Multisource feedback questionnaires in appraisal and for revalidation: a qualitative study in UK general practice
Multisource feedback questionnaires in appraisal and for revalidation: a qualitative study in UK general practice
复制标题
DOI：
10.3399/bjgp12x641429
复制
发表时间：
2012-05-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Campbell, John L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hill, Jacqueline J.;Asprey, Anthea;Campbell, John L.
背景：英国医生的再验证计划包括从患者和同事问卷中获得多源反馈，作为评估和再验证的支持信息的一部分。目的：调查全科医生和评估师在评估中使用多源反馈数据的观点，以及多源反馈、评估和再验证之间的新联系。设计和设置：英国一般实践的定性研究。方法：对12名近期完成医学总委员会多源反馈问卷的全科医生和12名评估师进行半结构化电话访谈。进行了专题分析。结果：参与者支持形成性发展的多源反馈，尽管大多数人表达了对其方法的一些元素的担忧（例如，同事的“自我”选择，或者患者和同事是否可以提供客观的反馈）。一些参与者报告在理解基准数据方面有困难，一些人对他们的分数感到不安。大多数人接受评价和再确认之间的联系，以及多来源的反馈可以作出积极贡献。然而，鉴定的形成过程和再确认的总结功能之间的紧张关系已被确定。结论：参与者重视多源反馈作为形成性评估的一部分，并看到了它在评估中的作用。然而，对多源反馈方法的某些因素的担忧可能会破坏其作为识别不良业绩工具的可信度。将多源反馈、评估和再验证联系起来的建议可能会限制一些医生在学习和发展中使用多源反馈和评估。需要仔细考虑如何提高这种反馈过程的准确性和可信性，以便最大限度地利用它们来学习和发展以及重新验证。
Background:UK revalidation plans for doctors include obtaining multisource feedback from patient and colleague questionnaires as part of the supporting information for appraisal and revalidation.Aim:To investigate GPs' and appraisers' views of using multisource feedback data in appraisal, and of the emerging links between multisource feedback, appraisal, and revalidation.Design and setting:A qualitative study in UK general practice.Method:In total, 12 GPs who had recently completed the General Medical Council multisource feedback questionnaires and 12 appraisers undertook a semi-structured, telephone interview. A thematic analysis was performed.Results:Participants supported multisource feedback for formative development, although most expressed concerns about some elements of its methodology (for example, 'self' selection of colleagues, or whether patients and colleagues can provide objective feedback). Some participants reported difficulties in understanding benchmark data and some were upset by their scores. Most accepted the links between appraisal and revalidation, and that multisource feedback could make a positive contribution. However, tensions between the formative processes of appraisal and the summative function of revalidation were identified.Conclusion:Participants valued multisource feedback as part of formative assessment and saw a role for it in appraisal. However, concerns about some elements of multisource feedback methodology may undermine its credibility as a tool for identifying poor performance. Proposals linking multisource feedback, appraisal, and revalidation may limit the use of multisource feedback and appraisal for learning and development by some doctors. Careful consideration is required with respect to promoting the accuracy and credibility of such feedback processes so that their use for learning and development, and for revalidation, is maximised.