations are set to be "reciprocal" between students and clinical educator, such that the educator cannot view their own evaluation until they have completed a reciprocal assessment of the student. Student names are never revealed to educator on their evaluations unless student chooses to self-identify.
If students want to anonymously provide feedback they can use the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form. This information is shared with the Associate Deans and clerkship director(s) and is anonymous unless a student chooses to self-identify.
Q. How many students typically evaluate an attending?
A. The number of students who complete an evaluation is clerkship dependent. Each clerkship has rules for how they assign evaluations.
Q. When an attending gets feedback, is it marked as being from a student vs. resident vs. intern vs. sub-I?
A. Educators view their teaching evaluations in an aggregate view. The evaluation data are distinguished by the form types (e.g., student of faculty vs. resident of faculty) and the courses and programs with which the evaluation data are associated, but the evaluation data do not reveal who the student evaluator is.
Q. How are student comments made anonymous and reported to residents and attendings?
A. Residents and attendings see all the evaluations completed about them. The students' names are suppressed, so they don't know which student said what when they view their aggregated comments.
Real-Time Feedback Resources
The SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form allows for students to submit feedback at any time, and feedback will be viewed and responded to promptly. SAFE feedback is in addition to scheduled course evaluations in eValue and MedHub, For the various methods for students to provide feedback, please see the Methods for Student Feedback table.
General Education Feedback
Students are encouraged to share their appreciation or suggestions about the Bridges curriculum on an ongoing basis via the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form. The feedback provided will be anonymous unless students choose to self-identify. This feedback will go directly to the Associate Deans and other curriculum leaders of the specific areas that students designate.
Reporting Clinical Work Hours Violations
Use the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form to confidentially or anonymously report clinical work hours violations. This feedback supports the clerkship questions distributed through our course evaluation system and managed by your course curriculum team. Feedback about clinical work hours violations will be responded to by the Associate Dean for Curriculum.
Feedback to Support Anti-Oppression Education
Use the SAFE (Supporting A Fair and Equitable Environment) form to confidentially or anonymously report exemplary anti-oppression or an experience or observation of education oppression. This feedback is addressed through the Evaluation Plan for Anti-Oppression Education and will be responded to by the appropriate dean.
Reporting Student Mistreatment
Use the SAFE Form (Supporting a Fair and Equitable Environment) to confidentially or anonymously report mistreatment. This feedback is in addition to the RESPECT questions distributed through our course evaluation system and managed by your course curriculum team. Feedback about mistreatment will be responded to by the Associate Dean for Students.
Accountable Dean or Director: Director of Program Evaluation and ECQI
Approval Date and Governing Body: August 6, 2018, Executive Committee