IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i21-22p3442-3456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multisource feedback to graduate nurses: a multimethod study

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha McPhee
  • Nicole M Phillips
  • Cherene Ockerby
  • Alison M Hutchinson

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha McPhee & Nicole M Phillips & Cherene Ockerby & Alison M Hutchinson, 2017. "Multisource feedback to graduate nurses: a multimethod study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(21-22), pages 3442-3456, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:21-22:p:3442-3456
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13710
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13710?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carol Della Ratta, 2018. "The art of balance: Preceptors’ experiences of caring for deteriorating patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(19-20), pages 3497-3509, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:21-22:p:3442-3456. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.