Reflecting upon multisource feedback as ‘assessment for learning’

Sargeant, Joan

doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0175-y

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient experience surveys and multi-source feedback instruments (which may include a patient survey) are now commonly used to capture the observations and experiences of patients and health professionals [ 163 , 164 ]. Multisource feedback, when implemented properly, can be effective in providing useful information and changing behaviour [ 165 , 166 ]. What is not known is whether just-in-time feedback from patients would be helpful.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionDirect observation of clinical skills is a key assessment strategy in competency-based medical education. The guidelines presented in this paper synthesize the literature on direct observation of clinical skills. The goal is to provide a practical list of Do’s, Don’ts and Don’t Knows about direct observation for supervisors who teach learners in the clinical setting and for educational leaders who are responsible for clinical training programs.MethodsWe built consensus through an iterative approach in which each author, based on their medical education and research knowledge and expertise, independently developed a list of Do’s, Don’ts, and Don’t Knows about direct observation of clinical skills. Lists were compiled, discussed and revised. We then sought and compiled evidence to support each guideline and determine the strength of each guideline.ResultsA final set of 33 Do’s, Don’ts and Don’t Knows is presented along with a summary of evidence for each guideline. Guidelines focus on two groups: individual supervisors and the educational leaders responsible for clinical training programs. Guidelines address recommendations for how to focus direct observation, select an assessment tool, promote high quality assessments, conduct rater training, and create a learning culture conducive to direct observation.ConclusionsHigh frequency, high quality direct observation of clinical skills can be challenging. These guidelines offer important evidence-based Do’s and Don’ts that can help improve the frequency and quality of direct observation. Improving direct observation requires focus not just on individual supervisors and their learners, but also on the organizations and cultures in which they work and train. Additional research to address the Don’t Knows can help educators realize the full potential of direct observation in competency-based education.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also likely that the addition of an open question to CEFIT will help direct improvement activity given the known strengths of patient narratives to motivate clinical teams to improve. 51 The ability of CEFIT to drive improvement remains untested and is a matter for future work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo develop a structurally valid and reliable, yet brief measure of patient experience of hospital quality of care, the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT). Also, to examine aspects of utility of CEFIT.BackgroundMeasuring quality improvement at the clinical interface has become a necessary component of healthcare measurement and improvement plans, but the effectiveness of measuring such complexity is dependent on the purpose and utility of the instrument used.MethodsCEFIT was designed from a theoretical model, derived from the literature and a content validity index (CVI) procedure. A telephone population surveyed 802 eligible participants (healthcare experience within the previous 12 months) to complete CEFIT. Internal consistency reliability was tested using Cronbach's α. Principal component analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure and determine structural validity. Quality criteria were applied to judge aspects of utility.ResultsCVI found a statistically significant proportion of agreement between patient and practitioner experts for CEFIT construction. 802 eligible participants answered the CEFIT questions. Cronbach's α coefficient for internal consistency indicated high reliability (0.78). Interitem (question) total correlations (0.28–0.73) were used to establish the final instrument. Principal component analysis identified one factor accounting for 57.3% variance. Quality critique rated CEFIT as fair for content validity, excellent for structural validity, good for cost, poor for acceptability and good for educational impact.ConclusionsCEFIT offers a brief yet structurally sound measure of patient experience of quality of care. The briefness of the 5-item instrument arguably offers high utility in practice. Further studies are needed to explore the utility of CEFIT to provide a robust basis for feedback to local clinical teams and drive quality improvement in the provision of care experience for patients. Further development of aspects of utility is also required.

show abstract

“…Shrinking this area would involve a multitude of approaches such as residents' readiness to discover new areas of self, direct performance observation by different supervisors and multisource feedback. Supervisors, peers and nonphysician team members, such as nurses or case managers and patients, are all likely to perceive and provide insights on different dimensions of performance, thus enhancing professional development of residents (Sargeant et al 2005;Ten Cate and Sargeant 2011;Holmboe and Ross 2012;Sargeant 2015;van der Meulen et al 2017). However, it has also been reported that physicians tend to view nonphysician sources of feedback as less credible and beneficial, therefore less receptive to their feedback (Sargeant et al 2005(Sargeant et al , 2007Ten Cate and Sargeant 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncovering the unknown: A grounded theory study exploring the impact of self-awareness on the culture of feedback in residency education

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reflecting upon multisource feedback as ‘assessment for learning’

Abstract: None

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education

Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education

Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT)

Uncovering the unknown: A grounded theory study exploring the impact of self-awareness on the culture of feedback in residency education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About