Assessment of a peer review process among interns at an Australian hospital
Paul W. Mathews A F , Cathy Owen B , Wayne Ramsey C , Gerry Corrigan A , Mark Bassett D and Johannes Wenzel EA ANU Medical School, Building 42a, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: gerry.corrigan@anu.edu.au
B Rural Clinical School ANU Medical School, Building 42a, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: cathy-owen@bigpond.com
C Medical Services Southern Health in Melbourne, 46 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia. Email: wayne.ramsey@southernhealth.org.au
D ACT Health, Building 6, Canberra Hospital, Woden, ACT 2601, Australia. Email: mark.bassett@act.gov.au
E Medical Services Southern Health in Melbourne, Medical Education Unit, SouthernHealth, Melbourne and 46 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia. Email: johannes.wenzel@hcn.net.au
F Corresponding author. Email: pmathews2@hotmail.com
Australian Health Review 34(4) 499-505 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09838
Submitted: 25 September 2009 Accepted: 9 March 2010 Published: 25 November 2010
Abstract
Purpose. This study considered how a peer review process could work in an Australian public hospital setting.
Method. Up to 229 medical personnel completed an online performance assessment of 52 Junior Medical Officers (JMOs) during the last quarter of 2008.
Results. Results indicated that the registrar was the most suitable person to assess interns, although other professionals, including interns themselves, were identified as capable of playing a role in a more holistic appraisal system. Significant sex differences were also found, which may be worthy of further study. Also, the affirmative rather than the formative aspect of the assessment results suggested that the criteria and questions posed in peer review be re-examined.
Conclusion. A peer review process was able to be readily implemented in a large institution, and respondents were positive towards peer review generally as a valuable tool in the development of junior medical staff.
What is known about the topic? The literature generally concurs that peer review is a useful tool in professional development and can provide a rounded view from diverse sources about a peer’s professional performance. It has been implemented in at least one Canadian medical facility as a mandatory process.
What does this paper add? Our study identifies who is considered the most suitable peer(s) to assess interns, various substantive issues about peer review and about the process itself, and raises questions about the voluntary v. mandatory nature of peer review. It is the first study to trial peer review amongst interns in an Australian hospital.
What are the implications for practitioners? That peer review is a suitable tool in professional development and generally supported in our study, suggesting that it could be implemented into Australian healthcare practice. However, education about the nature and value of peer review would be required amongst healthcare professionals, and the use of peer review could imply greater managerial engagement in medical practice. Peer review is a more effective assessment tool than that currently employed in many Australian hospitals.
References
[1] Owen C, Ramsey W. Medical student peer review: making it work. Clin Teach 2007; 4 31–5.| Medical student peer review: making it work.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer J, Fidler H, Toews J, et al Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: the physician achievement review. CMAJ 1999; 161 52–7.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1MzkvFemsA%3D%3D&md5=39c08fc5c6dc4e0cc9de3cdb651e70e5CAS | 10420867PubMed |
[3] Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002; 287 226–35.
| Defining and assessing professional competence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11779266PubMed |
[4] Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 387–96.
| Assessment in medical education.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtVGrtb8%3D&md5=aae493629c50ac221c912e9b172990c6CAS | 17251535PubMed |
[5] Pulito AR, Donnelly MB, Plymale M, Mentzer RM. What do faculty observe of medical students’ clinical performance? Teach Learn Med 2006; 18 99–104.
| What do faculty observe of medical students’ clinical performance?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16626266PubMed |
[6] Shue CK, Arnold L, Stern DT. Maximizing participation in peer assessment of professionalism: the students speak. Acad Med 2005; 80 S1–5.
| 16199444PubMed |
[7] Van Rosendaal GMA, Jennet PA. Resistance to peer evaluation in an internal medicine residency. Acad Med 1992; 67 63
| Resistance to peer evaluation in an internal medicine residency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK387gvFymsA%3D%3D&md5=a69ef721994f0b484516f3a84a1150eaCAS |
[8] Van Rosendaal GM, Jennett PA. Comparing peer and faculty evaluations in an internal medicine residency. Acad Med 1994; 69 299–303.
| Comparing peer and faculty evaluations in an internal medicine residency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2c3gs1Cjug%3D%3D&md5=27991393d7087ab20d00f8cffe8afa9bCAS | 8155239PubMed |
[9] Thomas PA, Gebo KA, Hellmann DB. A pilot study of peer review in residency training. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14 551–4.
| A pilot study of peer review in residency training.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1MvitFyluw%3D%3D&md5=022488952761204beeba6d3c237ea7deCAS | 10491244PubMed |
[10] Rudy DW, Fejfar MC, Griffith CH, Wilson JF. Self- and peer assessment in a first year communication and interviewing course. Eval Health Prof 2001; 24 436–45.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FovVOntQ%3D%3D&md5=02f6b7b544e1108aaed56636a9f072d8CAS | 11817201PubMed |
[11] Mathews PW. Gawin ng Gabi [Working in the Night]. PhD dissertation, University of NSW; 1992.
[12] Mathews PW. Medical idioms as legitimate responses to family planning Soc Anal 1992; 31 103–25.
[13] Kurtz S, Silverman J, Draper J. Teaching and learning communication skills in medicine . Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Radcliff Medical Press; 1998.
