Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

How ratings vary by staff group in multi-source feedback assessment of junior doctors

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Bullock, Alison D., Hassell, Andrew, Markham, Wolfgang A., Wall, David W. and Whitehouse, Andrew B. (2009) How ratings vary by staff group in multi-source feedback assessment of junior doctors. Medical Education, Vol.43 (No.6). pp. 516-520. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03333.x

Research output not available from this repository, contact author.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03333.x

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

UK doctors-in-training undergo assessments of their professional behaviours. From an analysis of multi-source feedback (MSF) data, we report how ratings of junior doctors (Foundation Programme [FP] doctors and senior house officers [SHOs]) differed by staff group.

The MSF data were collected in 2003 and 2005 in hospitals in the West Midlands. Using a single-sided Team Assessment of Behaviour form, 1928 assessors evaluated 226 FP doctors and SHOs in four domains: professional relationship with patients; communication; team-working, and accessibility. The distribution of 'concerns' across the professional groups was explored using a random effects logistic regression model.

On average, each trainee received nine assessment forms from a range of staff, most commonly nurses. Although concerns were identified for the minority, ratings varied by staff group. Peers (other FP doctors or SHOs) and administrators or managers were four and three times, respectively, less likely to indicate concern. By contrast, consultants and sisters (senior nurses) were more likely to give concern ratings.

Guidance on the selection of assessors in any MSF process should take into account findings that rating behaviour varies by staff group.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: L Education > LB Theory and practice of education
H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare
Divisions: Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Health and Social Studies
Journal or Publication Title: Medical Education
Publisher: Blackwells
ISSN: 0308-0110
Official Date: June 2009
Dates:
DateEvent
June 2009Published
Volume: Vol.43
Number: No.6
Number of Pages: 5
Page Range: pp. 516-520
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03333.x
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us