PurposeThe purpose of this article is to provide a more complete perspective regarding the “best practices” for performance appraisals of “distant” employees in global organizations.Design/methodology/approachA range of published works (1998‐2009) on multinational corporations and performance appraisals was reviewed. The literature was used to determine human resource challenges associated with globalization as well as the types of performance appraisals, common pitfalls and elements for improvement of appraisal systems. Concepts were then combined to determine the “best practices” for performance appraisal in a global setting. Finally, a small questionnaire consisting of six questions was constructed and sent to managers in two companies in the health care industry meeting the criteria of having “distant” employees. The questions were open‐ended in order to allow for a variety of responses enabling the researchers to view trends and make comparisons with the literature.FindingsAdequate training must be provided to both the appraiser and the appraisee in order to avoid the many rating errors that are common in performance appraisal. Training should include cultural, legal and customer differences by country providing managers with the tools to improve on the process. Managers must also be given the opportunity to build the required relationship with these employees.Research limitations/implicationsA questionnaire was sent to several key managers in two complex pharmaceutical firms meeting the criteria with responses received. Further empirical research on the best practices of performance appraisal for distant employees in global organizations should be pursued.Practical implicationsThis article provides a source of information on what practices are followed in order to support the performance appraisal of “distant” employees in different parts of the world.Originality/valueThere is limited literature dealing with “distant” employee performance appraisal in global organizations and this article attempts to fill this gap.

Background: The use of a standardized triage tool allows better comparison of the patients; a computerized version could theoretically improve its reliability.

Objectives: Studies have suggested that poor knowledge of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) limits its clinical impact. This study evaluated the ability of a mnemonic to improve knowledge of the OAR.Methods: This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial performed among residents and medical students doing a pediatric emergency medicine rotation. At baseline, all participants were tested for their baseline knowledge of the OAR. The intervention was a standardized information sheet providing a mnemonic of the OAR (44-55-66-PM), while control subjects received its classic description. Block randomization (medical student vs. type of resident) was used. Each participant answered the same questionnaire at the end of rotation (3 weeks later) and via a Web-based survey 5 to 9 months postrandomization. Main outcome measures were knowledge of the components of the ankle rule based on a 13-item criterion grid and the foot rule based on a 10-item criterion grid. All questionnaires were marked at the end of the study by two reviewers blinded to the randomization. Discrepancies in final scores were resolved by consensus. Student's t-test was performed to compare mean scores on the evaluation between groups using an intention-to-treat approach.Results: Among the 206 eligible participants, 96 medical students and 94 residents were recruited and agreed to participate. Primary outcomes were measured in 95% of the participants at 3 weeks postrandomization and in 72% on the long-term follow-up. Participants in both groups were similar with regard to baseline characteristics and prior knowledge of the OAR. Both groups showed improvement in their knowledge of the rule during the study period. At mid-term, knowledge of the OAR was similar for the ankle components (score for mnemonic 10.9; control 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference = )0.3 to 1.7) and for the foot (mnemonic 7.6 vs. control 7.5; 95% CI for difference = )0.7 to 0.9). On the long term, randomization to the mnemonic was associated with a better knowledge of the OAR as demonstrated by a higher score for the ankle component (mnemonic 10.1 vs. control 8.9; 95% CI for difference = 0.6 to 1.8) and for the foot (mnemonic 7.8 vs. control 6.5; 95% CI for difference = 0.8 to 1.9).Conclusions: Mid-term knowledge of the OAR drastically improved for all participants of the study. The use of the mnemonic 44-55-66-PM was associated with a better long-term knowledge of the OAR among medical students and residents. The improvement in knowledge of the OAR among the control group highlights the importance of using controlled trials for studies evaluating knowledge transfer.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:859-864 ª