Résumés
Abstract
Background: Multisource feedback (MSF) and 360-degree assessment collate feedback from multiple perspectives for a particular person. Since MSF aligns with programmatic assessment, undergraduate programs could theoretically incorporate this practice. This paper details the creation of an undergraduate medical education (UGME) MSF and its initial pilot.
Methods: The Medical Council of Canada (MCC) collaborated with researchers from four Canadian UGME programs to adapt an existing tool, MCC 360. They adjusted MSF components for clerkship and piloted the revised version at one Canadian medical school. Student participants completed a post-evaluation survey. Researchers chose the Norcini et al. framework to inform the tool adaptation and evaluation.
Results: The new MCC 360 UGME incorporated MSF from three rater groups (patients, self, and a mixed group of supervisors, residents, hospital staff and/or peers) and compiled it into an individualized report. An independent facilitator reviewed and discussed the report with the student. Students indicated that the MCC 360 UGME had a major to moderate impact on their learning. They appreciated receiving patient feedback and working with facilitators to identify areas of improvement. Although students found completing the MSF requirements to be burdensome, they found it to be acceptable to provide educational benefits.
Conclusion: Implementing MSF in Canadian UGME would allow clerkship students to access feedback from patients and others in the workplace. It would also socialize students to MSF early in their careers.
Résumé
Contexte : La rétroaction multisource (MSF) et l’évaluation à 360 degrés recueillent des commentaires provenant de plusieurs perspectives à l’intention d’une même personne. Étant donné que la MSF s’aligne avec l’évaluation programmatique, les programmes de formation médicale de premier cycle pourraient en principe intégrer cette pratique. Cet article décrit le développement d’un outil de MSF adapté à la formation médicale de premier cycle (FMPU) ainsi que sa mise à l’essai initiale.
Méthodes : Le Conseil médical du Canada (CMC) a collaboré avec des chercheurs de quatre programmes canadiens de FMPU pour adapter un outil existant, le CMC 360. Les composantes de la MSF ont été ajustées pour le stage clinique, puis la version révisée a été mise à l’essai dans une école de médecine canadienne. Les étudiants ayant participé ont rempli un sondage après l’évaluation. Les chercheurs ont retenu le cadre conceptuel proposé par Norcini et ses collaborateurs pour guider l’adaptation et l’évaluation de l’outil.
Résultats : La nouvelle version du CMC 360 pour la FMPU a intégré la rétroaction de trois groupes d’évaluateurs (patients, soi-même, et un groupe mixte de superviseurs, résidents, membres du personnel hospitalier et/ou pairs), rassemblée dans un rapport personnalisé. Un facilitateur indépendant a examiné le rapport avec l’étudiant et en a discuté avec lui. Les étudiants ont indiqué que le CMC 360 avait eu un impact allant de majeur à modéré sur leur apprentissage. Ils ont apprécié recevoir des commentaires de patients et travailler avec un facilitateur pour cerner les domaines à améliorer. Bien qu’ils aient trouvé que répondre aux exigences de la MSF était exigeant, ils ont jugé l’expérience acceptable compte tenu de ses retombées pédagogiques.
Conclusion: La mise en oeuvre de la MSF dans la FMPU canadienne permettrait aux étudiants en stage clinique d’accéder à des rétroactions provenant de patients et d’autres intervenants en milieu de travail. Elle contribuerait également à les familiariser avec la MSF dès le début de leur carrière.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Holmboe ES, Osman NY, Murphy CM, Kogan JR. The urgency of now: rethinking and improving assessment practices in medical education programs. Acad Med. 2023;98(8S):S37-S49. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000005251
- Hageman MG, Ring D, Gregory PJ, Rubash HE, Harmon L. Do 360-degree feedback survey results relate to patient satisfaction measures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(5):1590-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3981-3
- Mazzi MA, Rimondini M, Deveugele M, et al. What do people appreciate in physicians’ communication? An international study with focus groups using videotaped medical consultations. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1215-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12097
- Emke AR, Cheng S, Chen L, Tian D, Dufault C. A novel approach to assessing professionalism in preclinical medical students using multisource feedback through paired self- and peer evaluations. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29(4):402-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1306446
- Hickson GB, Federspiel CF, Pichert JW, Miller CS, Gauld-Jaeger J, Bost P. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2951-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.22.2951
- Krupat E, Dienstag JL, Padrino SL, et al. Do professionalism lapses in medical school predict problems in residency and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2020;95(6):888-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000003145
- Crosbie C, McDougall MA, Pangli H, Abu-Laban RB, Calder LA. College complaints against resident physicians in Canada: a retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association data from 2013 to 2017. CMAJ Open. 2022;10(1):E35-42. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.202110026
- Lai MM, Roberts N, Mohebbi M, Martin J. A randomised controlled trial of feedback to improve patient satisfaction and consultation skills in medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02171-9
- Audétat MC, Voirol C, Béland N, Fernandez N, Sanche G. Remediation plans in family medicine residency. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):e425–34.
- Roy M, Lockyer J, Touchie C. Family physician quality improvement plans: a realist inquiry into what works, for whom, under what circumstances. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2023;43(3):155-63. https://doi.org/10.1097/ceh.0000000000000454
- Brutus S. Words versus numbers: a theoretical exploration of giving and receiving narrative comments in performance appraisal. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2009;20(2):144–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.06.003
- Al Ansari A, Agab AW, Al Sayed SD, Al Fudhala NJ. Multisource feedback tool for the assessment of medical student clerks in professionalism, communication, and collaboration skills. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26:609-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0311
- Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K, et al. Facilitated reflective performance feedback: developing an evidence- and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med. 2015;90(12):1698–706. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000809
- Norcini J, Anderson MB, Bollela V, et al. 2018 consensus framework for good assessment. Med Teach. 2018;40(11):1102-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1500016
- Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing, SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-82. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2010.500704
- Björklund K, Stenfors T, Nilsson GH, Leanderson C. Multisource feedback in medical students' workplace learning in primary health care. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):401. Published 2022 May 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03468-7
- Ricci M, St-Onge C, Xiao J, Young M. Students as stakeholders in assessment: how students perceive the value of an assessment. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(6):352–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0480-3
- Boyer KK, Olson JR, Calantone RJ, Jackson EC. Print versus electronic surveys: a comparison of two data collection methodologies. J Oper Manag. 2002;20(4):357-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(02)00004-9
- Chakroun M, Dion VR, Ouellet K, et al. Narrative assessments in higher education: a scoping review to identify evidence-based quality indicators. Acad Med. 2022;97(11):1699-1706. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004755