Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0490-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
In postgraduate medical education, group decision-making has emerged as an essential tool to evaluate the clinical progress of residents. Clinical competency committees (CCCs) have been set up to ensure informed decision-making and provide feedback regarding performance of residents. Despite this important task, it remains unclear how CCCs actually function in practice and how their performance should be evaluated.
In the prototyping phase of a design-based approach, a CCC meeting was developed, using three theoretical design principles: (1) data from multiple assessment tools and multiple perspectives, (2) a shared mental model and (3) structured discussions. The meetings were held in a university children’s hospital and evaluated using observations, interviews with CCC members and an open-ended questionnaire among residents.
The structured discussions during the meetings provided a broad outline of resident performance, including identification of problematic and excellent residents. A shared mental model about the assessment criteria had developed over time. Residents were not always satisfied with the feedback they received after the meeting. Feedback that had been provided to a resident after the first CCC meeting was not addressed in the second meeting.
The principles that were used to design the CCC meeting were feasible in practice. Structured discussions, based on data from multiple assessment tools and multiple perspectives, provided a broad outline of resident performance. Residency programs that wish to implement CCCs can build on our design principles and adjust the prototype to their particular context. When running a CCC, it is important to consider feedback that has been provided to a resident after the previous meeting and to evaluate whether it has improved the resident’s performance.
Gemke R, Brand P, Semmekrot B, et al. Toekomstbestendige Opleiding Pediatrie: TOP 2020. 2017. https://www.nvk.nl/Opleiding/Opleiding-tot-algemeen-kinderarts/TOP-2020. Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
Andolsek K, Padmore J, Hauer KE, Holmboe E. Clinical competency committees. A guidebook for programs. Chicago: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; 2015.
Michaelsen LK, Watson WE, Black RH. A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. J Appl Psychol. 1989;74:834. CrossRef
Hauer KE, ten Cate O, Boscardin CK, et al. Ensuring resident competence: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making to inform the work of clinical competency committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:156–64. CrossRef
Hemmer PA, Hawkins R, Jackson JL, Pangaro LN. Assessing how well three evaluation methods detect deficiencies in medical students’ professionalism in two settings of an internal medicine clerkship. Acad Med. 2000;75:167–73. CrossRef
Thomas MR, Beckman TJ, Mauck KF, Cha SS, Thomas KG. Group assessments of resident physicians improve reliability and decrease halo error. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:759–64. CrossRef
Schwind CJ, Williams RG, Boehler ML, Dunnington GL. Do individual attendings’ post-rotation performance ratings detect residents’ clinical performance deficiencies? Acad Med. 2004;79:453–7. CrossRef
Hill GW. Group versus individual performance: are N+ 1 heads better than one? Psychol Bull. 1982;91:517. CrossRef
Hauer KE, Chesluk B, Iobst W, et al. Reviewing residents’ competence: a qualitative study of the role of clinical competency committees in performance assessment. Acad Med. 2015;90:1084–92. CrossRef
Promes SB, Wagner MJ. Starting a clinical competency committee. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6:163–4. CrossRef
Doty CI, Roppolo LP, Asher S, et al. How do emergency medicine residency programs structure their clinical competency committees? A survey. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22:1351–4. CrossRef
Ketteler ER, Auyang ED, Beard KE, et al. Competency champions in the clinical competency committee: a successful strategy to implement milestone evaluations and competency coaching. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:36–8. CrossRef
French JC, Dannefer EF, Colbert CY. A systematic approach toward building a fully operational clinical competency committee. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:e22–e7. CrossRef
Donato AA, Alweis R, Wenderoth S. Design of a clinical competency committee to maximize formative feedback. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2016;6:33533. CrossRef
Chahine S, Cristancho S, Padgett J, Lingard L. How do small groups make decisions? Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6:192–8. CrossRef
Dickey CC, Thomas C, Feroze U, Nakshabandi F, Cannon B. Cognitive demands and bias: challenges facing clinical competency committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9:162–4. CrossRef
Badley G. The crisis in educational research: a pragmatic approach. Eur Edu Res J. 2003;2:296–308. CrossRef
Dolmans DH, Tigelaar D. Building bridges between theory and practice in medical education using a design-based research approach: AMEE Guide No. 60. Med Teach. 2012;34:1–10. CrossRef
Hodges B. Assessment in the post-psychometric era: learning to love the subjective and collective. Med Teach. 2013;35:564–8. CrossRef
Laughlin PR, Adamopoulos J. Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;38:941. CrossRef
Surowiecki J, Silverman MP. The wisdom of crowds. Am J Phys. 2007;75:190–2. CrossRef
Eva KW, Hodges BD. Scylla or Charybdis? Can we navigate between objectification and judgement in assessment? Med Educ. 2012;46:914–9. CrossRef
Lu L, Yuan YC, McLeod PL. Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: a meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2012;16:54–75. CrossRef
Janis IL. Groupthink. Psychol Today. 1971;5:43–6.
Jonker CM, Van Riemsdijk MB, Vermeulen B. Shared mental models. In: De Vos M, Fornara N, Pit JV, Vouros G, editors. Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VI. Coin 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6541. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. pp. 132–51. CrossRef
Schultze T, Mojzisch A, Schulz-Hardt S. Why groups perform better than individuals at quantitative judgment tasks: group-to-individual transfer as an alternative to differential weighting. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012;118:24–36. CrossRef
Chernyshenko OS, Miner AG, Baumann MR, Sniezek JA. The impact of information distribution, ownership, and discussion on group member judgment: the differential cue weighting model. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2003;91:12–25. CrossRef
Stasser G, Titus W. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;48:1467. CrossRef
Greenhalgh L, Chapman DI. Negotiator relationships: construct measurement, and demonstration of their impact on the process and outcomes of negotiation. Group Decis Negot. 1998;7:465–89. CrossRef
Schittekatte M, Van Hiel A. Effects of partially shared information and awareness of unshared information on information sampling. Small Group Res. 1996;27:431–49. CrossRef
Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94:534–46. CrossRef
Webster M Jr, Rashotte LS. Behavior, expectations and status. Soc Forces. 2010;88:1021–49. CrossRef
Kameda T, Sugimori S. Psychological entrapment in group decision making: an assigned decision rule and a groupthink phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65:282. CrossRef
Stasson MF, Kameda T, Davis JH. A model of agenda influences on group decisions. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract. 1997;1:316. CrossRef
Waller BM, Hope L, Burrowes N, Morrison ER. Twelve (not so) angry men: managing conversational group size increases perceived contribution by decision makers. Group Process Intergr Relat. 2011;14:835–43. CrossRef
Laughlin PR, Hatch EC, Silver JS, Boh L. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90:644. CrossRef
Karotkin D, Paroush J. Optimum committee size: quality-versus-quantity dilemma. Soc Choice Welfare. 2003;20:429–41. CrossRef
Kerr NL, Tindale RS. Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:623–55. CrossRef
Hsieh H‑F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88. CrossRef
Bengtsson M. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nurs Plus Open. 2016;2:8–14. CrossRef
Stasser G, Titus W. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;53:81. CrossRef
Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38:698–712. CrossRef
Boud D. Feedback: ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning. Clin Teach. 2015;12:3–7. CrossRef
Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ. 2008;337:a1961. CrossRef
Sargeant JM, Mann KV, Van der Vleuten CP, Metsemakers JF. Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:399–410. CrossRef
Bonnefon J‑F, Feeney A, De Neys W. The risk of polite misunderstandings. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20:321–4. CrossRef
Helmreich RL. Managing human error in aviation. Sci Am. 1997;276:62–7. CrossRef
Marks MA, Zaccaro SJ, Mathieu JE. Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85:971. CrossRef
- Design and evaluation of a clinical competency committee
Marrigje E. Duitsman
Cornelia R. M. G. Fluit
Janiëlle A. E. M. van Alfen-van der Velden
Marieke de Visser
Marianne ten Kate-Booij
Diana H. J. M. Dolmans
Debbie A. D. C. Jaarsma
Jacqueline de Graaf
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum