Survey Summary
Click here to open the PowerPoint presentation of the Survey Results in a new window
Carol Clothier
We’re going to spend the next while looking at the GMP Utility Survey. This came out of a small group in the last Summit discussing how to get feedback from people that are doing the work on the ground. We developed a short survey for medical educators how the GMP might be useful to them. I approached a number of organizations to find people we could invite to take the survey - and that’s how this process of getting data happened. It was sent to about 120 people.
Rich Hawkins
The purpose of the survey was to get information in order to help us understand how people that create assessment and the goals of medical education might use something like the GMP document. We had a fairly diverse group of responders. Only one of the responders was involved in writing the GMP document but the majority of them were familiar with the document.
There was a set of questions that asked to agree or disagree with certain statements. Most of the respondents agreed that the document could be useful in setting goals for education and assessments.
In terms of communicating expectations, the majority agree this document is a good idea. There are three respondents who think this document should be public.
We can make all the comments available to any of you who are interested.
Q: How did you interpret the results? It seems that most of the answers had positivity in the agreement. Is that because physicians never mark strongly agree or disagree? (laughter) It’s the strongly agree column which correlates with the likelihood of something actually happening. I’m not convinced that people are really on board with this.
Q: Who are the people who did the survey?
A: People from organizations that Carol can list.
Comment: It brings out a concern of mine about tracking. We’re putting together new standards and most practitioners will reject it because it’s more work without the tools to satisfy it.
Given the nature of what you tried to do, trying to assess the document as a whole, it seems you didn’t get strong agrees or disagrees. The lack of negatives shows that the document has some value.
Q: How much explanation did you provide?
A: We described the origin of the document and its purpose. In the emails the organization sent out there was some detail about the process. At the close of the survey it brought you to the GMP website. I believe that we got some feedback that this was a good thing. We only sent the survey to people who were not new to the board.
From the ACGME, some people had seen version 1 and made comments.
If there was any lack of agreement it is probably from lack of understanding.
On the website it still shows the old version (version 0.1). It seems that we should update that along with the comments and suggestions from this group.
From the December meeting, we decided not to wait to get feedback from this group before starting to use it.
It would be churlish to strongly disagree with this document and I don’t think a group of medical educators would be opposed to it. That would be like saying you hate your mother.
MK: I don’t think the point is about agreeing or disagreeing with the document, but to comment on whether it would be useful. We only got one bit of feedback at a point in time to find out about its utility.
CC: There is no plan to send this survey out to other stakeholder groups.