Main Article Content
Doctors have long been considered to be trustworthy amongst the public. This stems from the perception that they are professionals and follow a core set of values. Although many Doctors will be professional in their conduct, there will be individuals who do not adhere to these values. Assessment systems need to put into place to ensure that all doctors within the defined occupational group are assessed for their professional behaviour. One attempt at the latter has been the Multi-Source Feedback Tool (MSF). The MSF is a structured assessment tool that is sent to a pre-defined number of fellow health professionals that is completed by them and serves to provide both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of one’s clinical professionalism. There needs to be increased awareness of the benefits of MSF tools in Pakistani medical institutions. We also feel that more research is needed to augment its effectiveness in assessing professionalism.
Key words: Professionalism (MeSH); Feedback (MeSH); Ethics, Professional (MeSH); Multi-Source Feedback (Non-MeSH); Pakistan (MeSH)
Work published in KMUJ is licensed under a
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
2. Epstein, RM, Hundert EM. Defining and accessing professional competence. J Am Med Assoc 2002;287(2):186-96.
3. Royal College of Physicians. Doctors in Society: Medical professionalism in a changing world. Royal College of Physicians 2005. [Accessed August 23, 2016]. Available from URL: https://shop.rcplondon.ac.uk/products/doctors-in-society-medical-professionalism-in-a-changing-world?variant=6337443013
4. Code of Ethics for Medical and Dental Practitioners. Code of Ethics. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council 2001. [Accessed August 22, 2016]. Available from URL: http://www.pmdc.org.pk/Ethics/tabid/101/Default.aspx
5. American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). Project Professionalism. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ABIM 2010; [Accessed August 22, 2016]. Available from URL: http://www.abimfoundation.org/~/media/Foundation/Professionalism/Project%20professionalism.ashx?la=en
6. Eva KW, Regehr G. Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Acad Med 2005;80(10): S46-54.
7. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence - A systematic review. JAMA 2006;296(9):1094-102.
8. Atwater LE, Brett JF. Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360 degrees’ feedback. J Vocat Behav 2005; (66): 532-48.
9. Handfield-Jones RS, Mann KV, Challis ME, Hobma SO et al. Linking Assessment to Learning: A New Route to Quality Assurance in Medical Practice. Med Educ 2002;36(10):949-58.
10. Violato C, Lockyer JM, Fidler H. Assessment of Psychiatrists in Practice Through Multisource Feedback. Can J Psychiatry 2008;53(8):525-33.
11. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;22: 5-55.
12. Wright C, Richards SH, Hill JJ, Roberts MJ, Norman GR, Greco M, et al. Multisource feedback in evaluating the performance of doctors: the example of the UK General Medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires. Acad Med 2012;87(12):1668-78.
13. Hashmi A. Communication skills of overseas doctors and training implications for psychiatry. The Psychiatrist. 2009 Jul 1;33(7):275-8.
14. Bracken DW, Timmreck CW, Church AH, editors. The handbook of multisource feedback. John Wiley & Sons; 2001
15. Berk RA. Using the 360 degrees’ multisource feedback model to evaluate teaching and professionalism. Med Teach 2009;31(12):1073-80.
16. Qu B, Zhao Y, Sun BZ. Assessment of Resident Physicians in Professionalism, Interpersonal and Communication Skills: A Multisource Feedback. Int J Med Sci 2012;9(3):228-36.
17. Frank JR. The Can MEDS 2005 Physician Competency Framework: Better Standards, Better Physicians, Better Care 2005; Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. [Accessed August 23, 2016]. Available from URL: http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/canmeds/resources/publications/framework_full_e.pdf
18. Lockyer JM, Violato C, Fidler H. A multi-source feedback program for anaesthesiologists. Can J Anaesth 2006;53(1):33-9.
19. Archer JC, Norcini J, Davies HA. Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. BMJ 2005;330(7502):1251-3.
20. Overeem Karlijn, Wollersheim Hub, Arah Onyebuchi, Cruijsberg Juliette, Grol Richard, Lombarts Kiki MJMH. Evaluation of physicians' professional performance: An iterative development and validation study of multisource feedback instruments. BMC Health Serv Res 2012; 12: 80.
21. Kamal Z, Iqbal U, Akhlaq S, Adil A, Ramzan M. Does use of multi-source feedback (MSF) affect the attitudes of postgraduate trainees: experience of a teaching hospital. Pak Armed Forces Med J 2017;67(3):439-45.
22. Brinkman WB, Geraghty SR, Lanphear BP, Khoury JC, del Rey JA, DeWitt TG, et al. Effect of multisource feedback on resident communication skills and professionalism: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161(1):44-9.
23. Wilkinson JR, Crossley JG, Wragg A, Mills P, Cowan G, Wade W. Implementing workplace-based assessment across the medical specialties in the United Kingdom. Med Educ 2008;42(4):364–73.
24. Bullock AD, Hassell A, Markham WA, Wall DW, Whitehouse AB. How ratings vary by staff group in multisource feedback assessment of junior doctors. Med Educ 2009 Jun 1;43(6):516-20.
25. Bouras N, Ikkos G. Ideology, Psychiatric Practice and Professionalism. Psychiatrike 2013;24(1):17-26.
26. Sargeant J, Mann K, Ferrier S. Exploring family physicians’ reaction to MSF performance assessment: perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Med Educ 2005;39(5):497-504.
27. Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer J, Fidler H, Toews J, et al. Assessment of physician performance in Alberta: The Physician Achievement Review. Can Med Assoc J 1999; (161): 52-7.
28. Lockyer J. Multisource feedback in the assessment of physician competencies. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2003;23(1):2-10.
29. Ramsey PG, Wenrich MD, Carline JD, Inui TS, Larson EB, LoGerfro JP. Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. J Am Med Assoc 1993;(269):1655-60.
30. Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, Van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. Challenges in MultiSource Feedback: Intended and Unintended outcomes. Med Educ 2007;(41):583-91.
31. Tham K. 360 Degree Feedbacks for Emergency Physicians in Singapore. Emerg Med J 2007;24(8):574-5.
32. Bing-You RG, Paterson J. Feedback falling on deaf ears: residents’ receptivity to feedback tempered by sender credibility. Med Teach 1997;19(1):40-4.
33. Brett JF, Atwater LE. 360 Feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. J Appl Psychol 2001;86(5):930-42.
34. Campbell J, Wright C. GMC Multi-Source Feedback Questionnaires Interpreting and handling multisource feedback results: Guidance for appraisers GMC. 2012, [Accessed August 22, 2016]. Available from URL: http://www.gmc-uk.org/Information_for_appraisers.pdf_48212170.pdf