Multisource feedback: a method of assessing surgical practice.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Herta Fidler.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Multisource feedback, using questionnaire-based data from patients, coworkers, and medical colleagues, is designed to provide broad-based information about clinical performance to facilitate change. PURPOSE: To determine and explain the likelihood that surgeons would implement change following receipt of performance data. METHODS: Surgeons were surveyed to determine the likelihood they would make changes based on specific feedback about their clinical practices. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three surgeons (76.5%) responded to the follow-up survey. There was little correlation between performance ratings provided by self or medical colleagues and the likelihood of change. A linear regression analysis indicated that 19.2% of the variance in likelihood to change could be explained by age, time spent reviewing feedback, the gap between self- and other ratings, and surgical specialty. CONCLUSION: Surgeons made few changes in practice in response to feedback data. Attention needs to be paid to methods that might increase surgeon use of performance data
INTRODUCTION: The concept of "communities of practice," a special facet of social constructivist learning theory, provides a new template against which we can examine the learning that goes on within permanent small groups of physicians. We interviewed participants and facilitators about the dynamics of these groups, their learning in conjunction with these groups, and the role the facilitator played to see the extent to which they captured the essence of communities of practice. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with physicians known to be participants or facilitators of small groups that met regularly. A constant comparative method was used for data gathering and analysis leading to coded themes, categories, and subcategories. The coding schemas were tested, the analyses were reviewed, and data were recoded as necessary. To ensure accuracy, interviewees were provided with a preliminary copy of the manuscript to ensure that the interpretation of the data was appropriately handled. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 10 facilitators and 22 group members representing 24 different groups of physicians. The groups appeared to function as communities of practice in which the members were supportive of each other's learning and respectful of one another, reporting little conflict. Members preferred to agree to disagree rather than pursue a "right" answer or consensus. Most of the discussion focused on scientific information and the way in which their colleagues approached common problems. Practice refinement rather than new directions in patient care appeared to be the goal. The facilitators in these groups played a key role in providing administrative support for the group and often the energy needed to sustain them. DISCUSSION: Small groups that meet regularly provide a supportive network to share knowledge and validate clinical experience. There is some evidence that the groups have the potential to become communities of practice but do not actually achieve that level of sharing. Research needs to be done to determine how these groups could become more powerful as communities of practice and vehicles for more substantive learning and change.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.