Assessing anaesthesiology and intensive care specialty physicians: An Italian language multisource feedback system.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
12
02
2021
accepted:
07
04
2021
entrez:
23
4
2021
pubmed:
24
4
2021
medline:
1
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physician 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. Instrument 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. Overall 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. We 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physician 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.
METHODS
Instrument 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.
RESULTS
Overall 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.
CONCLUSIONS
We 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33891626
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250404
pii: PONE-D-21-04863
pmc: PMC8064525
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0250404Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
CMAJ. 1999 Jul 13;161(1):52-7
pubmed: 10420867
Cureus. 2017 Feb 26;9(2):e1060
pubmed: 28367396
Can J Anaesth. 2006 Jan;53(1):33-9
pubmed: 16371607
JAMA. 1993 Apr 7;269(13):1655-60
pubmed: 8240483
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003 Winter;23(1):4-12
pubmed: 12739254
Acad Med. 1997 Oct;72(10 Suppl 1):S82-4
pubmed: 9347748
Acta Biomed. 2019 Sep 13;90(9-S):15-20
pubmed: 31517885
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 1;18(1):747
pubmed: 30285742
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Jun;17(3):187-93
pubmed: 18519625
Med Educ. 2008 Oct;42(10):1007-13
pubmed: 18823520
J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Jun;9(3):367-368
pubmed: 28638519
BMJ. 2005 May 28;330(7502):1251-3
pubmed: 15883137
Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Jun;55(515):461-7
pubmed: 15970071
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):986-992
pubmed: 26369893
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Dec;13(12):1296-303
pubmed: 17099191
Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7
pubmed: 2400509
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014 Feb 27;5:39-51
pubmed: 24600300
Anaesthesia. 2013 Nov;68(11):1095-9
pubmed: 24102249
BMJ. 2010 Sep 24;341:c5064
pubmed: 20870696
BMJ. 2003 Mar 8;326(7388):546-8
pubmed: 12623920
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016 Aug;33(8):559-67
pubmed: 27270884
Acad Med. 2002 Oct;77(10 Suppl):S64-6
pubmed: 12377708
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020 Jun;37(6):421-434
pubmed: 32205575
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Apr 11;14:76
pubmed: 24725268
Med Educ. 2012 Jan;46(1):28-37
pubmed: 22150194
Med Teach. 2008;30(3):248-53
pubmed: 18484450
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1996 Jan;1(1):41-67
pubmed: 24178994
Keio J Med. 2009 Sep;58(3):133-43
pubmed: 19826207
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2018 Fall;38(4):262-268
pubmed: 30157152
Anaesthesia. 2009 Jun;64(6):658-65
pubmed: 19453320
Acad Pediatr. 2019 Jul;19(5):555-560
pubmed: 30576788
Med Educ. 2002 Oct;36(10):901-9
pubmed: 12390456
Acad Med. 2014 Mar;89(3):511-6
pubmed: 24448051
Anesthesiology. 2012 Sep;117(3):651-6
pubmed: 22790960
Anaesthesia. 2013 Jul;68(7):713-22
pubmed: 23656577
Acad Med. 1999 Jan;74(1):13-8
pubmed: 9934288
Med Teach. 2006 Nov;28(7):e185-91
pubmed: 17594544