A multi source feedback program for anesthesiologists

• Published in: Canadian journal of anesthesia Vol. 53; no. 1; pp. 33 - 39
• Main Authors: LOCKYER, Jocelyn M, VIOLATO, Claudio, FIDLER, Herta
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Toronto, ON Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2006; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Anesthesiology; Attitude of Health Personnel; Biological and medical sciences; Collaboration; Communication; Factor Analysis, Statistical; Feasibility Studies; Feedback - physiology; Health Care Surveys - statistics & numerical data; Health Personnel - psychology; Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Interdisciplinary Communication; Interprofessional Relations; Medical education; Medical personnel; Medical sciences; Medicine; Patients; Physician-Patient Relations; Physicians; Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data; Professional development; Psychometrics; Quality improvement; Questionnaires; Reproducibility of Results; Surgeons; Validity; Canada; Calgary Alberta Canada; Anesthesia; Anesthesiologist
• ISSN: 0832-610X; 1496-8975
• DOI: 10.1007/BF03021525

To assess the feasibility, validity, and reliability of a multi source feedback program for anesthesiologists.
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.
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 alpha > 0.95). The generalizability coefficients were 0.65 for patients, 0.56 for coworkers and 0.69 for peers.
It is feasible to develop multi source feedback instruments for anesthesiologists that are valid and reliable.