Multisource feedback as part of the Medical Board of Australia's Professional Performance Framework: outcomes from a preliminary study

Designing a doctor evaluation index system for an online medical platform based on the information system success model in China

Objective

In the context of "internet + medical health" and emphasis on evaluation mechanism for medical and health talents in China, we design an evaluation index system for doctors on online medical platforms by synthesizing two patterns of existing online medical platforms, which is the first step to enhance the capabilities of doctors on online medical platforms.

Methods

Based on the doctor evaluation model integrating information systems success model (ISS-DE model) and grounded theory, the evaluation indicators were obtained through expert interviews, offline medical institutions investigation, online platforms investigation, and literature research, and were assigned weights using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. A working group composed of 23 experts was set up to review and determine the competency standards of doctors on the online medical platforms.

Results

A new indicator framework covering 3 dimensions of system quality, service quality and information quality was constructed in this study. The index system included 3 first-level indicators, 8 s-level indicators and 60 third-level indicators, and each indicator was given different weightage.

Conclusion

The complete index system constructed by the Delphi method in this study is suitable for China's online medical platforms, which will help to improve the quality of platforms and the ability of doctors, thus promoting the process of internet medical integration.

Thought Leader Perspectives on the Benefits, Barriers, and Enablers for Routinely Collected Electronic Health Data to Support Professional Development: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Hospitals routinely collect large amounts of administrative data such as length of stay, 28-day readmissions, and hospital-acquired complications; yet, these data are underused for continuing professional development (CPD). First, these clinical indicators are rarely reviewed outside of existing quality and safety reporting. Second, many medical specialists view their CPD requirements as time-consuming, having minimal impact on practice change and improving patient outcomes. There is an opportunity to build new user interfaces based on these data, designed to support individual and group reflection. Data-informed reflective practice has the potential to generate new insights about performance, bridging the gap between CPD and clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand why routinely collected administrative data have not yet become widely used to support reflective practice and lifelong learning.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews (N=19) with thought leaders from a range of backgrounds, including clinicians, surgeons, chief medical officers, information and communications technology professionals, informaticians, researchers, and leaders from related industries. Interviews were thematically analyzed by 2 independent coders.

RESULTS

Respondents identified visibility of outcomes, peer comparison, group reflective discussions, and practice change as potential benefits. The key barriers included legacy technology, distrust with data quality, privacy, data misinterpretation, and team culture. Respondents suggested recruiting local champions for co-design, presenting data for understanding rather than information, coaching by specialty group leaders, and timely reflection linked to CPD as enablers to successful implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was consensus among thought leaders, bringing together insights from diverse backgrounds and medical jurisdictions. We found that clinicians are interested in repurposing administrative data for professional development despite concerns with underlying data quality, privacy, legacy technology, and visual presentation. They prefer group reflection led by supportive specialty group leaders, rather than individual reflection. Our findings provide novel insights into the specific benefits, barriers, and benefits of potential reflective practice interfaces based on these data sets. They can inform the design of new models of in-hospital reflection linked to the annual CPD planning-recording-reflection cycle.

A comparison of patient appraisal of professional skills for GPs in training participating in differing education programs

BACKGROUND

Medical boards and healthcare providers internationally are coming under increasing pressure to attract international medical graduates (IMGs) and overseas trained doctors (OTDs) to cope with predicted general practice (GP) doctor shortages. Various pathways to registration are made available for this purpose. There is very little understanding of the effects of different training pathways to licensing and registration on the ability of IMGs and OTDs, as well as locally trained doctors, to acquire the desirable professional skills deemed necessary for working effectively in the primary care sector.

METHODS

Feedback from patients was collected at the end of their scheduled consultation with their doctor using a questionnaire consisting of 13 Likert scale items that asked them to rate their experience of the consultation. Feedback was obtained for doctors going through the Royal Australian College of General Practice (RACGP) Practice Experience Program (PEP) and the Australian General Practice Training Program (AGPT), with the former intended primarily for IMGs and OTDs, and the latter for local medical graduates including from New Zealand. Patient feedback was also obtained for patients visiting already Fellowed and experienced GPs for comparative purposes, resulting in data for three groups of doctors (two trainee, one already Fellowed). Rater consistency and agreement measures, analysis of variance, principal component analysis, t-tests and psychometric network analysis were undertaken between and within groups to identify similarities and differences in patient experience and professionalism of doctors.

RESULTS

There was a small but significant difference in average patient raw scores given to PEP and AGPT doctors (90.25, 90.97%), with the highest scores for 'Respect shown' (92.24, 93.15%) and the lowest for 'Reassurance' 89.38, 89.84%). Male patients gave lower scores (89.56%) than female patients (91.23%) for both groups of doctors. In comparison, patients gave experienced GPs an average 91.38% score, with male patients giving a lower average score than female patients (90.62, 91.93%). Two components were found in the patient data (interpersonal communication, caring/empathy) that account for over 80% of the variance. When patient scores were aggregated by doctor, the average PEP and AGPT doctor scores received were 90.27 and 90.99%, in comparison to the average experienced GP score of 91.43%. Network analysis revealed differences in the connectedness of items between these two groups as well as in comparison with experienced GPs, suggesting that PEP doctors' skills are less cohesively developed in the areas of listening ability, explaining and providing reassurance.

CONCLUSIONS

The small but statistically significant differences between doctor groups reported in this preliminary study are supplemented by percentile analysis, network analysis and principal component analysis to identify areas for further exploration and study. There is scope for improving the integration of interpersonal communication skills of GPs in Training with their caring and empathy skills, when compared with experienced GPs as a benchmark. Suggestions are made for enhancing professional skills from a patients' perspective in future training programs.

Multisource feedback: an overview of its use and application as a formative assessment

Multisource feedback (MSF), often termed 360-degree feedback, is a formative performance assessment in which data about an individual's observable workplace behaviors are collected through questionnaires from those interacting with the individual; data are aggregated for anonymity and confidentiality; the aggregated data, along with self-assessment if available, are provided to the individual; and the recipient meets with a trusted individual to review the data and develop an action plan. It is used along the continuum of medical education. This article provides an overview of MSF's utility, its evidence base and cautions.

Are there differences between SIMG surgeons and locally trained surgeons in Australia and New Zealand, as rated by colleagues and themselves?

BACKGROUND

Representation of specialist international medical graduates (SIMGs) in specific specialties such as surgery can be expected to grow as doctor shortages are predicted in the context of additional care provision for aging populations and limited local supply. Many national medical boards and colleges provide pathways for medical registration and fellowship of SIMGs that may include examinations and short-term training. There is currently very little understanding of how SIMGs are perceived by colleagues and whether their performance is perceived to be comparable to locally trained medical specialists. It is also not known how SIMGs perceive their own capabilities in comparison to local specialists. The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between colleague feedback and self-evaluation in the specialist area of surgery to identify possible methods for enhancing registration and follow-up training within the jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

Feedback from 1728 colleagues to 96 SIMG surgeons and 406 colleagues to 25 locally trained Fellow surgeons was collected, resulting in 2134 responses to 121 surgeons in total. Additionally, 98 SIMGs and 25 Fellows provided self-evaluation scores (123 in total). Questionnaire and data reliability were calculated before analysis of variance, principal component analysis and network analysis were performed to identify differences between colleague evaluations and self-evaluations by surgeon type.

RESULTS

Colleagues rated SIMGs and Fellows in the 'very good' to 'excellent' range. Fellows received a small but statistically significant higher average score than SIMGs, especially in areas dealing with medical skills and expertise. However, SIMGs received higher scores where there was motivation to demonstrate working well with colleagues. Colleagues rated SIMGs using one dimension and Fellows using three, which can be identified as clinical management skills, inter-personal communication skills and self-management skills. On self-evaluation, both SIMGs and Fellows gave themselves a significant lower average score than their colleagues, with SIMGs giving themselves a statistically significant higher score than Fellows.

CONCLUSIONS

Colleagues rate SIMGs and Fellows highly. The results of this study indicate that SIMGs tend to self-assess more highly, but according to colleagues do not display the same level of differentiation between clinical management, inter-personal and self-management skills. Further research is required to confirm these provisional findings and possible reasons for lack of differentiation if this exists. Depending on the outcome, possible support mechanisms can be explored that may lead to increased comparable performance with locally trained graduates of Australia and New Zealand in these three dimensions.

Colleague appraisal of Australian general practitioners in training: an analysis of multisource feedback data

BACKGROUND

Multisource feedback is an evidence-based and validated tool used to provide clinicians, including those in training, feedback on their professional and interpersonal skills. Multisource feedback is mandatory for participants in the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Practice Experience Program and for some Australian General Practice Training Registrars. Given the recency of the Practice Experience Program, there are currently no benchmarks available for comparison within the program and to other comparable cohorts including doctors in the Australian General Practice Training program. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare colleague feedback within and across General Practice trainee cohorts.

METHODS

Colleague feedback, from multisource feedback of Practice Experience Program participants and Australian General Practice Training Registrars, collected between January 2018 and April 2020, was compared to identify similarities and differences. Analyses entailed descriptive statistics, between and within groups rater consistency and agreement measures, principal component analysis, t-tests, analysis of variance, and psychometric network analysis.

RESULTS

Colleague ratings of Practice Experience Program participants (overall average 88.58%) were lower than for Registrars (89.08%), although this difference was not significant. 'Communication with patients' was rated significantly lower for Practice Experience Program participants (2.13%) while this group was rated significantly better for their 'Ability to say no' (1.78%). Psychometric network analyses showed stronger linkages between items making up the behavioural component (compared to the items of the performance and self-management components, as found by principal component analysis) for Practice Experience Program participants as compared to Registrars. Practice Experience Program participants were stronger in clinical knowledge and skills as well as confidentiality, while Registrars were stronger in communicating with patients, managing their own stress, and in their management and leadership skills.

CONCLUSIONS

The multisource feedback scores of doctors undertaking the Practice Experience Program suggests that, while all mean values are 'very good' to 'excellent', there are areas for improvement. The linkages between skills suggests that Practice Experience Program doctors' skills are somewhat isolated and have yet to fully synthesise. We now have a better understanding of how different groups of General Practitioners in training compare with respect to professional and interpersonal skills. Based on the demonstrated differences, the Practice Experience Program might benefit from the addition of educational activities to target the less developed skills.

Impact of implementing multisource feedback on behaviors of young doctors

Objectives:

Multisource feedback (MSF) is a workplace-based assessment tool that offers 360-degree evaluation of the trainee doctor. Little is known about its receptiveness among stakeholders in Pakistan. This study explores house officers’ perceptions regarding MSF since its implementation in Eye Unit-II, Institute of Ophthalmology, King Edward Medical University/ Mayo Hospital, Lahore.

Methods:

A qualitative case study was conducted from July 2019 to February 2020 in Eye Unit II. A purposive (maximum variation) sample of 12 house surgeons was taken. Two focus group discussions were conducted. Data were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

Results:

The study identified the impact of MSF on house surgeons. Most participants reported positive experiences. The feedback they received increased their motivation, management skills and team working. A number of factors affecting the receptiveness of MSF were also identified which mainly included characteristics of raters and emotional response to MSF.

Conclusion:

Multisource Feedback is a useful tool for feedback that impacts the young doctors in many ways. It contributes to increasing their sense of responsibility, management skills and self-directed learning. The improvement in individual abilities and teamwork also helped in improving patient care.

The Effect of Post-Graduate Year Training on the Self-Efficacy and Emotional Traits of Physicians Facing the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: Taiwan implemented the post-graduate year (PGY) training to reform the medical education system to provide holistic medical care after severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003. In late 2019, COVID-19 quickly spread across the globe and became a pandemic crisis. This study aimed to investigate whether the establishment of the PGY training had positive effects on the self-efficacy and emotional traits of medical workers. Methods: One hundred and ten physicians, including PGY, residents, and visiting staff, were investigated using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) and Emotional Trait and State Scale (ETSS), and their feedback and suggestions were collected. An exploratory factor analysis was done to reduce the factor dimensions using the varimax rotation method, which was reduced to four factors: “the ability to cope with ease”, “proactive ability”, “negative emotion”, and “positive emotion”. A comparison with and without PGY training when facing the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted. Results: Those who had received PGY training (n = 77) were younger, had a lower grade of seniority, and had less practical experience than those who had not received PGY (n = 33). Those who had received PGY training had significantly higher scores for the factors “ability to cope with ease”, “proactive ability”, and “positive emotion” than those who had not received PGY training. Conclusion: The study revealed that PGY training may have had positive effects on the personal self-efficacy and emotional traits of physicians coping with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Correction to: Multisource feedback as part of the medical board of Australia's professional performance framework: outcomes from a preliminary study

Following publication of the original article [1], the author reported that Fig. 4 was missing. This has now been corrected in the original article.

Optimizing Multisource Feedback Implementation for Australasian Physicians

INTRODUCTION

Medical regulatory bodies in Australasia are encouraging greater use of continuing professional development activities, such as multisource feedback (MSF), which are practice-based, include facilitated feedback, and improve performance. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility, effectiveness, and sustainability of an MSF process that includes a telephone/videoconference debrief, to better design future MSF implementation.

METHOD

Thirty-seven Australasian physician participants sought feedback from patients and colleagues and debriefed their feedback report with a trained facilitator. The impact was evaluated using quantitative and qualitative measures including surveys and semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

The feasibility of the MSF process was impacted by the level of support for the participant to complete the MSF, the nature and location of participants' work, and the use of telephone/videoconference to deliver the debrief. Regarding effectiveness, the MSF stimulated reflection on practice and action on areas identified for improvement. In addition, the quality of rater feedback and the inclusion of a debrief impacted participant and facilitator reports of effectiveness. The absence of a culture of feedback, the formative nature of the MSF, and the confidentiality of the results were factors impacting sustainability.

DISCUSSION

Optimizing MSF is important to encourage broad uptake in the wider medical community in Australasia. Although several factors were identified as having an impact, it is clear that inclusion of a quality debrief will increase the perceived value and the effectiveness of MSF. Delivering that debrief through telephone/videoconference can be effective and will increase the overall feasibility and sustainability.