How residents view their clinical supervision: a reanalysis of classic national survey data.

Background: Concerns over patient safety have made adequacy of clinical supervision an important component of care in teaching settings. Yet, few studies have examined residents' perceptions about the quality and adequacy of their supervision. We reanalyzed data from a survey conducted in 1999 to explore residents' perspectives on their supervision.

Methods: A national, multispecialty survey was distributed in 1999 to a 14.5% random sample of postgraduate year 2 (PGY-2) and PGY-3 residents. The response rate was 64.4%. Residents (n  =  3604) were queried about how often they had cared for patients "without adequate supervision" during their preceding year of training.

Results: Of responding residents, 21% (n  =  737) reported having seen patients without adequate supervision at least once a week, with 4.5% saying this occurred almost daily. Differences were found across specialties, with 45% of residents in ophthalmology, 46% in neurology, and 44% in neurosurgery stating that they had experienced inadequate supervision at least once a week throughout the year, compared with 1.5% of residents in pathology and 3% in dermatology. Inadequate supervision was found to be inversely correlated with residents' positive ratings of their learning, time with attendings, and overall residency experience (P < .001 for all), and positively correlated with negative features of training, including medical errors, sleep deprivation, stress, conflict with other medical personnel, falsifying patient records, and working while impaired (P < .001).

Conclusions: In residents' self-report, inadequate clinical supervision correlates with other reported negative aspects of training. Collectively, this may detrimentally affect resident learning and patient safety.