This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Additional Material Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lockyer, J. M. Articles by Fidler, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lockyer, J. M. Articles by Fidler, H.

A multi source feedback program for anesthesiologists

[Un programme de rétroaction multisources pour les anesthésiologistes]

Jocelyn M. Lockyer, PhD^*,, Claudio Violato, PhD^* and Herta Fidler, MSc

^* From the Department of Community Health Sciences, the Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary; and
the Office of Continuing Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Jocelyn Lockyer, Continuing Medical Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada. Phone: 403-220-4248; Fax: 403-270-2330; E-mail: lockyer{at}ucalgary.ca

Purpose: To assess the feasibility, validity, and reliability of a multi source feedback program for anesthesiologists.

Methods: Surveys with 11, 19, 29 and 29 items were developed for patients, coworkers, medical colleagues and self, respectively, using five-point scales with an ‘unable to assess’ category. The items addressed communication skills, professionalism, collegiality, continuing professional development and collaboration. Each anesthesiologist was assessed by eight medical colleagues, eight coworkers, and 30 patients. Feasibility was assessed by response rates for each instrument. Validity was assessed by rating profiles, the percentage of participants unable to assess the physician for each item, and exploratory factor analyses to determine which items grouped together into scales. Cronbach’s alpha and generalizability coefficient analyses assessed reliability.

Results: One hundred and eighty-six physicians participated. The mean number and percentage return rate of respondents per physician was 17.7 (56.2%) for patients, 7.8 (95.1%) for coworkers, and 7.8 (94.6%) for medical colleagues. The mean ratings ranged from four to five for each item on each scale. There were relatively few items with high percentages of ‘unable to assess’. The factor analyses revealed a two-factor solution for the patient, a two-factor solution for the coworker and a three-factor solution for the medical colleague survey, accounting for at least 70% of the variance. All instruments had a high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s > 0.95). The generalizability coefficients were 0.65 for patients, 0.56 for coworkers and 0.69 for peers.

Conclusion: It is feasible to develop multi source feedback instruments for anesthesiologists that are valid and reliable.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J L Campbell, S H Richards, A Dickens, M Greco, A Narayanan, and S Brearley Assessing the professional performance of UK doctors: an evaluation of the utility of the General Medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2008; 17(3): 187 - 193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]