SK Vinod MBBS, MD, FRANZCR; DM Lonergan MBBS, FRANZCR.
Radiation Oncology—Original Article
Multisource feedback for radiation oncologists
Article first published online: 18 JAN 2013
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology © 2013 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology
Volume 57, Issue 3, pages 384–389, June 2013
How to Cite
Vinod, S. K. and Lonergan, D. M. (2013), Multisource feedback for radiation oncologists. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 57: 384–389. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12037
Conflict of interest: The authors of this paper have no actual or potential conflicts of interest.
Oral presentation at RANZCR Annual Scientific Meeting, 2012.
- Issue published online: 31 MAY 2013
- Article first published online: 18 JAN 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 18 DEC 2012
- Manuscript Received: 24 AUG 2012
- clinical competence;
- physician performance;
- quality assurance;
- radiation oncology
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.
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.
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.
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.