A Survey of Evaluation Practices for Hospice Social Workers

Abstract

Hospice social workers make distinct contributions to the care of terminally ill persons and their loved ones. This study contributes to social work's professional knowledge base by examining methods by which hospice social workers are evaluated by their supervisors as well as their clients. This article reports on a survey of 109 hospices' evaluative methods for social workers. Implications for patient care and hospice operations are discussed.

Assisting allied health in performance evaluation: a systematic review

“…In addition to improving the quality of health care, there are many other reasons for undertaking performance evaluation and they can be categorised based on the perspectives of different stakeholders. From a practitioner perspective, performance evaluation can be an effective tool in providing objective feedback in order to validate their skills and practice or facilitate corrective action if poor skills are demonstrated, or as a medium to correct or reward performance [ 17 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 34 , 40 ]. It can also assist in identifying professional development needs and in fulfilling professional regulatory body obligations [ 24 ].…”

“…It can also assist in identifying professional development needs and in fulfilling professional regulatory body obligations [ 24 ]. At a consumer level, performance evaluation provides clients with information that can facilitate choice of health care provider [ 36 , 40 ] and allows them to participate in the improvement of care delivered to them [ 23 ]. For senior personnel, managers or administrators, performance evaluation can assist in meeting accreditation standards and third-party contractual standards [ 24 , 36 ].…”

“…), and premises for performance evaluation should be clearly identified and documented [ 25 ]. A schedule for performance evaluation that works well with the practice is recommended [ 23 ]. Evaluator training is also a key factor to conducting effective performance evaluation [ 17 , 20 ].…”

“…Nine articles [ 17 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 27 - 29 , 32 , 49 ] reported a wide range of tools for evaluation, often comprising the use of more than one instrument. The choice of tools is dependent on several factors including but not limited to the level of health system for evaluation, objectives of evaluation and target participants.…”

“…Practitioner-focused tools consisted of the following: direct clinical observation of the clinician in the patient’s setting [ 20 , 23 , 24 ], interview with practitioner [ 24 ], critical incident reporting [ 18 ], self-reflection or self-appraisal [ 24 ], peer review or appraisal [ 17 , 18 , 20 ], and chart-stimulated recall [ 28 ].…”