Designing a system for performance appraisal: balancing physicians' accountability and professional development.

BACKGROUND: In many healthcare systems, physicians are accustomed to periodically participate in individual performance appraisals to guide their professional development. For the purpose of revalidation, or maintenance of certification, they need to demonstrate that they have engaged with the outcomes of these appraisals. The combination of taking ownership in professional development and meeting accountability requirements may cause undesirable interference of purposes. To support physicians in their professional development, new Dutch legislation requires that they discuss their performance data with a non-hierarchical (peer)coach and draft a personal development plan. In this study, we report on the design of this system for performance appraisal in a Dutch academic medical center. METHODS: Using a design-based research approach, a hospital-based research group had the lead in drafting and implementing a performance appraisal protocol, selecting a multisource feedback tool, co-developing and piloting a coaching approach, implementing a planning tool, recruiting peer coaches and facilitating their training and peer group debriefings. RESULTS: The system consisted of a two-hour peer-to-peer conversation based on the principles of appreciative inquiry and solution-focused coaching. Sessions were rated as highly motivating, development-oriented, concrete and valuable. Peer coaches were considered suitable, although occasionally physicians preferred a professional coach because of their expertise. The system honored both accountability and professional development purposes. By integrating the performance appraisal system with an already existing internal performance system, physicians were enabled to openly and safely discuss their professional development with a peer, while also being supported by their superior in their self-defined developmental goals. Although the peer-to-peer conversation was mandatory and participation in the process was documented, it was up to the physician whether or not to share its results with others, including their superior. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of mandatory revalidation, professional development can be supported when the appraisal process involves three characteristics: the appraisal process is appreciative and explores developmental opportunities; coaches are trustworthy and skilled; and the physician has control over the disclosure of the appraisal output. Although the peer-to-peer conversations were positively evaluated, the effects on physicians' professional development have yet to be investigated in longitudinal research designs.

Sharing Reflections on Multisource Feedback in a Peer Group Setting: Stimulating Physicians' Professional Performance and Development.

PURPOSE: Reflecting on and using feedback are important for physicians' continuous professional development (CPD). A common format is the discussion of multisource feedback (MSF) in a one-on-one session with a trusted peer or coach. A new approach is to discuss MSF during a peer group session moderated by a professional facilitator. This qualitative study explored how physicians experience participation in these peer group sessions in the context of their CPD. METHOD: Between March and July 2018, 26 physicians were interviewed about their experiences in a peer group session. These physicians represented 13 monospecialty physician groups from 5 general hospitals in the Netherlands. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed iteratively, following the interpretative phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Participation was experienced as a process of disclosing and sharing personal reflections with peers while striking a balance between interpersonal proximity to and distance from peers. Sharing reflections with peers rendered the feedback more meaningful, deepened collegial relationships, and created a sense of urgency for improvement. Improvement goals were mostly related to relational fine-tuning in collaboration; goals related to individual career management remained in the background. Influential factors for the perceived effectiveness of the group sessions were related to the facilitator's expertise, group size, continuity and quality of collegial relationships, personal vulnerabilities, and the context of CPD policy. CONCLUSIONS: Peer group sessions offered interactivity and established a clear link between individual physicians and their work environments. Sharing reflections on MSF in a peer group setting provided physicians with nuanced insight into their professional performance and fostered a community spirit that supported the implementation of intended changes. Future research should focus on the role of group dynamics and communication strategies and the application of coaching principles, such as drawing up a detailed plan of action and monitoring the follow-up process.

A New Multisource Feedback Tool for Evaluating the Performance of Specialty-Specific Physician Groups: Validity of the Group Monitor Instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Since clinical practice is a group-oriented process, it is crucial to evaluate performance on the group level. The Group Monitor (GM) is a multisource feedback tool that evaluates the performance of specialty-specific physician groups in hospital settings, as perceived by four different rater classes. In this study, we explored the validity of this tool. METHODS: We explored three sources of validity evidence: (1) content, (2) response process, and (3) internal structure. Participants were 254 physicians, 407 staff, 621 peers, and 282 managers of 57 physician groups (in total 479 physicians) from 11 hospitals. RESULTS: Content was supported by the fact that the items were based on a review of an existing instrument. Pilot rounds resulted in reformulation and reduction of items. Four subscales were identified for all rater classes: Medical practice, Organizational involvement, Professionalism, and Coordination. Physicians and staff had an extra subscale, Communication. However, the results of the generalizability analyses showed that variance in GM scores could mainly be explained by the specific hospital context and the physician group specialty. Optimization studies showed that for reliable GM scores, 3 to 15 evaluations were needed, depending on rater class, hospital context, and specialty. DISCUSSION: The GM provides valid and reliable feedback on the performance of specialty-specific physician groups. When interpreting feedback, physician groups should be aware that rater classes' perceptions of their group performance are colored by the hospitals' professional culture and/or the specialty.

Reflection revisited: how physicians conceptualize and experience reflection in professional practice - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: For the purpose of continuous performance improvement, physicians are expected to reflect on their practice. While many reflection studies are theoretically oriented and often prescriptive in the sense that they conceptualize what reflection should look like, the current study starts with practicing physicians themselves and maps how these physicians conceptualize and experience reflection in daily professional practice. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 13 hospital-based physicians from various specialties and institutions. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed iteratively, following the interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. RESULTS: Data analysis resulted in the identification of three main topics: fuzziness, domain specificity and dialogical dynamics of reflection in professional practice. Reflection was conceptualized as a fuzzy process of contemplation and action, leading to change and hopefully improvement of personal performance and health care in general. Physicians' experiences with reflection were different for the patient domain and the team domain. Whereas experiences in the patient domain were recalled first and discussed in relatively clear terms, those in the team domain came second and were discussed in more ambiguous terms. In order to achieve improvement in daily practice, honest and open dialogues were perceived as necessary. These dialogues were regarded as the result of an interplay between an internal and an external dialogue. The internal dialogue required sensitivity and courage of the individual; the external dialogue required psychological safety and encouragement of the environment. Within the team domain however, handling the external dialogue effectively was not self-evident, underlining the importance of psychological safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study draws attention to the interdependence between the individual and the collective contributions to reflective activity in professional practice. Apart from its importance to physicians' individual medical performance, reflective activity is also important to the functioning of a team of physicians. To allow reflection to rise from an individual activity to a team activity, it is necessary to invest in a safe environment in which people are encouraged to think, act, and be engaged.