Overeem Karlijn, Faber Marjan J, Arah Onyebuchi A, Elwyn Glyn, Lombarts Kiki M J M H, Wollersheim Hub C, Grol Richard P T M
Centre for Quality of Care Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Med Educ. 2007 Nov;41(11):1039-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02897.x.
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.
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.
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.
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 improvement.
持续评估医生的个人表现对于终身学习和医疗质量至关重要。政策制定者和健康教育工作者应深入了解现有方法的优缺点。本研究的目的是系统评估各种方法的可行性、对于总结性评估尤为重要的工具的心理测量特性,以及在日常实践中用于形成性评估以评估个体医生表现的方法的有效性。
我们检索了MEDLINE(1966年 - 2006年1月)、PsychINFO(1972年 - 2006年1月)、CINAHL(1982年 - 2006年1月)、EMBASE(1980年 - 2006年1月)和Cochrane(1966年 - 2006年)数据库中的英文文章,并通过手工检索相关研究的参考文献列表和综述文章的书目对其进行补充。纳入旨在评估日常实践中个体医生表现的研究。两名评审员使用标准数据提取表独立提取有关研究设计、背景以及与可靠性、有效性、可行性和有效性相关的结果的数据。
共有64篇文章符合我们的纳入标准。我们观察到6种不同的绩效评估方法:模拟患者;视频观察;直接观察;同行评估;病历审核以及档案袋或评估。就成本和时间而言,同行评估是最可行的方法。到目前为止,对这些工具几乎没有进行心理测量评估。对形成性评估的有效性研究不足。除了2个系统外,所有系统都依赖单一方法来评估绩效。
在日常实践中评估医生的表现具有很大潜力。形成性绩效评估对教育和医疗质量的长期影响和有效性仍然鲜为人知。未来的研究设计需要特别关注揭示在绩效改进方面的有效性。