Survey of physician attitudes to using multisource feedback for competence assessment in Alberta

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of multisource feedback (MSF) for assessing physician performance is widespread and rapidly growing. Findings from early very small research studies using highly selected participants suggest high levels of satisfaction and support. However, after nearly two decades of experience using MSF to evaluate all physicians in Alberta, we are sceptical of this.ObjectivesTo determine physicians’ actual opinions of MSF using the entire physician population of Alberta, CanadaDesignOnline survey.SettingAlberta, Canada.ParticipantsAll physicians with a full licence to practice in Alberta in 2015.InterventionsAll participants were asked to grade how well they thought MSF was at assessing various aspects of physician performance using a 10-point Likert-type scale. There was also a text response field for written comments.OutcomesMean responses to quantitative questions. Qualitative content and thematic analysis of open-ended text responses.We analysed the data using SPSS V.23 and NVivo V.11 and built a multivariate model highlighting the predictors of high and low opinions of MSF.ResultsSurvey response rate was high for physicians with 2215 responses (25%). The mean rating for how successful MSF was at assessing a variety of dimensions, varied from a low of 5.03/10 for medical knowledge to a high of 6.38/10 for professionalism and communication. Canadian-trained MDs rated MSF significantly lower on every dimension by approximately 20% compared with non-Canadian-trained MDs.ConclusionsAlberta physicians have much lower opinions about the ability of MSF to measure any dimension of their performance than what has been suggested in the literature. Canadian-trained MDs have a particularly low opinion of MSF for reasons that remain unclear. The results of this survey offer a serious challenge to the effectiveness of a programme that is designed to promote self-reflection and performance improvement.