A Guide to Performance Evaluation for the Intensivist: Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: In 2008, The Joint Commission implemented a new standard mandating a detailed evaluation of a provider's performance. The Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation was designed to provide ongoing performance evaluation as opposed to periodic evaluation. The Focused Professional Practice Evaluation was designed to evaluate the performance of providers new to the medical staff or providers who are requesting new privileges. To date, we are unable to find critical care specific literature on the implementation of Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation/Focused Professional Practice Evaluation. The purpose of this concise definitive review is to familiarize the reader with The Joint Commission standards and their application to Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation/Focused Professional Practice Evaluation design and implementation, literature review in the noncritical care setting, and future process optimization and automation. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified through MEDLINE search using a variety of search phrases related to Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation, Focused Professional Practice Evaluation, critical care medicine, healthcare quality, and The Joint Commission. Additional articles were identified through a review of the reference lists of identified articles. STUDY SELECTION: Original articles, review articles, and systematic reviews were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: Manuscripts were selected for inclusion based on expert opinion of well-designed or key studies and review articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: There is limited data for the process of Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation implementation in critical care medicine. Key recommendations exist from The Joint Commission but leave it up to healthcare institutions to realize these. The process and metrics can be tailored to specific institutions and departments. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is no standard process to develop Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation processes in critical care medicine. Departments and institutions can tailor metrics and processes but it might be useful to standardize some metrics to assure the overall quality of care. In the future utilization of newer technologies like applications might make this process less time-intensive.

Reliability and Validity of Performance Evaluations of Pain Medicine Clinical Faculty by Residents and Fellows Using a Supervision Scale.

BACKGROUND: Annual and/or semiannual evaluations of pain medicine clinical faculty are mandatory for multiple organizations in the United States. We evaluated the validity and psychometric reliability of a modified version of de Oliveira Filho et al clinical supervision scale for this purpose. METHODS: Six years of weekly evaluations of pain medicine clinical faculty by resident physicians and pain medicine fellows were studied. A 1-4 rating (4 = "Always") was assigned to each of 9 items (eg, "The faculty discussed with me the management of patients before starting a procedure or new therapy and accepted my suggestions, when appropriate"). RESULTS: Cronbach α of the 9 items equaled .975 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.974-0.976). A G coefficient of 0.90 would be expected with 18 raters; the N = 12 six-month periods had mean 18.8 ± 5.9 (standard deviation [SD]) unique raters in each period (median = 20).Concurrent validity was shown by Kendall τb = 0.45 (P < .0001) pairwise by combination of ratee and rater between the average supervision score and the average score on a 21-item evaluation completed by fellows in pain medicine. Concurrent validity also was shown by τb = 0.36 (P = .0002) pairwise by combination of ratee and rater between the average pain medicine supervision score and the average operating room supervision score completed by anesthesiology residents.Average supervision scores differed markedly among the 113 raters (η = 0.485; CI, 0.447-0.490). Pairings of ratee and rater were nonrandom (Cramér V = 0.349; CI, 0.252-0.446).Mixed effects logistic regression was performed with rater leniency as covariates and the dependent variable being an average score equaling the maximum 4 vs <4. There were 3 of 13 ratees with significantly more averages <4 than the other ratees, based on P < .01 criterion; that is, their supervision was reliably rated as below average. There were 3 of 13 different ratees who provided supervision reliably rated as above average.Raters did not report higher supervision scores when they had the opportunity to perform more interventional pain procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluations of pain medicine clinical faculty are required. As found when used for evaluating operating room anesthesiologists, a supervision scale has excellent internal consistency, achievable reliability using 1-year periods of data, concurrent validity with other ratings, and the ability to differentiate among ratees. However, to be reliable, routinely collected supervision scores must be adjusted for rater leniency.

Association between leniency of anesthesiologists when evaluating certified registered nurse anesthetists and when evaluating didactic lectures.

Daily evaluations of certified registered nurse anesthetists' (CRNAs') work habits by anesthesiologists should be adjusted for rater leniency. The current study tested the hypothesis that there is a pairwise association by rater between leniencies of evaluations of CRNAs' daily work habits and of didactic lectures. The historical cohorts were anesthesiologists' evaluations over 53 months of CRNAs' daily work habits and 65 months of didactic lectures by visiting professors and faculty. The binary endpoints were the Likert scale scores for all 6 and 10 items, respectively, equaling the maximums of 5 for all items, or not. Mixed effects logistic regression estimated the odds of each ratee performing above or below average adjusted for rater leniency. Bivariate errors in variables least squares linear regression estimated the association between the leniency of the anesthesiologists' evaluations of work habits and didactic lectures. There were 29/107 (27%) raters who were more severe in their evaluations of CRNAs' work habits than other anesthesiologists (two-sided P < 0.01); 34/107 (32%) raters were more lenient. When evaluating lectures, 3/81 (4%) raters were more severe and 8/81 (10%) more lenient. Among the 67 anesthesiologists rating both, leniency (or severity) for work habits was not associated with that for lectures (P = 0.90, unitless slope between logits 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.30). Rater leniency is of large magnitude when making daily clinical evaluations, even when using a valid and psychometrically reliable instrument. Rater leniency was context dependent, not solely a reflection of raters' personality or rating style.

Supervisors' intention to observe clinical task performance: an exploratory study using the theory of planned behaviour during postgraduate medical training.

BACKGROUND: Direct observation of clinical task performance plays a pivotal role in competency-based medical education. Although formal guidelines require supervisors to engage in direct observations, research demonstrates that trainees are infrequently observed. Supervisors may not only experience practical and socio-cultural barriers to direct observations in healthcare settings, they may also question usefulness or have low perceived self-efficacy in performing direct observations. A better understanding of how these multiple factors interact to influence supervisors' intention to perform direct observations may help us to more effectively implement the aforementioned guidelines and increase the frequency of direct observations. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory quantitative study, using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as our theoretical framework. In applying the TPB, we transfer a psychological theory to medical education to get insight in the influence of cognitive and emotional processes on intentions to use direct observations in workplace based learning and assessment. We developed an instrument to investigate supervisors intention to perform direct observations. The relationships between the TPB measures of our questionnaire were explored by computing bivariate correlations using Pearson's R tests. Hierarchical regression analysis was performed in order to assess the impact of the respective TPB measures as predictors on the intention to perform direct observations. RESULTS: In our study 82 GP supervisors completed our TPB questionnaire. We found that supervisors had a positive attitude towards direct observations. Our TPB model explained 45% of the variance in supervisors' intentions to perform them. Normative beliefs and past behaviour were significant determinants of this intention. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that supervisors use their past experiences to form intentions to perform direct observations in a careful, thoughtful manner and, in doing so, also take the preferences of the learner and other stakeholders potentially engaged in direct observations into consideration. These findings have potential implications for research into work-based assessments and the development of training interventions to foster a shared mental model on the use of direct observations.

Improving nurses' organizational commitment by participating in their performance appraisal process.

AIMS: To promote the nurses' organizational commitment by their participation in the improvement of the performance appraisal process. BACKGROUND: Organizational commitment is one of the factors that secures safe and high-quality care of patients. It also enhances motivation among nurses, which affected by various factors such as performance appraisal. METHOD: A participatory action research study was undertaken (March 2015 to February 2018) with 39 intensive critical care nurses and nurse managers in Social Security Hospital in Iran, using a complete enumeration sampling method. The data were collected using organizational commitment and job satisfaction questionnaires, focus groups, semi-structured interviews and Delphi technique. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged including inappropriate performance appraisal system, inefficient instruments and unskilled evaluators. There were significant differences between organizational commitment and job satisfaction with performance appraisal process before and after the change in appraisal process. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' involvement in revising and improving the process of their performance appraisal leads to higher commitment. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Maintaining a committed nursing workforce is vital for high-quality health care. Nurse Managers can improve the process of nurses' appraisal to make more motivation among them and prevent some problems such as job dissatisfaction.

GP appraisal: an evaluation of generational differences on the utility of GP appraisal.

BACKGROUND: A number of studies have previously been published on the benefits of GP appraisal. Ours is the first study that compares the views of doctors registered before and after the introduction of appraisals on various core elements of the appraisal process. AIM: This study aimed to explore potential differences, between GPs qualifying before and those after the introduction of NHS appraisals, on the utility of the appraisal process. Additionally, to discover the perceived impact of appraisals on interaction with colleagues and patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Suffolk appraisers were recruited to distribute a paper questionnaire, in two sections, for each appraisal undertaken over a 12-month period. The first part of the questionnaire related to that specific appraisal. The second part, seven questions using Likert scales and free-text comments, asked about the appraisal process in general. The feedback from the second part forms the data for this study. RESULTS: Overall, doctors tended to agree that appraisals had a beneficial impact in the core areas investigated. However, there was a significant difference between generations: those registered before 1998 were less likely to find NHS appraisals beneficial. Both groups reported that preparation took up too much time. Opinions regarding the impact of appraisals on interaction were evenly divided amongst appraisees, with the older cohort more likely to report negatively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a generational difference amongst GP in the perceived utility of NHS appraisal. Current plans to redesign the process to make appraisals less onerous will be welcomed by both groups.

Change Over Time in Ratings of New Nurses on the Appraisal of Nursing Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in new nurses' competencies across the 1st year of practice. BACKGROUND: Competency assessment is a challenge for nurse residency programs and often focuses on skills checklists and confidence self-reports. The Appraisal of Nursing Practice, an observational rating based on Quality and Safety in Nursing Education standards, was developed to help evaluate an RN residency program. METHODS: Preceptors, nurse educators, and/or unit managers from various units rated new nurse residents. Ratings were compared for 353 nurses at 3 points: within the 1st month in the program (T1), at 5 months (T2), and at month 11 (T3). RESULTS: Competency ratings increased significantly for all subscales from T1 to T2. Ratings continued to increase significantly from T2 to T3, although at a slightly slower rate. Teamwork and evidence-based practice increased the most. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should explore factors affecting the trajectory in developing nursing competencies within various settings.

Workplace bullying, biased behaviours and performance review in the nursing profession: A qualitative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore staff nurses' discourses of workplace bullying, to critically examine how these discourses affect their responses to bullying. BACKGROUND: Workplace bullying has been identified as a pervasive problem within the nursing profession. Efforts to eradicate workplace bullying need to involve staff-targets as well as bystanders. By understanding how this population conceptualises workplace bullying, more effective and targeted solutions to the problem can be devised. DESIGN: This qualitative study used a critical discourse analysis method which was based on the work of Foucault. METHODS: Thirteen staff nurses who worked in a variety of settings in the USA were interviewed. COREQ checklist was used for this article. RESULTS: Three interrelated discursive strands were identified: "biased behaviour manifested as workplace bullying, workplace bullying disguised as performance review and workplace bullying as entrenched behaviour in nursing". Actions in response to bullying varied according to which discursive strand was invoked. CONCLUSIONS: The central theme at the intersection of the discursive strands was that workplace bullying is a mechanism for driving out nurses who are different. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Efforts to address workplace bullying among nurses need to include training on legitimate methods of performance review, workshops on how to interact with diverse co-workers, and examination of how practices with nursing education contribute to the perpetuation of bullying in clinical settings.

Evaluation of a Measurement System to Assess ICU Team Performance.

OBJECTIVE: Measuring teamwork is essential in critical care, but limited observational measurement systems exist for this environment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a behavioral marker system for measuring teamwork in ICUs. DESIGN: Instances of teamwork were observed by two raters for three tasks: multidisciplinary rounds, nurse-to-nurse handoffs, and retrospective videos of medical students and instructors performing simulated codes. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess interrater reliability. Generalizability theory was applied to estimate systematic sources of variance for the three observed team tasks that were associated with instances of teamwork, rater effects, competency effects, and task effects. SETTING: A 15-bed surgical ICU at a large academic hospital. SUBJECTS: One hundred thirty-eight instances of teamwork were observed. Specifically, we observed 88 multidisciplinary rounds, 25 nurse-to-nurse handoffs, and 25 simulated code exercises. INTERVENTIONS: No intervention was conducted for this study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Rater reliability for each overall task ranged from good to excellent correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.64-0.81), although there were seven cases where reliability was fair and one case where it was poor for specific competencies. Findings from generalizability studies provided evidence that the marker system dependably distinguished among teamwork competencies, providing evidence of construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: Teamwork in critical care is complex, thereby complicating the judgment of behaviors. The marker system exhibited great potential for differentiating competencies, but findings also revealed that more context specific guidance may be needed to improve rater reliability.

The effects of nutritional guideline implementation on nursing home staff performance: a controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Suboptimal nutritional practices in elderly care settings may be resolved by an efficient introduction of nutritional guidelines. AIMS: To compare two different implementation strategies, external facilitation (EF) and educational outreach visits (EOVs), when introducing nutritional guidelines in nursing homes (NHs), and study the impact on staff performance. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study with baseline and follow-up measurements. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was staff performance as a function of mealtime ambience and food service routines. INTERVENTIONS/RESEARCH METHODS: The EF strategy was a 1-year, multifaceted intervention that included support, guidance, practice audit and feedback in two NH units. The EOV strategy comprised one-three-hour lecture about nutritional guidelines in two other NH units. Both strategies were targeted to selected NH teams, which consisted of a unit manager, a nurse and 5-10 care staff. Mealtime ambience was evaluated by 47 observations using a structured mealtime instrument. Food service routines were evaluated by 109 food records performed by the staff. RESULTS: Mealtime ambience was more strongly improved in the EF group than in the EOV group after the implementation. Factors improved were laying a table (p = 0.03), offering a choice of beverage (p = 0.02), the serving of the meal (p = 0.02), interactions between staff and residents (p = 0.02) and less noise from the kitchen (p = 0.01). Food service routines remained unchanged in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: An EF strategy that included guidance, audit and feedback improved mealtime ambience when nutritional guidelines were introduced in a nursing home setting, whereas food service routines were unchanged by the EF strategy.

Appraisal; the next steps?

Appraisal offers an opportunity for both the clinician and the employer to demonstrate commitment to their professional responsibilities in a tangible manner that can benefit patients, the individual clinician and the service. One unintentional consequence of revalidation may have been to foster a belief that it has undermined the educational and developmental aspects of appraisal. The objective of promoting transparency and accountability through revalidation may have led some clinicians to feel they work in a culture of greater scrutiny and assessment, leading to an erosion of their engagement with the process. Some appraisers previously comfortable with the educational and supportive ethos of appraisal may be less likely to continue in that role if they are viewed or see themselves as GMC assessors. Priorities include a need for research to evaluate the impact and outcomes of appraisal and revalidation, to evaluate how appraisal can meaningfully feed into improving patient care and the contribution that medical education can make to the process.

Using data envelopment analysis for assessing the performance of pediatric emergency department physicians.

In attempting to measure the performance of providers in a service industry such as health care, it is crucial that the measurement tool recognize both the efficiency and quality of service provided. We develop a Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model to help assess the performance of emergency department (ED) physicians at a partner hospital. The model incorporates efficiency measures as inputs and quality measures as outputs. We demonstrate the importance of a nuanced approach that recognizes the heterogeneity of patients that an ED physician encounters and the important role s/he plays as a mentor for physicians in training. In the study, patients were grouped according to their presenting complaint and ED physicians were assessed on each group separately. Performance variations were evident between physicians within each complaint group as well as between groups. A secondary grouping divided patients based on whether the attending physician was assisted by a trainee. Almost all ED physicians showed better performance scores when not assisted by trainees or ED fellows.

Paper trials: a qualitative study exploring the place of portfolios in making revalidation recommendations for Responsible Officers.

BACKGROUND: A portfolio of supporting information (SI) reflecting a doctor's entire medical practice is now a central aspect of UK appraisal for revalidation. Medical revalidation, introduced in 2012, is an assessment of a doctor's competence and passing results in a five yearly license to practice medicine. It assesses of a doctor's professional development, workplace performance and reflection and aims to provide assurance that doctors are up-to-date and fit to practice. The dominant assessment mechanism is a portfolio. The content of the revalidation portfolio has been increasingly prescribed and the assessment of the SI is a fundamental aspect of the appraisal process which ultimately allows Responsible Officers (ROs) to make recommendations on revalidation. ROs, themselves doctors, were the first to undergo UK revalidation. This qualitative study explored the perceptions of ROs and their appraisers about the use of this portfolio of evidence in a summative revalidation appraisal. METHODS: 28 purposefully sampled London ROs were interviewed following their revalidation appraisal and 17 of their appraisers participated in focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify commonalities and differences of experience. RESULTS: SI was mostly easy to provide but there were challenges in gathering certain aspects. ROs did not understand in what quantities they should supply SI or what it should look like. Appraisers were concerned about making robust judgements based on the evidence supplied. A lack of reflection from the process of collating SI and preparing for appraisal was noted and learning came more from the appraisal interview itself. CONCLUSIONS: More explicit guidance must be available to both appraisee and appraiser about what SI is required, how much, how it should be used and, how it will be assessed. The role of SI in professional learning and revalidation must be clarified and further empirical research is required to examine how best to use this evidence to make judgments as part of this type of appraisal.

Revalidation: practice-related feedback.

Obtaining and reflecting on feedback provides an opportunity for professionals to engage with one another to discuss what good care looks like. The NMC believes that reflecting on feedback will be crucial in helping everyone on the register to analyse the way in which they deliver care, and to help them make small changes to their working practice that could make a big difference to patients.

Getting performance metrics right: a qualitative study of staff experiences implementing and measuring practice transformation.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement is a central goal of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, and requires the use of relevant performance measures that can effectively guide comprehensive care improvements. Existing literature suggests performance measurement can lead to improvements in care quality, but may also promote practices that are detrimental to patient care. Staff perceptions of performance metric implementation have not been well-researched in medical home settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care staff (clinicians and other staff) experiences with the use of performance metrics during the implementation of the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) model of care. DESIGN: Observational qualitative study; data collection using role-stratified focus groups and semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and forty-one of 337 (72 %) identified primary care clinic staff in PACT team and clinic administrative/other roles, from 15 VHA clinics in Oregon and Washington. APPROACH: Data coded and analyzed using conventional content analysis techniques. KEY RESULTS: Primary care staff perceived that performance metrics: 1) led to delivery changes that were not always aligned with PACT principles, 2) did not accurately reflect patient-priorities, 3) represented an opportunity cost, 4) were imposed with little communication or transparency, and 5) were not well-adapted to team-based care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care staff perceived responding to performance metrics as time-consuming and not consistently aligned with PACT principles of care. The gaps between the theory and reality of performance metric implementation highlighted by PACT team members are important to consider as the medical home model is more widely implemented.

Assisting allied health in performance evaluation: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Performance evaluation raises several challenges to allied health practitioners and there is no agreed approach to measuring or monitoring allied health service performance. The aim of this review was to examine the literature on performance evaluation in healthcare to assist in the establishment of a framework that can guide the measurement and evaluation of allied health clinical service performance. This review determined the core elements of a performance evaluation system, tools for evaluating performance, and barriers to the implementation of performance evaluation. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Five electronic databases were used to search for relevant articles: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Academic Search Premier. Articles which focussed on any allied health performance evaluation or those which examined performance in health care in general were considered in the review. Content analysis was used to synthesise the findings from individual articles. RESULTS: A total of 37 articles were included in the review. The literature suggests there are core elements involved in performance evaluation which include prioritising clinical areas for measurement, setting goals, selecting performance measures, identifying sources of feedback, undertaking performance measurement, and reporting the results to relevant stakeholders. The literature describes performance evaluation as multi-dimensional, requiring information or data from more than one perspective to provide a rich assessment of performance. A range of tools or instruments are available to capture various perspectives and gather a comprehensive picture of health care quality. CONCLUSIONS: Every allied health care delivery system has different performance needs and will therefore require different approaches. However, there are core processes that can be used as a framework to evaluate allied health performance. A careful examination of barriers to performance evaluation and subsequent tailoring of strategies to overcome these barriers should be undertaken to achieve the aims of performance evaluation. The findings of this review should inform the development of a standardised framework that can be used to measure and evaluate allied health performance. Future research should explore the utility and overall impact of such framework in allied health service delivery.

Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Faculty productivity is essential for academic medical centers striving to achieve excellence and national recognition. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether and how academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. METHODS: We surveyed the Chairs of academic Departments of Medicine in the United States in 2012. We sent a paper-based questionnaire along with a personalized invitation letter by postal mail. For non-responders, we sent reminder letters, then called them and faxed them the questionnaire. The questionnaire included 8 questions with 23 tabulated close-ended items about the types of productivity measured (clinical, research, teaching, administrative) and the measurement strategies used. We conducted descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Chairs of 78 of 152 eligible departments responded to the survey (51% response rate). Overall, 82% of respondents reported measuring at least one type of faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. Amongst those measuring faculty productivity, types measured were: clinical (98%), research (61%), teaching (62%), and administrative (64%). Percentages of respondents who reported the use of standardized measurements units (e.g., Relative Value Units (RVUs)) varied from 17% for administrative productivity to 95% for research productivity. Departments reported a wide variation of what exact activities are measured and how they are monetarily compensated. Most compensation plans take into account academic rank (77%). The majority of compensation plans are in the form of a bonus on top of a fixed salary (66%) and/or an adjustment of salary based on previous period productivity (55%). CONCLUSION: Our survey suggests that most academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity and convert it into standardized units for the purpose of salary compensation. The exact activities that are measured and how they are monetarily compensated varied substantially across departments.

Ouality and performance measurement: national efforts to improve quality of care through measurement development.

The US Department of Health and Human Services created the National Quality Strategy to provide a framework to focus providers and organizations in achieving greater impact around better care, healthy people and communites, and affordable care. Providing incentive programs around quality measurement is one mechanism used to achieve these aims. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) should begin to familiarize themselves with the consensus development process used in measurement development and the importance of measurement endorsement through the National Quality Forum. Additionally, CRNAs should become familiar with what Physician Quality Reporting System (PORS) measures CRNAs are currently using in anesthesia and the 2015 payment adjustments one may face if not currently reporting to the PORS.

Relationship between job satisfaction and performance of primary care physicians after the family physician reform of east Azerbaijan province in Northwest Iran.

BACKGROUND: Following the implementation of family physician program in 2004 in Iranian healthcare system, the understanding in changes in physicians' practice has become important. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the level of family physicians' job satisfaction and its relationship with their performance level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among all 367 family physicians of East Azerbaijan province in during December 2009 to May 2011 using a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire for job satisfaction. The performance scores of primary care physicians were obtained from health deputy of Tabriz Medical University. RESULTS: In this study, overall response rate was 64.5%. The average score of job satisfaction was 42.10 (±18.46), and performance score was 87.52 (±5.74) out of 100. There was significant relationships between working history and job satisfaction (P = 0.014), marital status (P = 0.014), and sex (P = 0.018) with performance among different personal and organizational variables. However, there was no significant relationship between job satisfaction and performance, but satisfied people had about three times better performance than their counterparts (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The low scores of family physicians in performance and job satisfaction are obvious indications for more extensive research in identifying causes and finding mechanisms to improve the situation, especially in payment methods and work condition, in existing health system.