多源反馈与叙述性评论：极性、特异性、可操作性及加拿大医学教育方向与角色

Multisource Feedback and Narrative Comments: Polarity, Specificity, Actionability, and CanMEDS Roles.

作者信息

Lockyer Jocelyn M, Sargeant Joan, Richards Suzanne H, Campbell John L, Rivera Laura A

机构信息

Dr. Lockyer: Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Dr. Sargeant: Professor, Medical Education, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Dr. Richards: Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. Dr. Campbell: Professor of General Practice and Primary Care and Director, University of Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom. Ms. Rivera: Research Associate, Office of Continuing Medical Education and Professional Development, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

出版信息

J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2018 Winter;38(1):32-40. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000183.

DOI:10.1097/CEH.0000000000000183

PMID:29329147

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Multisource feedback is a questionnaire-based assessment tool that provides physicians with data about workplace behaviors and may combine numeric and narrative (free-text) comments. Little attention has been paid to wording of requests for comments, potentially limiting its utility to support physician performance. This study tested the phrasing of two different sets of questions.

METHODS

Two sets of questions were tested with family physicians, medical and surgical specialists, and their medical colleague and coworker respondents. One set asked respondents to identify one thing the participant physician does well and one thing the physician could target for action. Set 2 questions asked what does the physician do well and what might the physician do to enhance practice. Resulting free-text comments provided by respondents were coded for polarity (positive, neutral, or negative), specificity (precision and detail), actionability (ability to use the feedback to direct future activity), and CanMEDS roles (competencies) and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Data for 222 physicians (111 physicians per set) were analyzed. A total of 1824 comments (8.2/physician) were submitted, with more comments from coworkers than medical colleagues. Set 1 yielded more comments and were more likely to be positive, semi specific, and very actionable than set 2. However, set 2 generated more very specific comments. Comments covered all CanMEDS roles with more comments for collaborator and leader roles.

DISCUSSION

The wording of questions inviting free-text responses influences the volume and nature of the comments provided. Individuals designing multisource feedback tools should carefully consider wording of items soliciting narrative responses.

摘要

引言

多源反馈是一种基于问卷的评估工具，它为医生提供有关工作场所行为的数据，并且可能会结合数字和叙述性（自由文本）评论。对于评论请求的措辞关注甚少，这可能会限制其在支持医生绩效方面的效用。本研究测试了两组不同问题的措辞。

方法

对家庭医生、内科和外科专家以及他们的医学同事和工作同事进行了两组问题的测试。一组问题要求受访者指出参与医生做得好的一件事以及该医生可以针对改进的一件事。第二组问题询问医生做得好的方面以及医生可以做些什么来提升业务水平。受访者提供的自由文本评论按照极性（正面、中性或负面）、具体性（精确性和细节）、可操作性（利用反馈指导未来活动的能力）以及加拿大医学教育学者协会（CanMEDS）角色（能力）进行编码，并进行描述性分析。

结果

分析了222名医生的数据（每组111名医生）。共提交了1824条评论（每位医生8.2条），同事的评论比医学同事的更多。与第二组相比，第一组产生的评论更多，并且更有可能是正面的、半具体的且非常具有可操作性。然而，第二组产生了更多非常具体的评论。评论涵盖了所有CanMEDS角色，其中关于合作者和领导者角色的评论更多。