360°评估在社区全科师资教学能力评价中的应用探讨

Applicability of 360-degree evaluation in teaching ability assessment of community general practice trainers

目的探讨360°评估存社区全科师资教学能力评价中运用的可行性。方法2014年1-3月，采用白行设计的全科师资教学能力360°评估表，对上海市徐汇区3家社区教学基地的39名全科师资进行360°评估，分别由师资本人、2位管理人员、2位同事、2位护理人员和2位学员对其在社区卫生服务能力、常见病处理能力、临床技能及社区适宜技术、教学能力、个人综合素质与能力5个维度进行评估。结果共收回评估表343份，应答率97．7％。师资自我评估、管理人员评估、同事评估、护理人员评估和学员评估的总平均分为（6．66±0．85）、（6．91±1．28）、（8．06±0．58）、（8．36±1．68）和（8．12±0．81）分，达合格或优良。护理人员评分在各维度平均分及总平均分中均最高。除管理人员仅在教学能力维度平均分上高于师资白评外（t=4．655，P〈0．01），同事、护理人员、学员在各维度平均分和总平均分上均高于师资自评（均P〈0．01）。存总平均分上，师资自评与管理人员、同事、护理人员、学员的他评均无相关性（均P〉0．05）。总体内部一致性系数在各评估者中均〉0．9；除社区卫生服务能力维度在师资自我评估中为0．694外，其余各维度内部一致性系数均〉0．8。结论360°评估从多个考核者的角度出发，更加全面、客观地对全科师资教学能力进行评估；本研究采用的全科师资教学能力360°评估表将社区服务、临床诊疗、综合素质与教学能力有机结合，具有一定的可操作性。

Objective To investigate the feasibility of 360-degree evaluation in teaching ability assessment of community general practice trainers. Methods The 360-degree evaluation questionnaire was used to assess the teaching ability of 39 general practice trainers in 3 community teaching bases in Xuhui District of Shanghai during January to March 2014. Five dimensions were included in the questionnaire： ability of primary care, ability of common disease management, clinical skills and appropriate community technology, teaching ability and personal overall ability. Each trainer was evaluated by 2 managers, 2 colleagues, 2 nurses, and 2 trainees, beside trainer him （her） self. Results Total 343 questionnaires were rechieved with a response rate of 97.7% . The average overall scores of assessments from trainers themselves, managers, colleagues, nurses, and trainees were 6. 66± 0. 85, 6. 91± 1.28, 8.06 ±0. 58, 8.36±1.68, and 8. 12 ±0. 81, respectively. The scores from nurses were the highest in all dimensions of the questionnair. The overall scores and scores of each dimention assessed by colleagues, nurses and trainees were significantly higher than those from trainers themselves （ P 〈 0. 05 for all ）, while the scores from managers were higher than those from trainers themselves only in teaching ability dimension （ t = 4. 655,P 〈 0. 001 ）. There was no correlation of overall scores assessed by managers, colleagues, nurses and trainees with those assessed by trainers themselves （P 〉 0. 05 for all）. The overall cronbach＇s alpha was greater than 0. 9 in every aspect of assessors. The cronbach＇s alpha of all dimension was greater than 0. 8, except that of primary care ability assessed by trainers themself （0. 694 ）. Conclusion The 360-degree evaluation combines the assessments of community service ability, clinical ability, comprehensive quality and teaching ability, so it is practicable for teaching ability assessment of general practice trainers in community.