PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jocelyn M Lockyer

Publications and source records attributed to Jocelyn M Lockyer.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

A multi source feedback program for anesthesiologists.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility, validity, and reliability of a multi source feedback program for anesthesiologists. METHODS: Surveys with 11, 19, 29 and 29 items were developed for patients, coworkers, medical colleagues and self, respectively, using five-point scales with an 'unable to assess' category. The items addressed communication skills, professionalism, collegiality, continuing professional development and collaboration. Each anesthesiologist was assessed by eight medical colleagues, eight coworkers, and 30 patients. Feasibility was assessed by response rates for each instrument. Validity was assessed by rating profiles, the percentage of participants unable to assess the physician for each item, and exploratory factor analyses to determine which items grouped together into scales. Cronbach's alpha and generalizability coefficient analyses assessed reliability. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-six physicians participated. The mean number and percentage return rate of respondents per physician was 17.7 (56.2%) for patients, 7.8 (95.1%) for coworkers, and 7.8 (94.6%) for medical colleagues. The mean ratings ranged from four to five for each item on each scale. There were relatively few items with high percentages of 'unable to assess'. The factor analyses revealed a two-factor solution for the patient, a two-factor solution for the coworker and a three-factor solution for the medical colleague survey, accounting for at least 70% of the variance. All instruments had a high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha > 0.95). The generalizability coefficients were 0.65 for patients, 0.56 for coworkers and 0.69 for peers. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to develop multi source feedback instruments for anesthesiologists that are valid and reliable.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed2006

Assessment of pediatricians by a regulatory authority.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether it is possible to develop feasible, valid, and reliable multisource feedback data for pediatricians. METHODS: Surveys with 40, 22, 38, and 37 items were developed for assessment of pediatricians by patients, co-workers, medical colleagues, and themselves, respectively, using 5-point scales with an "unable to assess" category. Items addressed key competencies related to communication skills, professionalism, collegiality, continuing professional development, and collaboration. Each pediatrician was assessed by 25 patients, 8 medical colleagues, and 8 co-workers. Feasibility was assessed with response rates for each instrument. Validity was assessed with rating profiles, the percentage of participants unable to assess the physician for each item, and exploratory factor analyses to determine which items grouped together into scales. Cronbach's alpha and generalizability coefficient analyses assessed reliability. RESULTS: One hundred pediatricians participated. The mean number of respondents per physician was 23.4 (93.6%) for patients, 7.6 (94.8%) for co-workers, and 7.6 (95.5%) for medical colleagues. The mean ratings ranged from 4 to 5 for each item on each scale. Few items had high percentages of "unable to assess" responses. The factor analyses revealed a 4-factor solution for the patient survey, a 3-factor solution for the co-worker survey, and a 4-factor solution for the medical colleague survey, accounting for at least 64% of the variance. All instruments had high internal consistency. The generalizability coefficients were .85 for patients, .87 for co-workers, and .78 for medical colleagues. CONCLUSION: Surveys can be developed to provide feedback data on key competencies.

Canada↗
PubMed2005

Assessing outcomes through congruence of course objectives and reflective work.

INTRODUCTION: Course outcomes have been assessed by examining the congruence between statements of commitment to change (CTCs) and course objectives. Other forms of postcourse reflective exercises (for example, impact and unmet-needs statements) have not been examined for congruence with course objectives or their utility in assessing course outcomes. This study assessed the congruence of course objectives and statements of commitment to change, effects on practice, unmet-needs, and the utility of supplementing CTCs with other forms of reflective work in course evaluations. METHODS: A 3-module course on Alzheimer's disease and other dementias provided end-of-course CTC statements, follow-up data, and statements of effects on practice and unmet needs. Statements were aligned to module objectives and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 932 physicians who registered for 1 of the 3 modules, 404 provided CTCs, 302 provided impact statements, and 265 provided unmet-needs statements. Sixty percent of the CTCs could be assigned to an objective for their module, and between 14% and 25% of CTCs were assigned to objectives for another module. Three-quarters of CTCs were fully or partially implemented. Physicians did not have an opportunity to implement the new content in 70% of nonimplemented CTCs. Fewer impact and unmet-needs statements were congruent with course objectives than CTCs. CONCLUSIONS: Commitment-to-change statements had more congruence with objectives than did impact or unmet-needs statements. These latter statements, particularly those that could not be assigned to an objective, may reinforce and supplement the information provided by CTC analyses.

Alzheimer Disease↗
PubMed2004

An examination of the appropriateness of using a common peer assessment instrument to assess physician skills across specialties.

PROBLEM STATEMENT: To determine whether a common peer assessment instrument can assess competencies across internal medicine, pediatrics, and psychiatry specialties. METHOD: A common 36 item peer survey assessed psychiatry (n = 101), pediatrics (n = 100), and internal medicine (n = 103) specialists. Cronbach's alpha and generalizability analysis were used to assess reliability and factor analysis to address validity. RESULTS: A total of 2,306 (94.8% response rate) surveys were analyzed. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was.98. The generalizabililty coefficient (mean of 7.6 raters) produced an Ep(2) =.83. Four factors emerged with a similar pattern of relative importance for pediatricians and internal medicine specialists whose first factor was patient management. Communication was the first factor for psychiatrists. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability and generalizability coefficient data suggest that using the instrument across specialties is appropriate, and differences in factors confirm the instrument's ability to discriminate for specialty differences providing evidence of validity.

Clinical Competence↗