The Clinical Education Project: Phase Three Peer Review of Assessment

1
The Clinical Education Project Phase Three Peer
Review of Assessment

• Amelia Sawyer
• Department of Nursing and Midwifery
• Keele University

2
Background

• Commissioned by the Shropshire and Staffordshire
  Workforce Development Confederation for a two
  year period.
• Collaborative project between Keele University
  and Staffordshire University, with members of the
  project team based at the Department of Nursing
  and Midwifery, Keele University and the Centre
  for Health Policy and Practice, Faculty of Health
  and Sciences, Staffordshire University.

3

• The overall aim of the Clinical Education Project
  is to provide evidence and make recommendations
  to inform the debate on enhancing clinical
  placement provision and clinical education and
  assessment strategies for nursing and midwifery
  throughout Shropshire and Staffordshire.

4

• The clinical education project is divided into
  three discrete phases
• Clinical Placement Provision
• Enhancing Clinical Learning Environment and
  Supporting Practice Mentors and
• Exploring the Feasibility of New Ways of Working.

5
Introduction to Phase Three

• Examine issues surrounding new ways of working.
• Investigate and evaluate the use of peer review
  of clinical assessment in the acute clinical
  setting.
• Planning and ethics stage.

6
What Is Peer Review?

• There are a variety of definitions of the term
  peer review and for the purpose of this project
  the following definition will be adopted

7

• Peer review is an organised effort where people
  critically appraise, systematically assess,
  monitor, make judgements, determine their
  strengths and weakness and review the quality of
  their practice, to provide evidence to use as the
  basis of recommendations by obtaining the opinion
  of their peers.
• Peer review also offers staff an opportunity to
  both give and receive support, and to network
  across the site involved.
• A peer is a person of the same profession, grade
  or setting.

8

• Peer review is common place in many areas
  including nurse and midwifery education.
• Peer review has taken place in a number of
  professional nurse environments.
• Shortage of studies investigating the use of peer
  review in nurse and midwife pre registration
  clinical education.

9
Literature

• Jumbunathan (1992) carried out a study intended
  to provide a basis for the planning and
  implementation of a peer review program.
• Cohen et al. (1996) used peer review when they
  implemented a career ladder and a professional
  practice model for nurses.

10

• Ludwick et al. (1998) planned, implemented and
  evaluated a variety of methods to appraise
  teaching through peer review.
• Mathews (2000) describes the planning,
  implementation and evaluation of a peer review
  process for nursing staff.

11
Aims and Objectives

• The aim of this study is to investigate and
  evaluate the processes and outcomes of clinical
  assessments in nursing and midwifery practice,
  and to investigate and evaluate the peer review
  of clinical assessment in the acute clinical
  setting.

12
Method

• Sample will be drawn from one directorate at
  North Staffs University Hospital and one
  directorate at Mid Staffordshire General
  Hospital. The participants have not yet been
  identified or approached.
• The researchers and participants will negotiate
  an observation schedule to facilitate their peer
  review during the training session.

13

• The peer review will take place in a quality
  circle, with each peer reviewer only assessing
  one assessor, and each assessor being reviewed
  once.
• A quality circle is a system where w observes x,
  x observes y, y observes z and z observes w.
• The quality circle will have approximately four
  participants.
• Set up during the training session.

14

• The reviewer and assessor will have the
  opportunity to meet prior to the peer review.
• The participants will use the observation
  schedule to enable them to review the assessors,
  followed by a discussion between the peer
  reviewer and assessor.

15

• Each participant involved in the peer review will
  be interviewed before the training session and
  attend a focus group after they have completed
  the peer review process.
• The nursing and midwifery students involved will
  be interviewed about their experiences of the
  assessment after it has taken place.
• The focus groups with staff and interviews with
  students will allow the participants to be
  debriefed.

16

• The interviews, training and focus groups will be
  held at the Department of Nursing and Midwifery,
  Keele University for staff and students at North
  Staffordshire University Hospital and at the
  Faculty of Health and Sciences, Blackheath Lane,
  Staffordshire University for staff and students
  at Mid Staffordshire General Hospital.

17
Analysis

• Face-to-face, or telephone interviews and focus
  groups will be transcribed verbatim by a member
  of the research team.
• A thematic analysis of the data will take place
  to identify common themes.
• The results will further inform the development
  and evaluation of peer review of assessment.

18
Conclusion

• As part of the Clinical Education Project we are
  carrying out a study which aims to investigate
  and evaluate the processes and outcomes of
  clinical assessments in nursing and midwifery
  practice, and to investigate and evaluate the
  peer review of clinical assessment in the acute
  clinical setting.

19

• We hope that the results of this study will
  inform the development and evaluation of peer
  review of assessment.
• Questions?

20
References

• Cohen, B., Berube, R., Turrentine, B. (1996). A
  peer review program for professional nurses.
  Journal of Nursing Staff Development, 12 (1),
  13-18.
• Jumbunathan, J. (1992). Planning a peer review
  program. Journal of Nursing Staff Development, 8
  (5), 235-239.  
• Ludwick, R., Cline Diekman, B., Herdtner, S.,
  Dugan, M., Roche, M. (1998). Documenting the
  scholarship of clinical teaching through peer
  review. Nurse Educator, 23 (6), 17-20.  
• Mathews, D. E. (2000). Developing a perioperative
  peer performance appraisal system. AORN Journal,
  72 (6), 1039-1042.