Healthcare organizations have a unique set of challenges, particularly when it comes to measuring performance and understanding development needs. Some are strong at measuring clinical or functional skills. Yet few are equally adept at assessing the non-clinical skills that are so important to overall success in a healthcare organization. 360-degree feedback can play a significant role in understanding the other side of performance, those skills that are not directly tied to day-to-day, job specific ability. Rather than relying on the perceptions of one individual, 360-degree feedback takes into account multiple perspectives. This is especially important when one person (i.e., the employee’s manager) does not have the opportunity to observe all areas of the employee’s performance. Those working alongside the employee, along with the supervisor, are generally able to provide a more comprehensive look at the employee’s behavior and/or performance.
360-Degree Performance Reviews Provide Greater Feedback in Healthcare I. Introduction
Performance of individual employees is central to the long-term success of an organization. Healthcare organizations have a unique set of challenges, particularly when it comes to measuring performance and understanding development needs. Some are strong at measuring clinical or functional skills. Yet few are equally adept at assessing the non-clinical skills that are so important to overall success in a healthcare organization. Clinical, or functional, ability is at the base of healthcare performance. However, possessing these skills does not always ensure success. Unfortunately, many organizations ignore “soft side” skills like communication and relationship management, viewing these interpersonal and behavioral skills as “nice to have” qualities. Yet lack of interpersonal performance is something that generally cannot be compensated for by even the strongest of clinical skills (Maylett, 2009). II. Expectations of the Consumer
Issues of performance and productivity are continuously being scrutinized by the leaders of healthcare organizations. Although cost is currently the driving force for health care system reform, there is still great concern for the quality of the health care provided. Consumers of healthcare services are now asking “How can I get the best care for the least amount of money?” This means that for an organization to gain competitive advantage, they must make sure that not only is the quality of care high, but the cost must also be reasonable when compared to other providers of similar services. Equally important for the healthcare organization to recognize is that the definition of quality performance is not “value-neutral”. Standards are continuously evolving to reflect changes in values, new scientific findings, new technology, changes in regulatory requirements and laws and changes in the healthcare market place. The changes in these standards reflect the differences between the purchaser and the patient. The healthcare purchaser is concerned how effectively their dollars are spent and getting the most care for their money, while the patient expects the healthcare provider to be responsive to their individual needs (Popovich, 1998). Currently, the Joint Commission requires accredited healthcare organizations to assess, track and improve the competence of all employees (Fried & Fottler, 2008). In addition, the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Awards best business practices includes a model that is being increasingly followed by the healthcare industry that addresses key human resource practices directed toward creating a high performance workplace and toward developing staff by performance management systems (Kuzmits, Adams, Sussman & Rabo, 2004). As cost stabilizes and becomes more aligned across providers, quality will become more important in deciding which organization or provider to use....
Bibliography: Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario. (2009). 360-Degree Physician Performance Review Toolkit. Ontario, Canada.
Fedor, D., Bettenhausen, K., & Davis, W. (1999). Peer reviews: Employees ' dual roles as raters and recipients. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 92-120. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 39161423).
Fried, B & Fottler, M. (2008). Human Resources in Healthcare: Managing for Success. (3rd ed.) Chicago, IL. Health Administration Press.
Gallagher, T. (2008). 360-Degree Performance Reviews Offer Valuable Perspectives. Financial Executive, 24(10), 61. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Harrison, R (1978). Performance Evaluation in a Medical Environment. Medical Group Management, Sept./Oct. 1978, 22-23. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Jackson, J., & Greller, M. (1998). Decision Elements for Using 360° Feedback. Human Resource Planning, 21(4), 18-28. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Kuzmits, F., Adams, A., Sussman, L., & Raho, L. (2004). 360-feedback in health care management: a field study. Health Care Manager, 23(4), 321-328. Retrieved from CINAHL with Full Text database.
Lockyer, J. (2003). Multisource feedback in the assessment of physician competencies. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23(1), 4-12. Retrieved from CINAHL with Full Text database.
Maylett, T. (2009). Healthcare Leadership Looking Beyond the Clinical Side of Performance. DecisionWise Leadership Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.decwise.com.
Rynes, S., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY: Performance Evaluation and Pay for Performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 571-600. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070254.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document