Get access

Doctor performance assessment in daily practise: does it help doctors or not? A systematic review

Authors

  • Karlijn Overeem,

    1. Centre for Quality of Care Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    2. Academic Medical Centre, Department of Social Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marjan J Faber,

    1. Centre for Quality of Care Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Onyebuchi A Arah,

    1. Academic Medical Centre, Department of Social Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    2. Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    3. Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Glyn Elwyn,

    1. Centre for Quality of Care Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    2. Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kiki M J M H Lombarts,

    1. Academic Medical Centre, Department of Social Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Hub C Wollersheim,

    1. Centre for Quality of Care Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Richard P T M Grol

    1. Centre for Quality of Care Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

Karlijn Overeem, Centre for Quality of Care Research, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101 Kwazo 114, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel: 00 31 24 36 10757; Fax: 00 31 24 35 40166; E-mail: k.overeem@kwazo.umcn.nl

Abstract

Context  Continuous assessment of individual performance of doctors is crucial for life-long learning and quality of care. Policy-makers and health educators should have good insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the methods available. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the feasibility of methods, the psychometric properties of instruments that are especially important for summative assessments, and the effectiveness of methods serving formative assessments used in routine practise to assess the performance of individual doctors.

Methods  We searched the MEDLINE (1966−January 2006), PsychINFO (1972−January 2006), CINAHL (1982−January 2006), EMBASE (1980−January 2006) and Cochrane (1966−2006) databases for English language articles, and supplemented this with a hand-search of reference lists of relevant studies and bibliographies of review articles. Studies that aimed to assess the performance of individual doctors in routine practise were included. Two reviewers independently abstracted data regarding study design, setting and findings related to reliability, validity, feasibility and effectiveness using a standard data abstraction form.

Results  A total of 64 articles met our inclusion criteria. We observed 6 different methods of evaluating performance: simulated patients; video observation; direct observation; peer assessment; audit of medical records, and portfolio or appraisal. Peer assessment is the most feasible method in terms of costs and time. Little psychometric assessment of the instruments has been undertaken so far. Effectiveness of formative assessments is poorly studied. All systems but 2 rely on a single method to assess performance.

Discussion  There is substantial potential to assess performance of doctors in routine practise. The longterm impact and effectiveness of formative performance assessments on education and quality of care remains hardly known. Future research designs need to pay special attention to unmasking effectiveness in terms of performance improvement.

Ancillary