|
Intern culture, internal resistance: uptake of peer review in two Australian hospital internship programs
Cathy
Owen A,
Paul W.
Mathews A D,
Christine
Phillips A,
Wayne
Ramsey B,
Gerry
Corrigan A,
Mark
Bassett C and
Johannes
Wenzel B
A
Australian National University, ANU Medical School, Building 42a, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: cathy-owen@bigpond.com; christine.phillips@anu.edu.au; gerry.corrigan@anu.edu.au
B
Southern Health, Medical Services in Melbourne, 46 Clayton Road, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia. Email: wayne.ramsey@southernhealth.org.au; johannes.wenzel@hcn.net.au
C
ACT Health, Medical Appointments and Training Unit, Canberra Hospital, Building 6, Woden, ACT 2606, Australia. Email: mark.bassett@act.gov.au
D
Corresponding author. Email: pmathews2@hotmail.com
Australian Health Review
35(4)
430-435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AH10925
Submitted: 21 May 2010 Accepted: 31 January 2011 Published:
30
September
2011
|  |
|
|
Abstract
Objective.
To compare the uptake of peer review among interns in mandatory and voluntary peer-review programs. Population.
All first and second year graduates (n = 105) in two Australian hospitals. Main outcome measures.
Completion of peer review, and reported responses by doctors to peer review. Results.
Eight of sixty interns undertaking the mandated program completed all steps. In the voluntary program, none of 45 interns did so. Resistance to peer review occurred at all stages of the trial, from the initial briefing sessions to the provision of peer-review reports. Discussion.
Hospital internship is a critical period for the development of professional identity among doctors. We hypothesise that resistance to peer review among novice doctors reflects a complex tension between the processes underpinning the development of a group professional identity in hospital, and a managerial drive for personal reflection and accountability. Peer review may be found threatening by interns because it appears to run counter to collegiality or ‘team culture’. In this study, resistance to peer review represented a low-cost strategy in which the interns’ will could be asserted against management. Conclusion.
To enhance uptake, peer review should be structured as key to clinical development, and modelled as a professional behaviour by higher-status colleagues. What is known about this topic?
In non-clinical settings, peer review can lead to improvements in performance. Studies in the US and Canada have demonstrated that junior doctors in hospital have low rates of uptake of peer review. What does this paper add?
In Australia, junior doctors had low rates of engagement with both mandatory and voluntary peer review. Peer review may be resisted because it threatens to undermine the collegiate atmosphere among hospital peers. What are the implications for practice?
Peer review should be modelled as professional behaviour by higher-status colleagues, especially registrars and consultants, and presented as central to improvement in clinical skills.
|
References
[1]
Hall W, Violato C, Lewkonia R, Lockyer J, Fidler H, Toews J, Jennett P, Donoff M, Moores D.
Assessment of physician performance in Alberta.
CMAJ 1999
; 161: 52–7.
[2]
Epstein RM, Hundert EM.
Defining and assessing professional competence.
JAMA 2002
; 287: 226–35.
|
CrossRef |
[3]
Smither JW, London M, Flautt R, Vargas Y, Kucine I.
Can working with an executive coach improve multi-source feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study.
Person Psychol 2003
; 56: 23–44.
|
CrossRef |
[4]
Luthans F, Peterson SJ.
360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: empirical analysis suggests a winning combination.
Hum Resour Manage 2003
; 42: 243–56.
|
CrossRef |
[5]
Thach EC.
The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness.
Leadersh Organ Dev J 2002
; 23: 205–14.
|
CrossRef |
[6]
Beyer M, Gerlach FM, Flies U, Grol R, Król Z, Munck A, Olesen F, O’Riordan M, Seuntjens L, Szecsenyi J.
The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe: results of a survey in 26 European countries.
Fam Pract 2003
; 20: 443–51.
|
CrossRef |
[7]
Van Rosendaal GMA, Jennet PA.
Resistance to peer evaluation in an internal medicine residency.
Acad Med 1992
; 67: 63.
|
CrossRef |
[8]
Thomas PA, Gebo KA, Hellman DB.
A pilot study of peer review in residency training.
J Gen Intern Med 1999
; 14: 551–4.
|
CrossRef |
[9]
Mathews PW, Owen C, Ramsey W, Corrigan G, Bassett M, Wenzel J.
Assessment of a peer review process among interns at an Australian hospital.
Aust Health Rev 2010
; 34: 499–505.
|
CrossRef |
[10]
Tyson S, Ward P.
The use of 360 degree feedback technique in the evaluation of management development
Manag Learn 2004
; 35: 205–23.
|
CrossRef |
[11]
Shue CK, Arnold L, Stern DT.
Maximizing participation in peer assessment of professionalism: the students speak.
Acad Med 2005
; 80: S1–5.
[12]
Mizrahi T. Getting rid of patients: contradictions in the socialization of physicians. Chapel Hill, NC: Rutgers University Press; 1986.
[13]
Groopman LC.
Medical internship as moral education: an essay on the system of training physicians.
Cult Med Psychiatry 1987
; 11: 207–27.
|
CrossRef |
[14]
Rudy DW, Fejfar MC, Griffith CH, Wilson JF.
Self- and peer assessment in a first year communication and interviewing course.
Eval Health Prof 2001
; 24: 436–45.
[15]
Van Rosendaal GM, Jennett PA.
Comparing peer and faculty evaluations in an internal medicine residency.
Acad Med 1994
; 69: 299–303.
|
CrossRef |
[16]
Lepsinger R, Lucia AD.
360° feedback and performance appraisal
Training 1997
; 34: 62–70.
[17]
Owen C, Ramsey W.
Medical student peer review: making it work.
Clin Teach 2007
; 4: 31–5.
|
CrossRef |
[18]
Levy PE, Williams JR.
The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future.
J Manage 2004
; 30: 881–905.
|
CrossRef |
[19]
Scott JC. Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1985.
[20]
Hollander JA, Einwohner RL.
Conceptualising resistance.
Sociol Forum 2004
; 19: 533–54.
|
CrossRef |
e-Alerts
Connect with AHR
