OBJECTIVES: Delivery of 360-degree feedback is widely used in revalidation programmes. However, little has been done to systematically identify the variables that influence whether or not performance improvement is actually achieved after such assessments. This study aims to explore which factors represent incentives, or disincentives, for consultants to implement suggestions for improvement from 360-degree feedback. METHODS: In 2007, 109 consultants in the Netherlands were assessed using 360-degree feedback and portfolio learning. We carried out a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 23 of these consultants, purposively sampled based on gender, hospital, work experience, specialty and views expressed in a previous questionnaire. A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the transcribed tape-recordings. RESULTS: We identified four groups of factors that can influence consultants' practice improvement after 360-degree feedback: (i) contextual factors related to workload, lack of openness and social support, lack of commitment from hospital management, free-market principles and public distrust; (ii) factors related to feedback; (iii) characteristics of the assessment system, such as facilitators and a portfolio to encourage reflection, concrete improvement goals and annual follow-up interviews, and (iv) individual factors, such as self-efficacy and motivation. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that 360-degree feedback can be a positive force for practice improvement provided certain conditions are met, such as that skilled facilitators are available to encourage reflection, concrete goals are set and follow-up interviews are carried out. This study underscores the fact that hospitals and consultant groups should be aware of the existing lack of openness and absence of constructive feedback. Consultants indicated that sharing personal reflections with colleagues could improve the quality of collegial relationships and heighten the chance of real performance improvement.
OBJECTIVES: Delivery of 360-degree feedback is widely used in revalidation programmes. However, little has been done to systematically identify the variables that influence whether or not performance improvement is actually achieved after such assessments. This study aims to explore which factors represent incentives, or disincentives, for consultants to implement suggestions for improvement from 360-degree feedback. METHODS: In 2007, 109 consultants in the Netherlands were assessed using 360-degree feedback and portfolio learning. We carried out a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 23 of these consultants, purposively sampled based on gender, hospital, work experience, specialty and views expressed in a previous questionnaire. A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the transcribed tape-recordings. RESULTS: We identified four groups of factors that can influence consultants' practice improvement after 360-degree feedback: (i) contextual factors related to workload, lack of openness and social support, lack of commitment from hospital management, free-market principles and public distrust; (ii) factors related to feedback; (iii) characteristics of the assessment system, such as facilitators and a portfolio to encourage reflection, concrete improvement goals and annual follow-up interviews, and (iv) individual factors, such as self-efficacy and motivation. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that 360-degree feedback can be a positive force for practice improvement provided certain conditions are met, such as that skilled facilitators are available to encourage reflection, concrete goals are set and follow-up interviews are carried out. This study underscores the fact that hospitals and consultant groups should be aware of the existing lack of openness and absence of constructive feedback. Consultants indicated that sharing personal reflections with colleagues could improve the quality of collegial relationships and heighten the chance of real performance improvement.
Authors: Benjamin C M Boerebach; Onyebuchi A Arah; Maas Jan Heineman; Olivier R C Busch; Kiki M J M H Lombarts Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Aileen Barrett; Rose Galvin; Yvonne Steinert; Albert Scherpbier; Ann O'Shaughnessy; Mary Horgan; Tanya Horsley Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-05-08
Authors: Charlotte E Rees; Jennifer A Cleland; Ashley Dennis; Narcie Kelly; Karen Mattick; Lynn V Monrouxe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 2.692