S181 INTRODUCTION: Feedback on performance is essential for the clinical development of anesthesiology residents and is required by the Residency Review Committee [1] and the ABA. Traditionally, it has been difficult to obtain written evaluations from the entire faculty on each resident. Although only requested quarterly, faculty compliance has been low due to the time consuming nature of the evaluation process. Poor faculty compliance led to omissions or delays in conveying feedback to residents, allowing undesirable patterns of study and clinical care to become entrenched. Also, performance criteria were not standardized, causing inconsistencies in methods of evaluation among faculty members and between time periods. Objective comparisons of performance among residents was also difficult. A new, economical, user-friendly process was sought that would give residents monthly written feedback, promote faculty participation, and standardize performance criteria. METHODS: A resident-evaluation committee reviewed evaluation forms from 6 other residencies and searched the resident-evaluation literature back to 1984. Members listed what they considered the most important evaluation criteria and a composite list was made. This was then configured into a user-friendly "fill in the circle with a No. 2 pencil" computerized form by the Dept. of Institutional Research and this was finally approved by the entire Anesthesiology faculty. RESULTS: A twenty-nine item Likert-scale evaluation form resulted. This one-page Scantron form (Scantron Corp, Omaha, NE) is readable by a Scantron 8600 optical scanner. The form addressed four categories of resident performance: knowledge and clinical performance, technical skills, quality of documentation, and personal qualities. The Likert scale is: 1 = "unsatisfactory" to 6 = "excellent" and 7 = "unable to evaluate or does not apply." Numeric codes were assigned to each resident, faculty member, anesthesiology rotation (subspecialty service or general operating room), and month and year of evaluation. Each faculty member is strongly encouraged to complete an evaluation on each resident with whom he/she has worked during the month. Less than five minutes is required to complete this form, slightly more if written comments are included. Forms are placed in a sealed box, collected daily by the residency program coordinator, and processed as a batch on the 5th day of the new month. The completed forms are then taken to Institutional Research for optical scanning, analysis, and individual resident report generation. Group (summarizing performance of the entire residency) and individual reports are generated within 48 hours. Each report includes scores for all twenty-nine evaluation items and lists the number of participating faculty, the percentage of respondents assigning a given score to each item, and the mean score for each item. Reports are returned to the Education Director and each resident. Under the old narrative evaluation system, faculty compliance was poor (10%) and, consequently, evaluations reflected a few individual opinions, not a wide-spread departmental impression. Compliance with the new system is over 65%. The form was designed for monthly resident evaluation; however, it can be adapted for daily use in special resident circumstances which indicate the need for intense evaluation. DISCUSSION: The new form systematically leads users through the evaluation process and enhances consistency and uniformity of evaluations. Faculty advisors monitor their respective residents' reports and review them with their resident advisees on a quarterly basis or more often if indicated. This new process allows for earlier acquisition of data and helps identify residents experiencing difficulty. Key results are communicated to the faculty at its weekly meeting by the Director of Resident Education. Resulting strategies for remediation are promptly formulated and implemented. The ease of this evaluation system has increased faculty compliance, provided critical timely feedback to residents, and promoted clinical improvements. This resident evaluation system has served as a model for other clinical departments in the University of Mississippi Medical Center.