Evaluation of physicians' professional performance: An iterative development and validation study of multisource feedback instruments

Contains fulltext : 107798.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: There is a global need to assess physicians' professional performance in actual clinical practice. Valid and reliable instruments are necessary to support these efforts. This study focuses on the reliability and validity, the influences of some sociodemographic biasing factors, associations between self and other evaluations, and the number of evaluations needed for reliable assessment of a physician based on the three instruments used for the multisource assessment of physicians' professional performance in the Netherlands. METHODS: This observational validation study of three instruments underlying multisource feedback (MSF) was set in 26 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 146 hospital-based physicians took part in the study. Each physician's professional performance was assessed by peers (physician colleagues), co-workers (including nurses, secretary assistants and other healthcare professionals) and patients. Physicians also completed a self-evaluation. Ratings of 864 peers, 894 co-workers and 1960 patients on MSF were available. We used principal components analysis and methods of classical test theory to evaluate the factor structure, reliability and validity of instruments. We used Pearson's correlation coefficient and linear mixed models to address other objectives. RESULTS: The peer, co-worker and patient instruments respectively had six factors, three factors and one factor with high internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha 0.95 - 0.96). It appeared that only 2 percent of variance in the mean ratings could be attributed to biasing factors. Self-ratings were not correlated with peer, co-worker or patient ratings. However, ratings of peers, co-workers and patients were correlated. Five peer evaluations, five co-worker evaluations and 11 patient evaluations are required to achieve reliable results (reliability coefficient >/= 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the three MSF instruments produced reliable and valid data for evaluating physicians' professional performance in the Netherlands. Scores from peers, co-workers and patients were not correlated with self-evaluations. Future research should examine improvement of performance when using MSF

Conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education

AIM: Portfolios are often used as an instrument with which to stimulate students to reflect on their experiences. Research has shown that working with portfolios does not automatically stimulate reflection. In this study we addressed the question: What are the conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education? METHODOLOGY/RESEARCH DESIGN: We designed a portfolio that was aimed at stimulating reflection in early undergraduate medical education, using experiences described in the medical education literature and elsewhere. Conditions for reflective portfolio use were identified through interviews with 13 teachers (mentors), who were experienced in mentoring students in the process of developing their portfolios. The interviews were analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: The conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios that emerged from the interviews fell into 4 categories: coaching; portfolio structure and guidelines; relevant experiences and materials, and summative assessment. According to the mentors, working with a portfolio designed to meet these conditions will stimulate students' reflective abilities. CONCLUSION: This study shows that portfolios are a potentially valuable method of assessing and developing students' reflective skills in undergraduate medical training, provided certain conditions for effective portfolios are recognised and met. Portfolios have a strong potential for enhancing learning and assessment but they are very vulnerable and may easily lead to disappointment. Before implementing portfolios in education, one should first consider whether the necessary conditions can be fulfilled, including an appropriate portfolio structure, an appropriate assessment procedure, the provision of enough new experiences and materials, and sufficient teacher capacity for adequate coaching and assessment. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

Factors predicting doctors' reporting of performance change in response to multisource feedback.

Contains fulltext : 107885.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Multi-source feedback (MSF) offers doctors feedback on their performance from peers (medical colleagues), coworkers and patients. Researchers increasingly point to the fact that only a small majority of doctors (60-70 percent) benefit from MSF. Building on medical education and social psychology literature, the authors identified several factors that may influence change in response to MSF. Subsequently, they quantitatively studied the factors that advance the use of MSF for practice change. METHODS: This observational study was set in 26 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 458 specialists participated in the MSF program. Besides the collation of questionnaires, the Dutch MSF program is composed of a reflective portfolio and a facilitative interview aimed at increasing the acceptance and use of MSF. All specialists who finished a MSF procedure between May 2008 and September 2010 were invited to complete an evaluation form. The dependent variable was self-reported change. Three categories of independent variables (personal characteristics, experiences with the assessments and mean MSF ratings) were included in the analysis. Multivariate regression analysis techniques were used to identify the relation between the independent variables and specialists' reported change in actual practice. RESULTS: In total, 238 medical specialists (response rate 52 percent) returned an evaluation form and participated in the study. A small majority (55 percent) of specialists reported to have changed their professional performance in one or more aspects in response to MSF. Regression analyses revealed that two variables had the most effect on reported change. Perceived quality of mentoring positively influenced reported change (regression coefficient beta = 0.527, p < 0.05) as did negative scores offered by colleagues. (regression coefficient beta = -0.157, p < 0.05). The explained variance of these two variables combined was 34 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived quality of mentoring and MSF ratings from colleagues seem to be the main motivators for the self-reported change in response to MSF by specialists. These insights could leverage in increasing the use of MSF for practice change by investing in the quality of mentors

Frequency and Determinants of Residents' Narrative Feedback on the Teaching Performance of Faculty: Narratives in Numbers

Physicians involved in residency training often receive feedback from residents on their teaching. Research shows that learners value narrative feedback, but knowledge of the frequency and determinants of narrative feedback in teaching performance evaluation is lacking. This study aims to identifythe frequency with which residentsgave positive comments and suggestions for improvement to faculty, and the factors influencing that frequency. From September 2008 through May 2010, the authors collected data, using a validated formative feedback system (System for Evaluation of Teaching Qualities). The authors used univariate and multivariable analysis to investigate the associations between participants' characteristics, including faculty members' teaching performance, and the frequency of the two types of narrative comments. In total, 659 residents (79% of 839) completed 6,216 evaluations on 917 faculty (95% of 964), resulting in 11,574 positive comments and 4,870 suggestions for improvement. On average, faculty members received 13 positive comments and 5 suggestions for improvement. Multivariable analysis showed that higher teaching performance was associated with higher numbers of positive comments (regression coefficient 0.538; 95% confidence interval: 0.464 to 0.613) and with lower numbers of suggestions for improvement (-0.802; -0.911 to -0.692), both P < .0001. Nonacademic hospitals, participation in teacher training, and female residents' evaluation were statistically significant determinants of receiving more narrative feedback. Residents provided narrative feedback that paralleled and elaborated on quantitative evaluations they provided; therefore, faculty would be wise to attend to narrative feedback. Analysis of the quality of narrative feedback is needed to understand its effectivenes

Doctor performance assessment in daily practise: does it help doctors or not? A systematic review

CONTEXT Continuous assessment of individual performance of doctors is crucial for life-long learning and quality of care. Policy makers and health educators should have good insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the methods available. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the feasibility of methods, the psychometric properties of instruments that are especially important for summative assessments, and the effectiveness of methods serving formative assessments used in routine practise to assess the performance of individual doctors. METHODS We searched the MEDLINE (1966-January 2006), PsychINFO (1972-January 2006), CINAHL (1982-January 2006), EMBASE (1980-January 2006) and Cochrane (1966-2006) databases for English language articles, and supplemented this with a hand-search of reference lists of relevant studies and bibliographies of review articles. Studies that aimed to assess the performance of individual doctors in routine practise were included. Two reviewers independently abstracted data regarding study design, setting and findings related to reliability, validity, feasibility and effectiveness using a standard data abstraction form. RESULTS A total of 64 articles met our inclusion criteria. We observed 6 different methods of evaluating performance: simulated patients; video observation; direct observation; peer assessment; audit of medical records, and portfolio or appraisal. Peer assessment is the most feasible method in terms of costs and time. Little psychometric assessment of the instruments has been undertaken so far. Effectiveness of formative assessments is poorly studied. All systems but 2 rely on a single method to assess performance. DISCUSSION There is substantial potential to assess performance of doctors in routine practise. The longterm impact and effectiveness of formative performance assessments on education and quality of care remains hardly known. Future research designs need to pay special attention to unmasking effectiveness in terms of performance improvemen