Myths and legends in workplace-based assessment; it’s all about perspective?

ABSTRACT

Based on internationally published literature and the experience of the project team, we understood that already established beliefs and perceptions could influence the implementation of new workplace-based assessment (WBA) tools and processes. At the start of a project to design new WBA tools, we, therefore, attempted to understand the perspectives and perceptions of our GP training community and inform the communication strategy for the project. Online and paper surveys were disseminated to GP trainers, trainees and programme directors. Data were extracted from SurveyMonkey, added to paper-based data in an Excel spreadsheet and analysed using descriptive statistics. While it was generally acknowledged that trainers provide regular feedback to trainees, perceptions of the quality of feedback varied between the groups. The majority of participants agreed that WBA would be of value in learning but expressed concerns over increased workload. There were also some misconceptions about the purpose of WBA, with trainees stating they understood WBAs to be valid and reliable as a single-event sign-off tool. Differences in trainer, trainee and programme director perceptions of the use and usefulness of WBA may be attributed to many factors, not least of all (lack of) experience, perspective and position.

KEYWORDS:

• Workplace-based assessment
• general practice
• postgraduate medical education

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Feedback-for-Learning Design Advisory Team for all their input and feedback on the survey design: Dr Eamonn Shanahan, Dr Brian McEllistrem, Dr Stephanie Dowling, Dr Mari Gleeson, Dr David Brennan, Dr Olivia Brennan, Dr Karen O’Reilly, Dr Ahmeda Ali and Dr Sylvia McKenna. The authors would also like to thank Ms Patricia Patton for her assistance with the online survey design and data management and Ms Martina McDonnell for her assistance and advice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Irish College of General Practitioners.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Doctors’ Training and Planning Unit of the Health Service Executive.