Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorArcher JC,
dc.contributor.authorNorcini J,
dc.contributor.authorDavies HA,
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-19T15:25:46Z
dc.date.available2016-11-19T15:25:46Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.issn0959-8138
dc.identifier.issn1468-5833
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/6766
dc.descriptionMay 28, 2005 Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training
dc.description.abstract

Objective To determine whether a multisource feedback questionnaire, SPRAT (Sheffield peer review assessment tool), is a feasible and reliable assessment method to inform the record of in-training assessment for paediatric senior house officers and specialist registrars. Design Trainees' clinical performance was evaluated using SPRAT sent to clinical colleagues of their choosing. Responses were analysed to determine variables that affected ratings and their measurement characteristics. Setting Three tertiary hospitals and five secondary hospitals across a UK deanery. Participants 112 paediatric senior house officers and middle grades. Main outcome measures 95% confidence intervals for mean ratings; linear and hierarchical regression to explore potential biasing factors; time needed for the process per doctor. Results 20 middle grades and 92 senior house officers were assessed using SPRAT to inform their record of in-training assessment; 921/1120 (82%) of their proposed raters completed a SPRAT form. As a group, specialist registrars (mean 5.22, SD 0.34) scored significantly higher (t = - 4.765) than did senior house officers (mean 4.81, SD 0.35) (P < 0.001). The grade of the doctor accounted for 7.6% of the variation in the mean ratings. The hierarchical regression showed that only 3.4% of the variation in the means could be additionally attributed to three main factors (occupation of rater, length of working relationship, and environment in which the relationship took place) when the doctor's grade was controlled for (significant F change < 0.001). 93 (83%) of the doctors in this study would have needed only four raters to achieve a reliable score if the intent was to determine if they were satisfactory. The mean time taken to complete the questionnaire by a rater was six minutes. Just over an hour of administrative time is needed for each doctor. Conclusions SPRAT seems to be a valid way of assessing large numbers of doctors to support quality assurance procedures for training programmes. The feedback from SPRAT can also be used to inform personal development planning and focus quality improvements.

dc.format.extent1251-1253
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBMJ
dc.subjectChild
dc.subjectEducation, Medical, Graduate
dc.subjectFeasibility Studies
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectMedical Staff, Hospital
dc.subjectPediatrics
dc.subjectPeer Review, Health Care
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnaires
dc.titleUse of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJOUR
plymouth.author-urlhttp://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/330/7502/1251
plymouth.issue7502
plymouth.volume330
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBMJ
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmj.38447.610451.8f
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dc.identifier.eissn1468-5833
dc.rights.embargoperiodNo embargo
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1136/bmj.38447.610451.8f
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
plymouth.oa-locationhttp://www.bmj.com/content/early/2004/12/31/bmj.38447.610451.8F


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV