IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0250404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing anaesthesiology and intensive care specialty physicians: An Italian language multisource feedback system

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Carenzo
  • Tiziana Cena
  • Fabio Carfagna
  • Valentina Rondi
  • Pier Luigi Ingrassia
  • Maurizio Cecconi
  • Claudio Violato
  • Francesco Della Corte
  • Rosanna Vaschetto

Abstract

Background: Physician professionalism, including anaesthesiologists and intensive care doctors, should be continuously assessed during training and subsequent clinical practice. Multi-source feedback (MSF) is an assessment system in which healthcare professionals are assessed on several constructs (e.g., communication, professionalism, etc.) by multiple people (medical colleagues, coworkers, patients, self) in their sphere of influence. MSF has gained widespread acceptance for both formative and summative assessment of professionalism for reflecting on how to improve clinical practice. Methods: Instrument development and psychometric analysis (feasibility, reliability, construct validity via exploratory factor analysis) for MSF questionnaires in a postgraduate specialty training in Anaesthesiology and intensive care in Italy. Sixty-four residents at the Università del Piemonte Orientale (Italy) Anesthesiology Residency Program. Main outcomes assessed were: development and psychometric testing of 4 questionnaires: self, medical colleague, coworker and patient assessment. Results: Overall 605 medical colleague questionnaires (mean of 9.3 ±1.9) and 543 coworker surveys (mean 8.4 ±1.4) were collected providing high mean ratings for all items (> 4.0 /5.0). The self-assessment item mean score ranged from 3.1 to 4.3. Patient questionnaires (n = 308) were returned from 31 residents (40%; mean 9.9 ± 6.2). Three items had high percentages of “unable to assess” (> 15%) in coworker questionnaires. Factor analyses resulted in a two-factor solution: clinical management with leadership and accountability accounting for at least 75% of the total variance for the medical colleague and coworker’s survey with high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α > 0.9). Patient’s questionnaires had a low return rate, a limited exploratory analysis was performed. Conclusions: We provide a feasible and reliable Italian language MSF instrument with evidence of construct validity for the self, coworkers and medical colleague. Patient feedback was difficult to collect in our setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Carenzo & Tiziana Cena & Fabio Carfagna & Valentina Rondi & Pier Luigi Ingrassia & Maurizio Cecconi & Claudio Violato & Francesco Della Corte & Rosanna Vaschetto, 2021. "Assessing anaesthesiology and intensive care specialty physicians: An Italian language multisource feedback system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250404
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250404
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250404&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0250404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0250404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.