Dataset Information

Multisource Feedback in the Trauma Context: Priorities and Perspectives.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Trauma resuscitations require competence in both clinical and nonclinical skills but these can be difficult to observe and assess. Multisource feedback (MSF) is workplace-based, involves the direct observation of learners, and can provide feedback on nonclinical skills. We sought to compare and contrast the priorities of multidisciplinary trauma team members when assessing resident trauma team captain (TTC) performance. Additionally, we aimed to describe the nature of the assessment and perceived the utility of incorporating MSF into the trauma context.

Methods

A convenience sample of 10 trauma team activations were observed. Following each activation, the attending physician trauma team leader (TTL), TTC, and a registered nurse (RN) participated in a semistructured interview. MSF was not provided to the TTC for the purpose of this study because MSF was not part of the assessment process of TTCs at the time of this study and maintaining anonymity may have encouraged more honest interview responses. Transcripts from each assessor group (TTL, TTC, RN) were coded and assigned to one of the five crisis resource management skills: leadership, communication, situational awareness, resource utilization, and problem-solving. Comments were also coded as positive, negative, or neutral as interpreted by the coder.

Results

All assessor groups mentioned communication skills most frequently. After communication, the RN and TTC groups commented on situational awareness most frequently, comprising 15 and 29% of their total responses, respectively, whereas 31% of the TTL comments focused on leadership skills. The RN and TTL groups provided positive assessments, with 51 and 42% of their respective comments coded as positive. Forty-five percent of self-assessment comments in the TTC group were negative. All (100%) of the TTC and TTL respondents felt that incorporating MSF would add to the quality of feedback, only 66% of the RN group felt that way.

Conclusions

We found that each assessor group brings a unique focus and perspective to the assessment of resident TTC performance. The future inclusion of MSF in the trauma team context has the potential to enhance the learning environment in a clinical arena that is difficult to directly observe and assess.

SUBMITTER: Garcia Popov A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8166304 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn medical students' workplace learning, feedback is important for effective learning regarding communication and clinical skills. The provision of multisource feedback (MSF) in clinical practice with focus on the patient's perspective is rarely addressed in the literature. The overall objective was to explore the experience of MSF in medical students' clinical learning in primary healthcare (PHC).MethodsIn the study, patients provided feedback by use of the Patient Feedback in Clinical Practice (PFCP) questionnaire. By use of adapted PFCP questionnaire versions peers and clinical supervisors provided feedback and students performed a self-evaluation. The MSF learning activity was evaluated using surveys (4-point Likert scale/open-ended questions), (students (n = 26), peers (n = 9) and clinical supervisors (n = 7)). Data were analysed using descriptive and qualitative content analysis.ResultsResults (mean 4-point Likert scale) from participants evaluation of the MSF learning activity visualises the value of feedback in terms of patient-centred communication (students 3.50, peers 2.44 and clinical supervisors 3.57), guidance for further training (students 3.14, peers 2.89 and clinical supervisors 3.00) and clarification of pedagogical assignment (students 3.14, peers 2.89 and clinical supervisors 3.00). Thematic analysis of participants' free-text answers in the evaluation surveys resulted in three themes: (1) applicability of the MSF, (2) MSF - collaborative learning process and (3) MSF as a facilitator in students' clinical skills development. The participants experienced that the written MSF provided multi-facetted perspectives, which contributed to students' and peers' clinical and communication learning. MSF experience also enhanced clinical supervisors' feedback regarding communication skills, targeting the supervisors' pedagogical assignment.ConclusionOur findings indicate that MSF provided directly after a patient encounter, using the PFCP questionnaire as feedback provider, could be an adequate learning activity for medical students' workplace learning. The MSF, provided through the PFCP questionnaire, was experienced to neutralise and operationalise the provision of concrete feedback, facilitating peers' learning and clinical supervisors' tuition. The results visualise the importance of patients in MSF, as a valuable resource in students' workplace learning. Our study implies that this learning activity could be an applicable tool to facilitate learning and pedagogic development in clinical education in PHC.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multisource feedback (MSF) is increasingly being used to assess trainee performance, with different assessor groups fulfilling a crucial role in utility of assessment data. However, in health professions education, research on assessor behaviors in MSF is limited. When assessing trainee performance in work settings, assessors use multidimensional conceptualizations of what constitutes effective performance, also called personal performance theories, to distinguish between various behaviors and sub competencies., This may not only explain assessor variability in Multi Source Feedback, but also result in differing acceptance (and use) of assessment data for developmental purposes. The purpose of this study was to explore performance theories of various assessor groups (residents and nurses) when assessing performance of residents. METHODS:A constructivist, inductive qualitative research approach and semi-structured interviews following MSF were used to explore performance theories of 14 nurses and 15 residents in the department of internal medicine at Aga Khan University (AKU). Inductive thematic content analysis of interview transcripts was used to identify and compare key dimensions in residents' and nurses' performance theories used in evaluation of resident performance. RESULTS:Seven major themes, reflecting key dimensions of assessors' performance theories, emerged from the qualitative data, namely; communication skills, patient care, accessibility, teamwork skills, responsibility, medical knowledge and professional attitude. There were considerable overlaps, but also meaningful differences in the performance theories of residents and the nurses, especially with respect to accessibility, teamwork and medical knowledge. CONCLUSION:Residents' and nurses' performance theories for assessing resident performance overlap to some extent, yet also show meaningful differences with respect to the performance dimensions they pay attention to or consider most important. In MSF, different assessor groups may therefore hold different performance theories, depending on their role. Our results further our understanding of assessor source effects in MSF. Implications of our findings are related to implementation of MSF, design of rating scales as well as interpretation and use of MSF data for selection and performance improvement.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician professionalism, including anaesthesiologists and intensive care doctors, should be continuously assessed during training and subsequent clinical practice. Multi-source feedback (MSF) is an assessment system in which healthcare professionals are assessed on several constructs (e.g., communication, professionalism, etc.) by multiple people (medical colleagues, coworkers, patients, self) in their sphere of influence. MSF has gained widespread acceptance for both formative and summative assessment of professionalism for reflecting on how to improve clinical practice.MethodsInstrument development and psychometric analysis (feasibility, reliability, construct validity via exploratory factor analysis) for MSF questionnaires in a postgraduate specialty training in Anaesthesiology and intensive care in Italy. Sixty-four residents at the Università del Piemonte Orientale (Italy) Anesthesiology Residency Program. Main outcomes assessed were: development and psychometric testing of 4 questionnaires: self, medical colleague, coworker and patient assessment.ResultsOverall 605 medical colleague questionnaires (mean of 9.3 ±1.9) and 543 coworker surveys (mean 8.4 ±1.4) were collected providing high mean ratings for all items (> 4.0 /5.0). The self-assessment item mean score ranged from 3.1 to 4.3. Patient questionnaires (n = 308) were returned from 31 residents (40%; mean 9.9 ± 6.2). Three items had high percentages of "unable to assess" (> 15%) in coworker questionnaires. Factor analyses resulted in a two-factor solution: clinical management with leadership and accountability accounting for at least 75% of the total variance for the medical colleague and coworker's survey with high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α > 0.9). Patient's questionnaires had a low return rate, a limited exploratory analysis was performed.ConclusionsWe provide a feasible and reliable Italian language MSF instrument with evidence of construct validity for the self, coworkers and medical colleague. Patient feedback was difficult to collect in our setting.

Project description:IntroductionThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) specifically notes multisource feedback (MSF) as a recommended means of resident assessment in the emergency medicine (EM) Milestones. High-fidelity simulation is an environment wherein residents can receive MSF from various types of healthcare professionals. Previously, the Queen's Simulation Assessment Tool (QSAT) has been validated for faculty to assess residents in five categories: assessment; diagnostic actions; therapeutic actions; interpersonal communication, and overall assessment. We sought to determine whether the QSAT could be used to provide MSF using a standardized simulation case.MethodsProspectively after institutional review board approval, residents from a dual ACGME/osteopathic-approved postgraduate years (PGY) 1-4 EM residency were consented for participation. We developed a standardized resuscitation after overdose case with specific 1-5 Likert anchors used by the QSAT. A PGY 2-4 resident participated in the role of team leader, who completed a QSAT as self-assessment. The team consisted of a PGY-1 peer, an emergency medical services (EMS) provider, and a nurse. Two core faculty were present to administer the simulation case and assess. Demographics were gathered from all participants completing QSATs. We analyzed QSATs by each category and on cumulative score. Hypothesis testing was performed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), with 95% confidence intervals. Interpretation of ICC results was based on previously published definitions.ResultsWe enrolled 34 team leader residents along with 34 nurses. A single PGY-1, a single EMS provider and two faculty were also enrolled. Faculty provided higher cumulative QSAT scores than the other sources of MSF. QSAT scores did not increase with team leader PGY level. ICC for inter-rater reliability for all sources of MSF was 0.754 (0.572-0.867). Removing the self-evaluation scores increased inter-rater reliability to 0.838 (0.733-0.910). There was lesser agreement between faculty and nurse evaluations than from the EMS or peer evaluation.ConclusionIn this single-site cohort using an internally developed simulation case, the QSAT provided MSF with excellent reliability. Self-assessment decreases the reliability of the MSF, and our data suggest self-assessment should not be a component of MSF. Use of the QSAT for MSF may be considered as a source of data for clinical competency committees.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine a narrative multisource feedback (MSF) instrument concerning feasibility, quality of narrative comments, perceptions of users (face validity), consequential validity, discriminating capacity and number of assessors needed.DesignQualitative text analysis supplemented by quantitative descriptive analysis.SettingInternal Medicine Departments in Zealand, Denmark.Participants48 postgraduate trainees in internal medicine specialties, 1 clinical supervisor for each trainee and 376 feedback givers (respondents).InterventionThis study examines the use of an electronic, purely narrative MSF instrument. After the MSF process, the trainee and the supervisor answered a postquestionnaire concerning their perception of the process. The authors coded the comments in the MSF reports for valence (positive or negative), specificity, relation to behaviour and whether the comment suggested a strategy for improvement. Four of the authors independently classified the MSF reports as either 'no reasons for concern' or 'possibly some concern', thereby examining discriminating capacity. Through iterative readings, the authors furthermore tried to identify how many respondents were needed in order to get a reliable impression of a trainee.ResultsOut of all comments coded for valence (n=1935), 89% were positive and 11% negative. Out of all coded comments (n=4684), 3.8% were suggesting ways to improve. 92% of trainees and supervisors preferred a narrative MSF to a numerical MSF, and 82% of the trainees discovered performance in need of development, but only 53% had made a specific plan for development. Kappa coefficients for inter-rater correlations between four authors were 0.7-1. There was a significant association (p<0.001) between the number of negative comments and the qualitative judgement by the four authors. It was not possible to define a specific number of respondents needed.ConclusionsA purely narrative MSF contributes with educational value and experienced supervisors can discriminate between trainees' performances based on the MSF reports.