Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25885442›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Nurses' evaluation of physicians' non-clinical performance in emergency departments: advantages, disadvantages and lessons learned.

Mohamad Alameddine, Afif Mufarrij, Miriam Saliba, Yara Mourad, Rima Jabbour, Eveline Hitti

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohamad AlameddineFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut (AUB), Riad El-Solh, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. ma164@aub.edu.lb.
Afif MufarrijDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC), Riad El-Solh, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. am66@aub.edu.lb.
Miriam SalibaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC), Riad El-Solh, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. ms206@aub.edu.lb.
Yara MouradFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut (AUB), Riad El-Solh, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. yam03@aub.edu.lb.
Rima JabbourNursing Administration, Department of Emergency Medicine, AUBMC, Riad El-Solh, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. rj10@aub.edu.lb.
Eveline HittiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC), Riad El-Solh, 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. eh16@aub.edu.lb.
American University of Beirut Medical Center · LBAmerican University of Beirut · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer evaluation is increasingly used as a method to assess physicians' interpersonal and communication skills. We report on experience with soliciting registered nurses' feedback on physicians' non-clinical performance in the ED of a large academic medical center in Lebanon.

methodsWe utilized a secondary analysis of a de-identified database of ED nurses' assessment of physicians' non-clinical performance coupled with an evaluation of interventions carried out as a result of this evaluation. The database was compiled as part of quality/performance improvement initiatives using a cross-sectional design to survey registered nurses working at the ED. The survey instrument included open ended and closed ended questions assessing physicians' communication, professionalism and leadership skills. Three episodes of evaluation were carried out over an 18 month period. Physicians were provided with a communication training carried out after the first cycle of evaluation and a detailed feedback on their assessment by nurses after each evaluation cycle. A paired t-test was carried out to compare mean evaluation scores between the three cycles of evaluation. Thematic analysis of nurses' qualitative comments was carried out.

resultsA statistically significant increase in the averages of skills was observed between the first and second evaluations, followed by a significant decrease in the averages of the three skills between the second and third evaluations. Personalized feedback to ED physicians and communication training initially contributed to a significant positive impact on improving ED physicians' non-clinical skills as perceived by the ED nurses. Yet, gains achieved were lost upon reaching the third cycle of evaluation. However, the thematic analysis of the nurses' qualitative responses portrays a decrease in concerns across the various dimensions of non-clinical performance.

conclusionsNurses' evaluation of the non-clinical performance of physicians has the potential of improving communication, professionalism and leadership skills amongst physicians. For improvement to be realized in a sustainable manner, such programs may need to be offered in a staged and incremental manner over a long period of time with proper dedication of resources and timely monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. Department directors need to be trained on providing peer evaluation feedback in a constructive manner.

Indexed as

CommunicationLeadershipPhysician's RoleProfessional CompetenceAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansLebanonMaleMiddle AgedNursesPhysiciansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25885442
PMCPMC4348160
OpenAlexW2050327912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.