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

BMC Medical Education

Kiki MJMH Lombarts²  Richard PTM Grol¹  Juliette K Cruijsberg¹  Onyebuchi A Arah²  Hub C Wollersheimh¹  Karlijn Overeem¹ 

[1] IQ healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;Department of Quality and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Continuous medical education;    Physicians;    Multisource feedback;    Mentoring;    Performance assessment;   

Others  :  1153601
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-12-52

 received in 2011-12-29, accepted in 2012-07-10,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Overeem et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, et al.: Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: the physician achievement review. CMAJ 1999, 161(1):52-7.
• [2]Sargeant J, Mann K, Ferrier S: Exploring family physicians' reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Med Educ 2005, 39(5):497-504.
• [3]Davies H, Archer J, Bateman A, Dewar S, Crossley J, Grant J, Southgate L: Specialty-specific multi-source feedback: assuring validity, informing training. Med Educ 2008, 42(10):1014-20.
• [4]Malling B, Mortensen L, Bonderup T, Scherpbier A, Ringsted C: Combining a leadership course and multi-source feedback has no effect on leadership skills of leaders in postgraduate medical education. An intervention study with a control group. BMC Med Educ 2010, 9:72.
• [5]Hattie J, Timperley H: The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007, 77(1):81-112.
• [6]Shute VJ: Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res 2008, 78(1):153-89.
• [7]Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB: Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance*: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach 2006, 28(2):117-28.
• [8]Sargeant JM, Mann KV, Ferrier SN, Langille DB, Muirhead PD, Hayes VM, Sinclair DE: Responses of rural family physicians and their colleague and coworker raters to a multi-source feedback process: a pilot study. Acad Med 2003, 78(10 Suppl):42-4.
• [9]Burford B, Illing J, Kergon C, Morrow G, Livingston M: User perceptions of multi-source feedback tools for junior doctors. Med Educ 2010, 44(2):165-76.
• [10]Fidler H, Lockyer JM, Toews J, Violato C: Changing physicians' practices: the effect of individual feedback. Acad Med 1999, 74(6):702-14.
• [11]Lockyer J, Violato C, Fidler H: Likelihood of change: a study assessing surgeon use of multisource feedback data. Teach Learn Med 2003, 15:168-74.
• [12]Johnson M, Helgeson VS: Sex differences in response to evaluative feedback: A field study. Psychol Women Quart 2002, 26:242-51.
• [13]Reilly RR, Smither JW, Vasilopoulos NL: A longitudinal study of upward feedback. Pers Psychol 1996, 49:599-612.
• [14]Smither JW, London M, Vasilopoulos ML, Reilly RR, Millsap RE, Salvemini N: An Examination of the Effects of An Upward Feedback Program Over Time. Pers Psychol 1995, 48:1-34.
• [15]Brett JF, Atwater LE: 360 degrees feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. J Appl Psychol 2001, 86:930-42.
• [16]Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, et al.: Understanding the influence of emotions and reflection upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008, 13(3):275-88.
• [17]Ostroff C, Atwater LE, Feinberg BJ: Understanding self-other agreement: A look at rater and ratee characteristics, context, and outcomes. Pers Psychol 2004, 57:333-75.
• [18]Miller A, Archer J: Impact of workplace based assessment on doctors' education and performance: a systematic review. BMJ 2010, 341:c5064.
• [19]Overeem K, Wollersheim HC, Driessen E, et al.: Why doctors do (not) improve their performance after 360-degree feedback: a qualitative study. Med Educ 2009, 43(9):874-82.
• [20]Overeem K, Lombarts MJ, Arah OA, Klazinga NS, Grol RP, Wollersheim HC: Three methods of multi-source feedback compared: a plea for narrative comments and coworkers' perspectives. Med Teach 2010, 32(2):141-7.
• [21]van der Velden L, Hingstman L, Heiligers P, Hansen J: Increasing number of women in medicine: past, present and future. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2008, 152(40):2165-71.
• [22]Atwater LE, Waldman DA, Brett JF: Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback. Hum Resource Manage 2002, 41:193-208.
• [23]Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A: A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med 2010, 25(1):72-8.
• [24]Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fisscher B: The impact of mentoring during postgraduate training on doctors’ career success. Med Educ 2011, 45(5):488-96.
• [25]Overeem K, Driessen EW, Arah OA, Lombarts MJMH, Wollersheim HC, Grol RPTM: Peer-mentoring in doctor performance assessments. Strategies, obstacles and benefits. Med Educ 2010, 44(2):140-147.