CHEST 2019 marked the inaugural FISH Bowl competition for attendees. Inspired by Shark Tank, our kinder, gentler, yet still competitive and cutting-edge FISH Bowl (Furthering Innovation and Science for Health) featured CHEST members disrupting our beliefs about how clinical care and education are performed. As health-care providers, they presented innovative ideas pertaining to education and clinical disease for pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Six finalists were chosen from dozens of submissions, and three emerged winners! In this new Meet the FISH Bowl Finalists series, CHEST introduces you to many of them – including winner Dr. Rachel Quaney.
Name: Rachel Quaney, MD
Institutional Affiliation: The Ohio State University
Position: Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellow
Title: Teaching Assessment Committee (TAC)
Brief Summary of Submission: Teaching Assessment Committee (TAC) is a novel approach to faculty feedback. We are modeling it after the success of the Clinical Competency Committees, but, in reverse, as fellows will give group-consensus-based feedback to faculty members.
Fellows will meet twice yearly with trained facilitators who help elicit constructive, nuanced feedback. The group setting ensures personal anonymity, which will serve to encourage more honest feedback. Then delivering this consensus-based information to program leadership and faculty members will hopefully provide helpful feedback regarding what is going well and what could be improved.
This pilot feasibility project is being employed at three fellowship programs this academic year. The goal will be to improve the feedback that faculty receive, while simultaneously increasing both faculty and fellow satisfaction with the process and the learning environment.
1. What inspired your innovation? More like who – and that would be the esteemed Dr. Gabe Bosslet of Indiana University. He brought the faculty perspective that attendings want better feedback. And, I supplied the fellow perspective—that even those of us who prioritize all things medical education often do a subpar job at providing effective feedback.
2. Who do you think can benefit most from it, and why? With some variation, almost all graduate medical education programs could benefit from the TAC method of faculty feedback. However, the most benefit would likely be seen in small programs or those that struggle with anonymity using current feedback methods.
3. What do you see as challenges to your innovation gaining widespread acceptance? How can they be overcome? I foresee two main challenges to implementation: time and buy-in. Fellows and residents are busy individuals with plenty on their plates, and this would require asking them for more time. This barrier could be solved by program and leadership buy-in or be exacerbated if it is lacking. If the process is endorsed by departmental and program leadership, this will provide credibility and ensure the necessary time is allotted.
4. What impact has winning FISH Bowl 2019 had on your vision for the innovation? The big picture vision I have for my innovation has not changed, but I am more acutely aware of the challenges and opportunities I will have to navigate, thanks to Drs. Morris, Niven, and Schulman. I am simultaneously more excited about this project but also feel the pressure to not disappoint!
5. How do you think your success at FISH Bowl 2019 will continue to impact your career overall in the months and years to come? It’s hard to imagine in what exact ways my career will be impacted, but I feel strongly that it will be positively influenced by this experience. I had the privilege of meeting a lot of individuals who feel passionate about medical education, both those established in our field and those at the beginning of their careers. These connections will likely lead to future collaborations and innovations.