Search

Introduction: With multisource feedback (MSF) physicians might overrate their own performance compared with scores received from assessors. However, there is limited insight into how perceived divergent feedback affects physicians' subsequent performance scores. Methods: During 2012 to 2018, 103 physicians were evaluated twice by 684 peers, 242 residents, 999 coworkers, and themselves in three MSF performance domains. Mixed-effect models quantified associations between the outcome variable "score changes" between first and second MSF evaluations, and the explanatory variable "negative discrepancy score" (number of items that physicians rated themselves higher compared with their assessors' scores) at the first MSF evaluation. Whether associations differed across assessor groups and across a physician's years of experience as a doctor was analyzed too. Results: Forty-nine percent of physicians improved their total MSF score at the second evaluation, as assessed by others. Number of negative discrepancies was negatively associated with score changes in domains "organization and (self)management" (b = 20.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.03 to 20.02; SE = 0.004) and "patient-centeredness" (b = 20.03; 95% CI, 20.03 to 20.02; SE = 0.004). For "professional attitude," only negative associations between score changes and negative discrepancies existed for physicians with more than 6-year experience (b6-10yearsofexperience = 20.03; 95% CI, 20.05 to 20.003; SE = 0.01; b16-20yearsofexperience = 20.03; 95% CI, 20.06 to 20.004; SE = 0.01). Discussion: The extent of performance improvement was less for physicians confronted with negative discrepancies. Performance scores actually declined when physicians overrated themselves on more than half of the feedback items. PA score changes of more experienced physicians confronted with negative discrepancies and were affected more adversely. These physicians might have discounted feedback due to having more confidence in own performance. Future work should investigate how MSF could improve physicians' performance taking into account physicians' confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The successful remediation of clinicians demonstrating poor performance in the workplace is essential to ensure the provision of safe patient care. Clinicians may develop performance problems for numerous reasons, including health, personal factors, the workplace environment, or outdated knowledge/skills. Performance problems are often complex involving multifactorial issues, encompassing knowledge, skills, and professional behaviors. It is important that (where possible and appropriate) clinicians are supported through effective remediation to return them to safe clinical practice. A review of the literature demonstrated that research into remediation is in its infancy, with little known about the effectiveness of remediation programs currently. Current strategies for the development of remediation programs are mostly "intuitive"; a few draw upon established theories to inform their approach. Similarly, although it has been established that identification of the nature/scope of performance problems through assessment is an essential first step within remediation, the need for a more widespread "diagnosis" of why the problems exist is emerging. These reasons for poor performance, particularly in the context of experienced practicing clinicians, are likely to have an impact on the potential success of remediation and should be considered within the "diagnosis." A new model for diagnosing the performance problems of the clinicians has been developed, using behavioral change theories to explore known barriers to successful remediation, such as insight, motivation, attitude, self-efficacy and the working environment, in addition to addressing known deficits regarding knowledge and skills. This novel approach is described in this article. An initial feasibility study has demonstrated the acceptability and practical implementation of our model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Multisource feedback (MSF) instruments are used to and must feasibly provide reliable and valid data on physicians' performance from multiple perspectives. The "INviting Co-workers to Evaluate Physicians Tool" (INCEPT) is a multisource feedback instrument used to evaluate physicians' professional performance as perceived by peers, residents, and coworkers. In this study, we report on the validity, reliability, and feasibility of the INCEPT. Methods: The performance of 218 physicians was assessed by 597 peers, 344 residents, and 822 coworkers. Using explorative and confirmatory factor analyses, multilevel regression analyses between narrative and numerical feedback, item-total correlations, interscale correlations, Cronbach's a and generalizability analyses, the psychometric qualities, and feasibility of the INCEPT were investigated. Results: For all respondent groups, three factors were identified, although constructed slightly different: "professional attitude," "patient-centeredness," and "organization and (self)-management." Internal consistency was high for all constructs (Cronbach's a $ 0.84 and item-total correlations $ 0.52). Confirmatory factor analyses indicated acceptable to good fit. Further validity evidence was given by the associations between narrative and numerical feedback. For reliable total INCEPT scores, three peer, two resident and three coworker evaluations were needed; for subscale scores, evaluations of three peers, three residents and three tofour coworkers were sufficient. Discussion: The INCEPT instrument provides physicians performance feedback in a valid and reliable way. The number of evaluations to establish reliable scores is achievable in a regular clinical department. When interpreting feedback, physicians should consider that respondent groups' perceptions differ as indicated by the different item clustering per performance factor [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this review was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the roles of real and simulated patients in undergraduate medical education. The literature was reviewed in relation to four patient roles: real patients as educational "resource" (passive role), real patients as teachers (active role), and simulated patients as educational resource and teachers. Each of the four patient roles was found to have specific advantages and disadvantages from the perspectives of teachers, students, and patients. For example, advantages of real patients as educational resource were patient-centered learning and high patient satisfaction. Disadvantages were their limited availability and the variability in learning experiences among students. Despite the considerable amount of literature we found, many gaps in knowledge about patient roles in medical education remain and should be addressed by future studies.