Premium
Multisource feedback to graduate nurses: a multimethod study
Author(s) -
McPhee Samantha,
Phillips Nicole M,
Ockerby Cherene,
Hutchinson Alison M
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of clinical nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1365-2702
pISSN - 0962-1067
DOI - 10.1111/jocn.13710
Subject(s) - preceptor , context (archaeology) , perception , peer feedback , medical education , psychology , performance appraisal , nursing , medicine , paleontology , management , neuroscience , economics , biology
Aims and objectives (1) To explore graduate nurses’ perceptions of the influence of multisource feedback on their performance and (2) to explore perceptions of Clinical Nurse Educators involved in providing feedback regarding feasibility and benefit of the approach. Background Graduate registered nurses are expected to provide high‐quality care for patients in demanding and unpredictable clinical environments. Receiving feedback is essential to their development. Performance appraisals are a common method used to provide feedback and typically involve a single source of feedback. Alternatively, multisource feedback allows the learner to gain insight into performance from a variety of perspectives. This study explores multisource feedback in an Australian setting within the graduate nurse context. Design Multimethod study. Methods Eleven graduates were given structured performance feedback from four raters: Nurse Unit Manager, Clinical Nurse Educator, preceptor and a self‐appraisal. Thirteen graduates received standard single‐rater appraisals. Data regarding perceptions of feedback for both groups were obtained using a questionnaire. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurses who received multisource feedback and the educators. Results In total, 94% (n = 15) of survey respondents perceived feedback was important during the graduate year. Four themes emerged from interviews: informal feedback, appropriateness of raters, elements of delivery and creating an appraisal process that is ‘more real’. Multisource feedback was perceived as more beneficial compared to single‐rater feedback. Educators saw value in multisource feedback; however, perceived barriers were engaging raters and collating feedback. Conclusions Some evidence exists to indicate that feedback from multiple sources is valued by graduates. Further research in a larger sample and with more experienced nurses is required. Relevance to clinical practice Evidence resulting from this study indicates that multisource feedback is valued by both graduates and educators and informs graduates’ development and transition into the role. Thus, a multisource approach to feedback for graduate nurses should be considered.