In Reply We thank the Editor for the opportunity to respond to the letter from Leeds et al about our article.1 From their letter, we were able to deduce 3 major concerns.
The performance outcome used in our study is one of the most comprehensive resident performance criteria in the published literature and triangulates data representing all of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies from multiple stakeholders and sources. Of note, the “most heavily weighted” factor, monthly faculty evaluations, contributed little more than one-third of the total performance criterion and thus was not the main driver of any outcome. The rest was pulled from administrative logs (18%), procedural case activity (17%), in-training examination scores (14%), research output (8%), and medical student evaluations (6%) (Table 11).
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Gardner AK, Dunkin BJ. How We Measure Surgical Trainee Performance Matters—Reply. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(9):865. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1655
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: