Multisource feedback for radiation oncologists

Authors

  • Shalini Kavita Vinod,

    Corresponding author
    1. University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    2. University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    • Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Denise Margaret Lonergan

    1. University of NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    2. University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    3. Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

  • SK Vinod MBBS, MD, FRANZCR; DM Lonergan MBBS, FRANZCR.
  • Conflict of interest: The authors of this paper have no actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Oral presentation at RANZCR Annual Scientific Meeting, 2012.

Correspondence

A/Professor Shalini Vinod, Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool BC, Sydney, NSW 1871, Australia.

Email: Shalini.Vinod@sswahs.nsw.gov.au.

Abstract

Introduction

Multisource feedback (MSF) is an assessment of performance through evaluation of an individual's competence from multiple perspectives. It is mandated in many specialist training schemes in medicine. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of implementing MSF for consultant radiation oncologists.

Methods

A validated tool consisting of a self-assessment questionnaire, medical colleague questionnaire, co-worker questionnaire and patient questionnaire was used for MSF. Statements were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being a low rating and 5 a high rating. Seven radiation oncologists volunteered to undergo MSF. They each nominated 10 medical colleagues, 10 co-workers and 10 patients to be surveyed. Clinician feedback was provided as an individual report with a mean score and range for each data item.

Results

Two hundred ten surveys were mailed out and seven self-assessments were completed. The response rate was 87% for medical colleagues, 89% for co-workers and 79% for patients. The mean feedback scores averaged for the radiation oncologists ranged from 4.4 to 4.9, significantly higher than self-assessments scores which ranged from 3.2 to 3.7. MSF identified areas for potential improvement including communication and collaboration with co-workers and accessibility to and adequacy of clinic space for patients. All radiation oncologists found the MSF a positive experience, and five planned to make changes in their practice in response to this.

Conclusions

The high response rate to the surveys has shown that it is feasible to implement MSF for radiation oncologists. This could potentially be used as a method for ongoing revalidation.

Ancillary