Receiving substantive, representative feedback from students about our required medical school curriculum and instructors is crucial in helping the School of Medicine to understand program strengths and weaknesses and identify opportunities to improve the educational experience for future generations of students. In addition, learning to give and receive feedback is an integral part of developing professional skills students will need as future physicians.
Professionalism Requirements for Completing Evaluations
- Students must complete all evaluations assigned to them.
- All evaluations must be completed within 3 weeks of being assigned.
- Required evaluations include:
- AAMC Matriculating Student Questionnaire (MSQ)
- Evaluations of all required pre-clerkship courses
- Individual evaluations of pre-clerkship faculty lecturers (class will be broken into thirds and each group will be assigned to evaluate 1/3 of the faculty)
- Preceptor evaluations for Practice of Medicine (POM)
- Small group evaluations for POM (peer and small group leader)
- Quarterly evaluations of the learning environment
- AAMC Year 2 Questionnaire (Y2Q)
- Evaluations of all required clerkships
- Individual evaluations of clerkship instructors (complete all assigned evaluations)
- Stanford School of Medicine Wellness and Learning Environment Survey
- Educators for Care (E4C) program/mentor evaluations
- Scholarly Concentrations mid-program and end-of-program evaluations
- Evaluations of Scholarly Concentration mentors
- Survey to collect Information on Residency Interviews and Matching
- AAMC Graduation Questionnaire (GQ)
- For the pre-clerkship curriculum, completion rates on evaluations will be reviewed after each quarter has finished and the evaluation due-dates have passed. If a student has not completed at least 75% of the evaluations assigned during the quarter, their E4C mentor will be alerted. The student will receive feedback about professionalism expectations from their mentor and/or advisor.
- Evaluations completion rates will continue to be checked for each subsequent quarter. If a student completes less than 75% of the evaluations assigned during a subsequent quarter, the E4C mentor will be alerted that there has been a second lapse in professionalism with regard to evaluations. The student will receive additional feedback regarding professionalism expectations and a warning that any further lapse may result in a referral to the Committee for Performance, Professionalism and Promotion (CP3).
- If a student completes less than 75% of evaluations in another quarter (third violation), the student will be referred to CP3 for a professionalism concern.
- Failure to complete other required evaluations (clerkship, scholarly concentration, wellness, etc.) may also lead to E4C mentors being notified. Repeated failure to complete these assigned evaluations may also result in a referral to CP3.
Use of Professional Language in Evaluations
- Comments provided in evaluations should be constructive, respectful, and framed using language that the evaluator would want to hear used if he or she was being evaluated.
- Written comments provided in student evaluations are anonymous (i.e., faculty cannot access information about the identity of an individual student who provides comments in an evaluation form), however, if a student submits a written comment in an evaluation form that violates either a) the Stanford Affirmation, or b) the Stanford University Code of Conduct, that comment may be subject to review by committee.
- Any instructor, staff, or student may request that a comment be reviewed to determine whether it violates the Stanford Affirmation or the Stanford University Code of Conduct.
- Comments in question will be brought before the Evaluation Review Committee. This committee will consist of the following members (or their designees): The Director of Evaluation, the Assistant Dean for Pre-Clerkship Education, the Assistant Dean for Medical Education, the Senior Associate Dean for Medical Education, the E4C Program Director, a representative from the Student Advising Team, and a medical student representative.
- If the review committee determines that the comment violates the Stanford Affirmation or the Stanford University Code of Conduct, a request may be made to try to determine the identity of the evaluation writer. In this case, the Director of Research and Evaluation will contact the vendor where the evaluation data is housed (generally E*Value) to request that their staff share with us the identity of the student who committed the violation in their evaluation.
- The student who wrote the comment that is determined to have violated the Stanford Affirmation or the University Code of Conduct may be asked to revise the comment and/or submit an apology to the faculty member and/or the course or curriculum leader the comment targeted.
- The student’s E4C mentor and Advising Dean will be notified of the violation. The student will receive feedback about professionalism expectations and a warning that a second lapse will lead to a referral to CP3.
- If the student submits a second comment that is determined by the Evaluation Review Committee to have violated the Stanford Affirmation or the University Code of Conduct, the student will be referred to the CP3 for a professionalism concern.
updated August 2017