Year 2021, Volume 8 , Issue 2, Pages 134 - 143 2021-07-14

Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme
360° Assessment in Clinical Training of Nursing and Medical Students: A Scoping Review

Çiğdem BAYZAT [1] , Şenay SARMASOĞLU KILIKÇIER [2]


Amaç: Bu çalışma, hemşirelik ve tıp alanında eğitim gören öğrencilerin klinik öğretiminde 360° değerlendirmenin kullanımını kapsamlı bir şekilde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Hemşirelik ve tıp alanında eğitim gören öğrencilerin klinik öğretiminin 360° değerlendirildiği çalışmaları incelemek amacıyla Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, Complementary Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, ScienceDirect, Journals@OVID, Scopus®, ERIC ve ULAKBİM veri tabanlarında tarama yapılmıştır. 1999-2019 yılları arasında İngilizce ve Türkçe olarak yayımlanmış makaleler için belirlenen anahtar kelimeler ile yapılan tarama sonucunda 1110 çalışma bulunmuştur. Belirlenen kriterleri karşılayan 23 çalışma kapsamlı olarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular: İncelenen çalışmaların yedisi (%30.4) son beş yıla aittir. Çalışmaların on ikisi (%52.1) tanımlayıcı araştırma desenine sahip olup; yirmi biri (%91.2) tıp eğitimi alanında gerçekleştirilmiştir. 360° değerlendirme ile en sık iletişim becerileri (%65.2) değerlendirilmiş ve yirmi iki çalışmada (%95.6) hemşireler değerlendirici olarak yer almıştır. Sonuç: Çalışmaların çoğunun tanımlayıcı özellikte ve asistan hekimlerin değerlendirilmesine yöneliktir. Çalışmaların tamamına yakınında hemşireler değerlendirici olarak yer almıştır. 360° değerlendirme çoğunlukla klinik öğretimde teknik olmayan becerilerin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılmıştır.
Aim: This study aims to comprehensively examine the use of 360° assessment in clinical training of nursing and medical students. Material and Methods: In order to examine the studies in which the clinical training of nursing and medical students was assessed 360°, Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, Complementary Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, ScienceDirect, Journals@OVID, Scopus®, ERIC, and ULAKBIM databases were searched. As a result of the search made with the keywords determined for the articles published in English and Turkish between 1999-2019, 1110 studies were found. Twenty-three studies meeting the study criteria were examined. Results: Seven of the studies reviewed (%30.4) belong to the last five years. Twelve of the studies (%52.1) have a descriptive research design; twenty-one of them (%91.2) were carried out in the field of medical education. It was determined that communication skills (%65.2) were assessed most with 360° assessment, and nurses took part as assessors in twenty-two studies (%95.6). Conclusion: Most of the studies are descriptive and directed to the assessment of residents. Nurses took part as assessors in almost all of the studies. The 360 ° assessment has mostly been used for the evaluation of non-technical skills in clinical training.
  • Bayar K, Çadır G, Bayar B. Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin klinik uygulamaya yönelik düşünce ve kaygı düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. TAF Prev Med Bull. 2009;8(1):37-42.
  • Cowan DT, Norman I, Coopamah VP. Competence in nursing practice: A controversial concept – A focused review of literature. Nurse Education Today. 2005;25(5):355-62.
  • Karaöz S. Hemşirelik eğitiminde klinik değerlendirmeye genel bakış: Güçlükler ve öneriler. DEÜHYO ED. 2013;6(3):149-58.
  • Gaberson BK, Oermann HM, Shellenbarger T. Clinical teaching strategies in nursing. 4th ed. The USA: Singer Publishing Company, LLC; 2015.
  • O'connor AB. Evaluation strategies for laboratory and clinical practice settings. Clinical Instruction and Evaluation. 3rd ed. The USA: Jones&Barlett Learning; 2015:315-43.
  • Tornow WW. Perceptions or reality: Is multi‐perspective measurement a means or an end? Human Resource Management. 1993;32(2‐3):221-9.
  • Woods SK. Interpersonel and communication skills. In: Schwartz A, editor. Assessment in Graduate Medical Education: A Primer for Pediatric Program Directors. Chapel Hill, NC: American Board of Pediatrics; 2011:87-96.
  • Musick DW, McDowell SM, Clark N, Salcido R. Pilot study of a 360-degree assessment instrument for physical medicine & rehabilitation residency programs. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82(5):394-402.
  • Al Khalifa K, Al Ansari A, Violato C, Donnon T. Multisource feedback to assess surgical practice: A systematic review. Journal of Surgical Education. 2013;70(4):475-86.
  • Baines R, de Bere SR, Stevens S, Read J, Marshall M, Lalani M, et al. The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: A systematic review. BMC Medical Education. 2018;18:173.
  • Ferguson J, Wakeling J, Bowie P. Factors influencing the effectiveness of multisource feedback in improving the professional practice of medical doctors: A systematic review. BMC Medical Education. 2014;14:76.
  • Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-73.
  • Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018: User guide2018.
  • Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2012;49(1):47-53.
  • Allerup P, Aspegren K, Ejlersen E, Jorgensen G, Malchow-Moller A, Moller MK, et al. Use of 360-degree assessment of residents in internal medicine in a Danish setting: A feasibility study. Med Teach. 2007;29:166-70.
  • Brinkman WB, Geraghty SR, Lanphear BP, Khoury JC, del Rey JAG, DeWitt TG, et al. Effect of multisource feedback on resident communication skills and professionalism: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:44-9.
  • Brown JM, Lowe K, Fillingham J, Murphy PN, Bamforth M, Shaw NJ. An investigation into the use of multi-source feedback (MSF) as a work-based assessment tool. Medical Teacher. 2014;36(11):997-1004.
  • Bullock AD, Hassell A, Markham WA, Wall DW, Whitehouse AB. How ratings vary by staff group in multi‐source feedback assessment of junior doctors. Medical Education. 2009;43(6):516-20.
  • Chandler N, Henderson G, Park B, Byerley J, Brown WD, Steiner MJ. Use of a 360-degree evaluation in the outpatient setting: The usefulness of nurse, faculty, patient/family, and resident self-evaluation. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2010;2(3):430-4.
  • Hemalatha R, Shakuntala BS. Using multiple assessors to evaluate core competencies of nursing students: A 360 evaluation approach. NUJHS. 2013;3(3):13-7.
  • Jani H, Narmawala W, Ganjawale J. Evaluation of competencies related to personal attributes of resident doctors by 360 degree. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2017;11(6):9-11.
  • Kamal Z, Iqbal U, Akhlaq S, Adil A, Ramzan M. Does use of multi-source feedback (MSF) affect the attitudes of postgraduate trainees: Experience of a teaching hospital. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2017;67(3):439-45.
  • Lipsett PA, Harris I, Downing S. Resident self-other assessor agreement: influence of assessor, competency, and performance level. Archives of Surgery. 2011;146(8):901-6.
  • Ogunyemi D, Gonzalez G, Fong A, Alexander C, Finke D, Donnon T, et al. From the eye of the nurses: 360‐degree evaluation of residents. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2009;29(2):105-10.
  • Osorio SN, Ward MJ, Siew L, Bylund C, Konopasek L. Assessment of pediatric residents’ communication and interpersonal skills during family-centered rounds. Hospital Pediatrics. 2012;2(2):85-92.
  • Pollock RA, Donnelly MB, Plymale MA, Stewart DH, Vasconez HC. 360-degree evaluations of plastic surgery resident Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies: Experience using a short form. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2008 122(2):639-49.
  • Sadeghi T, Loripoor M. Usefulness of 360 degree evaluation in evaluating nursing students in Iran. Korean J Med Educ. 2016;28(2):195-200.
  • Sharma N, Cui Y, Leighton JP, White JS. Team-based assessment of medical students in a clinical clerkship is feasible and acceptable. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(7):555-61.
  • Stark R, Korenstein D, Karani R. Impact of a 360-degree professionalism assessment on faculty comfort and skills in feedback delivery. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(7):969-72.
  • Strachan K, Otoom S, Al-Gallaf A, Al Ansari A. Selecting graduates for the interns' award by using multisource feedback process: Does it work? BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:527.
  • Tariq M, Boulet J, Motiwala A, Sajjad N, Ali SK. A 360-degree evaluation of the communication and interpersonal skills of medicine resident physicians in Pakistan. Education for Health. 2014;27(3):269.
  • Tiao MM, Huang LT, Huang YH, Tang KS, Chen CJ. Multisource feedback analysis of pediatric outpatient teaching. BMC Medical Education. 2013;13:145.
  • Warm EJ, Schauer D, Revis B, Boex JR. Multisource feedback in the ambulatory setting. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 2010;2(2):269-77.
  • Weigelt JA, Brasel KJ, Bragg D, Simpson D. The 360-degree evaluation: increased work with little return? Current Surgery. 2004;61(6):616-26.
  • White JS, Sharma N. “Who writes what?” Using written comments in team-based assessment to better understand medical student performance: A mixed-methods study. BMC Medical Education. 2012;12:123.
  • Whitehouse A, Hassell A, Bullock A, Wood L, Wall D. 360 degree assessment (multisource feedback) of UK trainee doctors: Field testing of team assessment of behaviours (TAB). Medical Teacher. 2007;29:171-6.
  • Yazdankhah A, Norooz MT, Amoli HA, Aminian A, Khorgami Z, Khashayar P, et al. Using 360-degree multi-source feedback to evaluate professionalism in surgery departments: An Iranian perspective. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015;29:284:1-7.
  • Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125-7.
  • ACGME. ACGME Competencies: Suggested Best Methods for Evaluation [Internet] 2000 [Erişim Tarihi 05 Temmuz 2020] Erişim adresi: https://www.partners.org/Assets/Documents/Graduate-Medical-Education/ToolTable.pdf.
  • HEPDAK. Öz değerlendirme Raporu Hazırlama Kılavuzu [Internet] 2019 [Erişim Tarihi 16 Temmuz 2020] Erişim adresi: https://www.hepdak.org.tr/doc/b4_v5.pdf.
  • TEPDAD. Mezuniyet öncesi tıp eğitimi programı öz değerlendirme rapor hazırlama kılavuzu [Internet] 2020 [Erişim Tarihi 16 Temmuz 2020] Erişim Adresi: http://tepdad.org.tr/uploads/files/2020/%C3%96DR%20HAZIRLAMA%20KILAVUZU-S5-2020.pdf.
  • HUÇEP. Hemşirelik Ulusal Çekirdek Eğitim Programı [Internet] 2014 [Erişim Tarihi 05 Temmuz 2020] Erişim adresi: http://www.hemed.org.tr/images/stories/hucep-2014-pdf.
  • Hanrahan SJ, Isaacs G. Assessing self-and peer-assessment: The students' views. Higher Education Research & Development. 2001;20(1):53-70.
  • Topping KJ. Peer assessment. Theory into Practice,. 2009;48(1):20-7.
  • Flin RH, O'Connor P, Crichton M. Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2008.
  • Yule S, Paterson-Brown S. Surgeons’ non-technical skills. Surgical Clinics. 2012;92(1):37-50.
  • Flin R, Maran N. Basic concepts for crew resource management and non-technical skills. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2015;29(1):27-39.
  • Gordon M, Farnan J, Grafton-Clarke C, Ahmed R, Gurbutt D, McLachlan J, et al. Non-technical skills assessments in undergraduate medical education: A focused BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 54. Med Teach. 2019;41(7):732-45.
  • Lockyer J. Multi-source feedback (360-degree evaluation). In: Bandiera G, Sherbino J, Frank JR, editors. The CanMEDS Assessment Tools Handbook: An Introductory Guide to Assessment Methods for the CanMEDS Competencies. 1st ed. Ottowa2006. p. 29-31.
  • Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Eng J Med. 2007;356(4):387-96.
  • Güler N. Ölçme araçlarında bulunması gereken nitelikler. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme 13th ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2019:34-60.
  • Turgut MF, Baykul Y. Ölçme araç veya yöntemlerinde istendik özellikler. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme 5th ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi 2013:119-42.
Primary Language tr
Subjects Health Care Sciences and Services
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0003-3395-2043
Author: Çiğdem BAYZAT (Primary Author)
Institution: HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HEMŞİRELİK FAKÜLTESİ
Country: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0001-9220-5959
Author: Şenay SARMASOĞLU KILIKÇIER
Institution: HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, HEMŞİRELİK FAKÜLTESİ
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : July 14, 2021

Bibtex @research article { hunhemsire966317, journal = {Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi}, issn = {2148-3590}, eissn = {2149-2956}, address = {}, publisher = {Hacettepe University}, year = {2021}, volume = {8}, pages = {134 - 143}, doi = {10.31125/hunhemsire.966317}, title = {Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme}, key = {cite}, author = {Bayzat, Çiğdem and Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer, Şenay} }
APA Bayzat, Ç , Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer, Ş . (2021). Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme . Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi , 8 (2) , 134-143 . DOI: 10.31125/hunhemsire.966317
MLA Bayzat, Ç , Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer, Ş . "Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme" . Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi 8 (2021 ): 134-143 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hunhemsire/issue/64103/966317>
Chicago Bayzat, Ç , Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer, Ş . "Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme". Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi 8 (2021 ): 134-143
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme AU - Çiğdem Bayzat , Şenay Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer Y1 - 2021 PY - 2021 N1 - doi: 10.31125/hunhemsire.966317 DO - 10.31125/hunhemsire.966317 T2 - Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 134 EP - 143 VL - 8 IS - 2 SN - 2148-3590-2149-2956 M3 - doi: 10.31125/hunhemsire.966317 UR - https://doi.org/10.31125/hunhemsire.966317 Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme %A Çiğdem Bayzat , Şenay Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer %T Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme %D 2021 %J Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi %P 2148-3590-2149-2956 %V 8 %N 2 %R doi: 10.31125/hunhemsire.966317 %U 10.31125/hunhemsire.966317
ISNAD Bayzat, Çiğdem , Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer, Şenay . "Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme". Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi 8 / 2 (July 2021): 134-143 . https://doi.org/10.31125/hunhemsire.966317
AMA Bayzat Ç , Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer Ş . Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021; 8(2): 134-143.
Vancouver Bayzat Ç , Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer Ş . Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021; 8(2): 134-143.
IEEE Ç. Bayzat and Ş. Sarmasoğlu Kılıkçıer , "Hemşirelik ve Tıp Öğrencilerinin Klinik Öğretiminde 360° Değerlendirme: Kapsam Odaklı İnceleme", Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 134-143, Jul. 2021, doi:10.31125/hunhemsire.966317