IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Med Teach. 2010;32(2):141-7. doi: 10.3109/01421590903144128.
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.
To compare three methods of MSF for consultants in the Netherlands and evaluate the feasibility, topics addressed and perceived impact upon clinical practice.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
进行一次评估平均需要 8 个小时。在评估访谈中，分别有 79%、74%和 71%讨论了 CanMEDS 角色中的“合作者”、“沟通者”和“管理者”。35%的访谈涉及“健康倡导者角色”。顾问对包含叙述性评论的反馈更满意。包含同事观点的 MSF 的感知影响明显超过不包含这种观点的方法的感知影响。
基于 MSF 并结合投资组合和促进者主导的访谈的绩效评估似乎在医院环境中是可行的。当 MSF 包含同事的观点时，其感知影响会增加。
