Asking for Feedback

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to understand clinical nurses’ perceptions of their participation in a formal, annual peer review process at a metropolitan community hospital. BACKGROUND Peer review is an essential component of professional nursing practice for self-regulation of the practice and promotion of quality and safety. Robust empirical evidence of formalized and effective peer review nursing processes is not evident. METHODS A descriptive qualitative study with focus group interviews was used. RESULTS Study results validate that peer review is a meaningful and valuable process used by clinical nurses to support professional growth and development. Nurses reported using their specific peer feedback as part of their annual goal setting. CONCLUSIONS Results validate the importance of implementation of a structured, formal peer review process at the organizational level. The study findings identify that the essential components of an effective peer review process include education for peer facilitators and clinical nurses; dedicated time, space, and privacy to conduct peer reviews; and leadership support.

Peer Review Processes for Quality Improvement in Health Care Settings and Their Implications for Health Care Professionals: A Meta-Ethnography

“…31 Some participants found being evaluated by a team with “ fresh eye” encouraged them to explore alternative approaches to existing issues, 30 and some participants would like to expand the scope of the peer review process. 26 Conversely, a few participants expressed their displeasure when feedback ventured into clinical territories. 29 It is important that the scope of the peer review process is mutually agreed before the review and is adhered to during the process.…”

“…One study indicated that although it was defined as “… among RN, ” participants were still unclear about who should be involved in the process. 8 Some defined peers as working in similar roles and settings 9 or someone with the same rank 26 while Davys et al 32 just simply stated “ two colleagues …” One study did not explicitly define peers in the article but intimated that peers could be the participants' “ senior ,” supervisor, or line manager in the same profession. 33…”

“….among RN," participants were still unclear about who should be involved in the process. 8 Some defined peers as working in similar roles and settings 9 or someone with the same rank 26 while Davys et al 32 just simply stated "two colleagues. .…”

An Educational Intervention to Enhance the Performance of Peer Feedback

“…Bowen-Brady et al 6 noted in their research that peer feedback promoted the practice of accountability and autonomy, which improves patient outcomes. Although research supports this, there is lack of evidence to support a standardized process for meaningful peer feedback.…”

“…Bowen-Brady et al 6 noted in their study that nurses voiced concern regarding annual peer review being held against them and felt that they might receive repercussions, including monetary, because of it. Nurses were also concerned that they did not believe they had the skills to engage their peers in difficult conversations regarding performance 6 . Gentry 8 protected the anonymity of the peer evaluator from the nurse being evaluated to allow peers to share honest feedback without retribution during annual peer reviews.…”