From the eye of the nurses: 360-degree evaluation of residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evaluations from the health care team can provide feedback useful in guiding residents' professional growth. We describe the significance of 360-degree evaluation of residents by the nursing staff. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 1642 nurses' anonymous evaluations on 26 residents from 2004 to 2007 was performed. Nurses' evaluations of residents on communication with patients, interactions with peers, and professionalism were compared to faculty evaluations and standard medical examination scores. Data were analyzed with the use of the chi-square test, the t test, analyses of variance (ANOVAs), and Spearman's correlation. A P value of <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Strong correlations were noted between nursing evaluation categories (r = 0.74-0.80, P < .001), whereas weak correlations occurred between nursing and faculty evaluations (r = 0.065-0.119, P < .001). There were weak negative correlations between nursing evaluations and standard medical examination scores (r = -0.08 to -0.10, P < .001). Specific graduating resident classes, the obstetrical rotation, and senior or male residents were significantly associated with negative nursing evaluations. DISCUSSION: Nursing staff can assess residents on the competencies of interpersonal and communication skills and professionalism. These evaluations provide different perceptions of residents' behavior, which can be useful for formative feedback in residents' development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".