Table 4 Summary of characteristics of included studies
First author and Date | Type of study | Participants | MSF tool | Feedback facilitated? | Feedback format | Influencing factors | Change identified | Kirkpatrick level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brinkman (2007) [19] | RCT | Paediatricians | Not specified | Yes: by a coach | Feedback report about baseline parent and nurse evaluations, and a tailored coaching session | Not discussed | Improved communication with patients & families. Improved demonstration of responsibility & accountability. | 3b |
Burford (2010) [20] | Quantitative: Cohort Study employing questionnaires | Foundation trainees | Mini Peer Assessment Tool (Mini-PAT), Team Assessment of Behaviour (TAB) | No | Confidential report | Highlighted the need for a facilitator Perceived validity of raters | Intention to change behaviour (no specific examples given) | 3a |
Fidler (1999) [21] | Quantitative Questionnaire survey & focus group | Family physicians | Physician Achievement Review (PAR) | No | Report | Negative mean feedback ratings | Improved communication with patients, better follow-up of patients. Improved written & verbal communication with health professionals | 3a |
Hall (1999) [22] | Quantitative Before & after study | Family Physicians | PAR | No | Confidential report | Identified need for facilitated feedback. Age of physician. Gap between peer rating and self rating | Improved communication with patients | 3a |
Lipner (2002) [23] | Mixed methods – focus groups & questionnaire | Physicians | Patient survey. | No | Confidential report | Not discussed | Intention to make changes by improving communication with patients (e.g. discuss treatment options more fully), improving communication with peers, and also participate in self-reflection | 3a |
Peer Survey | ||||||||
Lockyer (2003) [24] | Quantitative Before & after survey | Surgeons | Developed for study | No | Report | Age of physician. Gap between peer and self ratings | Making printed material available, maintaining medical records, managing stress & improving telephone access for patients. | 3a |
Overeem (2009) [25] | Qualitative – grounded theory interview study | Medical Specialists | PAR, American Board of Internal Medicine (AIM) | Yes: by a "mentor" or "coach" | Report | Facilitated feedback. Reflection on feedback. Self efficacy. Goal setting. | Performance improvement – e.g. improved communication with colleagues. | 3a |
Overeem (2010) [26] | Quantitative cross-sectional survey study | Medical Specialists | PAR, ABIM, Dutch Appraisal and Assessment Instrument (AAI) | Yes: a trained “facilitator” | feedback from colleagues, coworkers and/or patients summarized in a feedback report. | Facilitation Narrative comments | Intention to change professional performance & development of a personal development plan incorporating proposed changes. | 3a |
Overeem (2012) [27] | Quantitative observational and questionnaire evaluation study | Medical Specialists | Web-based MSF | Yes: by a "mentor" | Report consisting of the collation of MSF ratings from colleagues, coworkers and patients. | Perceived quality of mentoring. Negative scores. | Intention to change one or more aspects of professional performance. | 3a |
Owens (2010) [28] | Qualitative focus group and interview study | General Practitioners (trainees and doctors) | Not specified | No: Doctors. Yes: Trainees-a supervisor. | Report – however format of report varied. | Receiving several comments about the same behaviour | GPs improved communication with staff. Trainees improved their professional behaviour with staff & patients | 3a |
Sargeant (2003) [29] | Quantitative pilot study. Questionnaire evaluation survey | Family Physicians | PAR | No | Confidential report | Familiarity. Patient feedback Highlighted need for facilitated feedback | Intention to make or had made practice changes – mainly involving communication with patients (esp. written communication, phone communication, waiting times & accessibility) | 3a |
Sargeant (2005) [30] | Qualitative Focus groups | Family Physicians | PAR | No: contact provided if needed | Mailed confidential report | Unbiased yet informed raters. Agreeing with the feedback. Perceived usefulness of feedback. Negative influence – disagreeing with feedback | Examples of changes included improved communication with consultants & patients, improving information provided to patients following diagnostic tests | 3a |
Sargeant (2007) [31] | Qualitative Interviews | Family Physicians | PAR | No: contact provided if needed | Mailed confidential report | Familiarity with/credibility of rater. Facilitation. Emotional response. Negative feedback. Patient Feedback. Clear and specific feedback. | Improved communication with patients (e.g. providing fuller explanation) & co-workers. (e.g. improved written/verbal communication with pharmacists) | 3a |
Sargeant (2008) [32] | Qualitative Interviews | Family Physicians | PAR | No: contact provided if needed | Mailed confidential report | Negative feedback. Feedback inconsistent with their own self perceptions | Non-specific behaviour changes reported | 3a |
Sargeant (2009) [33] | Qualitative – grounded theory. Interview study | Family Physicians | PAR | No: contact provided if needed | Mailed confidential report | Reflection. Emotional response. Facilitation. Feedback inconsistent with their own self perceptions. | General behaviour changes | 3a |
Shepherd (2010) [34] | Mixed methods - questionnaire and interview study | General Practitioners | MSF developed for study | Yes: by appraiser | Confidential report – downloaded from a website. | Honesty on part of raters, appraisers and appraisees | Examples given included: improving systems used for communication, changing behaviour in interactions with colleagues, improving delegation | 3a |