How well do faculty do in providing general surgery EPA feedback?

Abstract

Introduction

Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) provide a framework for competency-based assessment in surgery. EPA descriptions include observable behaviors by trainees at progressive levels of autonomy. The American Board of Surgery (ABS) required all General Surgery (GS) residency programs to implement assessment of 18 EPAs at the beginning of academic year 2023–2024. Microassessments provide formative self-reflection by the resident and feedback by faculty upon completion of the EPA. These frequent assessments culminate in a resident performance profile utilized by the trainee for formative growth and the clinical competency committee for summative feedback. Assessor free text comments are an opportunity to provide meaningful, constructive feedback to residents. Our aim was to analyze comments provided by faculty to residents in terms of their alignment with EPA descriptors and provision of actionable feedback.

Methods

A total of 540 ​GS EPA assessments for inguinal hernia, gallbladder disease, appendicitis, trauma, and surgical consultation were evaluated from 6/2021-12/2022. We assessed free text EPA comments from faculty compared to EPA behavior descriptions for alignment with the selected EPA level of entrustment. The comments were judged on a binary scale of “Align” vs “Not Align” by two independent evaluators, with a third evaluator to address discordance. Comments were then evaluated for resident behavioral descriptions, suggestions for improvement, and positive or negative feedback.

Results

Approximately 77 ​% of EPA microassessments had alignment between level of autonomy and free text feedback. A common example of feedback discordant with level of autonomy was rating a trainee at an intraoperative level 4 (independent practice) with comments such as “required some guidance with retrocecal case and upsizing port.” Based on behavior descriptions this would be a level 3 (indirect supervision). Approximately 88 ​% of feedback contained positive comments with minimal negative feedback (e.g., “this did not go well.”). Actionable feedback including “work on optimization of retracting hand” or “continue to work clamp/tie technique and square off each knot” was present in 28.3 ​% of feedback.

Conclusions

The majority of faculty provide feedback that is aligned with the behavioral anchors of the EPAs assessed, but frequently did not provide actionable feedback to the resident regarding how to advance to the next level of entrustment. EPA entrustment behaviors provide a framework for the development of practice-ready behaviors, and if assessors anchor their feedback in the behaviors for a given entrustment level and project how a resident could proceed to the next level, they can provide a clear trajectory for skill development. Faculty development should focus on improving the frequency of actionable free text feedback, outlining how residents can advance in the future.