• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medical teacher >Three methods of multi-source feedback compared: a plea for narrative comments and coworkers' perspectives.
【24h】

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

机译：比较了多种来源反馈的三种方法：恳求叙述性评论和同事的观点。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

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.
机译：背景：基于多源反馈（MSF）的医生绩效评估在专业自我调节中越来越重要。研究表明，简单的MSF通常无效。有人建议，无国界医生应由协调人提供，并与投资组合相结合。目的：比较无国界医生在荷兰为顾问提供的三种方法，并评估其可行性，所解决的主题以及对临床实践的影响。方法：2007年，有38位主持人和109位顾问参加了研究。绩效评估系统由（i）三种MSF方法之一，即Violato的医师成就评估（PAR）（由Ramsey等人开发的方法）组成。适用于美国内科医学委员会（ABIM）或荷兰评估与评估工具（AAI），（ii）投资组合，（iii）主持人的评估面试，以及（iv）个人发展计划。评估包括对主持人和顾问的邮政调查。使用广义估计方程式评估所使用的MSF方法与感知影响之间的关联。结果：一次评估平均需要8个小时。分别在79％，74％和71％的评估访谈中讨论了CanMEDS角色的“合作者”，“沟通者”和“经理”。在35％的访谈中，“健康倡导者的角色”是谈话的主题。顾问对包含叙述性评论的反馈更满意。包含同事观点的MSF的感知影响大大超过了不包含此观点的方法的感知影响。结论：在医院环境中，基于无国界医生的绩效评估结合项目组合和主持人主导的访谈似乎是可行的。当MSF包含同事的观点时，其感知的影响会增加。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号