PubMed · 9739676
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Garbett. Do the right thing.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9739676/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: To use the 360-degree assessment in the multidisciplinary setting of a rheumatology department and to evaluate its impact, recognizing that this process will become part of the revalidation process of NHS professionals in the future. METHODS: Seventeen team members completed an anonymous questionnaire to give confidential opinions about the clinical, humanistic and other skills of their colleagues. Results and comments were collated and given as feedback to each individual. Before feedback, participants were asked to predict their perceived strengths and weaknesses. After feedback they evaluated the process. RESULTS: A profile of abilities was established for each team member and discussed privately with the clinical director. Often team members had good insight into their perceived strengths and weaknesses. Some participants were hurt by negative comments made about them even if this was balanced by positive comments. There were mixed views on the relevance and usefulness of the process, and whether or not it should be repeated. Some team members found the process threatening. CONCLUSION: The 360-degree assessment can be used in a multidisciplinary setting, the questions being the same for all individuals. It is a very powerful tool that must be handled carefully so that it does not cause more harm than good.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the ability of consultant rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons to communicate well with patients and to determine the validity of a structured proforma used to assess medical students' communication skills. METHODS: Seventy new patient appointments with consultant rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons were assessed for communication skills exhibited by the consultants and patient satisfaction. Communication skills were assessed using a proforma previously used to examine medical students, and patient ratings were obtained using visual analogue scales. RESULTS: Median scores attained using the structured proforma for rheumatology, elective orthopaedic and fracture clinic consultations were 17, 15 and 14 out of 20 (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were high in all three domains measured. Scores were statistically significantly higher for rheumatology appointments than in fracture clinic (median scores 29.5, 29.5 and 28 out of 30). Consultation durations varied, with a median of 23 min for rheumatology and 10.5 and 4 min for orthopaedic surgeons in clinic and fracture clinic, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Consultant rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons demonstrate good communication skills, according to a tool used to assess medical students. These scores correlate with patient views, suggesting that teaching and assessment of communication skills at medical schools may address concerns of patients. Scores and satisfaction correlate with the duration of the consultation.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.