三种多源反馈方法比较：呼吁使用叙述性评价和同事视角。

Three methods of multi-source feedback compared: a plea for narrative comments and coworkers' perspectives.

机构信息

IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Med Teach. 2010;32(2):141-7. doi: 10.3109/01421590903144128.

DOI:10.3109/01421590903144128

PMID:20163230

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Doctor performance assessments based on multi-source feedback (MSF) are increasingly central in professional self-regulation. Research has shown that simple MSF is often unproductive. It has been suggested that MSF should be delivered by a facilitator and combined with a portfolio.

AIMS

To compare three methods of MSF for consultants in the Netherlands and evaluate the feasibility, topics addressed and perceived impact upon clinical practice.

METHOD

In 2007, 38 facilitators and 109 consultants participated in the study. The performance assessment system was composed of (i) one of the three MSF methods, namely, Violato's Physician Achievement Review (PAR), the method developed by Ramsey et al. for the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), or the Dutch Appraisal and Assessment Instrument (AAI), (ii) portfolio, (iii) assessment interview with a facilitator and (iv) personal development plan. The evaluation consisted of a postal survey for facilitators and consultants. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association between MSF method used and perceived impact.

RESULTS

It takes on average 8 hours to conduct one assessment. The CanMEDS roles 'collaborator', 'communicator' and 'manager' were discussed in, respectively, 79, 74 and 71% of the assessment interviews. The 'health advocate role' was the subject of conversation in 35% of the interviews. Consultants are more satisfied with feedback that contains narrative comments. The perceived impact of MSF that includes coworkers' perspectives significantly exceeds the perceived impact of methods not including this perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance assessments based on MSF combined with a portfolio and a facilitator-led interview seem to be feasible in hospital settings. The perceived impact of MSF increases when it contains coworkers' perspectives.

摘要

背景

基于多源反馈（MSF）的医生绩效评估在专业自我监管中越来越重要。研究表明，简单的 MSF 通常效果不佳。有人建议，MSF 应由促进者提供，并与投资组合相结合。

目的

比较荷兰顾问使用的三种 MSF 方法，并评估其可行性、讨论的主题以及对临床实践的感知影响。

方法

2007 年，38 名促进者和 109 名顾问参与了这项研究。绩效评估系统由（i）三种 MSF 方法之一组成，即 Violato 的医师成就审查（PAR）、美国内科医师学会（ABIM）开发的 Ramsey 等人的方法，或荷兰评估和评估工具（AAI），（ii）投资组合，（iii）与促进者的评估访谈和（iv）个人发展计划。评估包括对促进者和顾问的邮寄调查。广义估计方程用于评估使用的 MSF 方法与感知影响之间的关联。