Multisource feedback: a method of assessing surgical practice.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Alberta↗
Biomedical subjects
Jocelyn Lockyer
Publications and source records attributed to Jocelyn Lockyer.
Multisource feedback in the assessment of physician competencies.
Multisource feedback (MSF), or 360-degree employee evaluation, is a questionnaire-based assessment method in which rates are evaluated by peers, patients, and coworkers on key performance behaviors. Although widely used in industrial settings to assess performance, the method is gaining acceptance as a quality improvement method in health systems. This article describes MSF, identifies the key aspects of MSF program design, summarizes some of the salient empirical research in medicine, and discusses possible limitations for MSF as an assessment tool in health care. In industry and in health care, experience suggests that MSF is most likely to succeed and result in changes in performance when attention is paid to structural and psychometric aspects of program design and implementation. A carefully selected steering committee ensures that the behaviors examined are appropriate, the communication package is clear, and the threats posed to individuals are minimized. The instruments that are developed must be tested to ensure that they are reliable, achieve a generalizability coefficient of Ep2 = .70, have face and content validity, and examine variance in performance ratings to understand whether ratings are attributable to how the physician performs and not to factors beyond the physician's control (e.g., gender, age, or setting). Research shows that reliable data can be generated with a reasonable number of respondents, and physicians will use the feedback to contemplate and initiate changes in practice. Performance may be affected by familiarity between rater and ratee and sociodemographic and continuing medical education characteristics; however, little of the variance in performance is explained by factors outside the physician's control. MSF is not a replacement for audit when clinical outcomes need to be assessed. However, when interpersonal, communication, professionalism, or teamwork behaviors need to be assessed and guidance given, it is one of the better tools that may be adopted and implemented to provide feedback and guide performance.
Clinical Competence↗
The use of the opinion leader in continuing medical education.
This paper describes a process evaluation of an opinion leader (OL) project for a geriatric medical education program in dementia. Structured interviews with OLs were conducted to understand their experience as formal OLs from their initial training to the project's completion. Thirteen of 15 physicians involved in an OL project were interviewed. The adoption of a formal educational OL role was not an easy transition for most identified OLs. Some physicians struggled with the role and would have preferred more specific guidance. For this subject some content expertise was felt to be essential. Strong project leadership and some measures of success are important to sustain the OL commitment to a project. More attention needs to be devoted to the appropriate selection and training of OLs for educational projects to ensure that they have the relevant clinical expertise and skills to be effective and feel comfortable adopting a formal OL role.
Aged↗
Likelihood of change: a study assessing surgeon use of multisource feedback data.
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
Alberta↗
Permanent small groups: group dynamics, learning, and change.
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.
Attitude of Health Personnel↗