Jamie Brown, Susan Michie, Adam WA Geraghty, Lucy Yardley, Benjamin Gardner, Lion Shahab, John A Stapleton, Robert West
Abstract
This study compared Specialist Trainees' (STs) hand-selected multi-source feedback (MSF) scores with those made by their clinical supervisors and explored perceptions of both those being assessed and those assessing.
Participating STs were asked to hand a mini-PAT questionnaire to a clinical colleague of their choice and also to their Clinical Supervisor. Statistical analysis was carried out on submitted paired assessments to determine any differences in responses between clinical supervisors and hand-chosen assessors. Semi-structured interviews were held with seven nurses, seven Consultants and six postgraduate doctors.
Forty pairs of mini-PAT questionnaires were analysed. Hand-chosen assessors' ratings were significantly higher than those for clinical supervisors with respect to: "good clinical care" (p < 0.01), "good medical practice" (p < 0.05), "teaching and training" (p < 0.01), "relationship with patients" (p < 0.05) as well as for overall impression of the trainee (p < 0.05). Five themes were identified from interviews: validity of selecting assessors; anonymity of assessors; usefulness of feedback; the value of multi-professional assessors; and grading.
There is a systematic difference in the assessment scores for trainees in MSF between clinical supervisors and hand-chosen assessors, the former scoring trainees more harshly. Grading was open to interpretation. This raised questions, especially from nurse interviewees regarding appropriate benchmarking.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,590,269
of 34,182,744 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#923
of 3,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,229
of 422,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
#6
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,182,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
