THE RELEVANCE OF SECOND EVALUATOR IN EVALUATING STAFF PERFORMANCE

1
THE RELEVANCE OF SECOND EVALUATOR IN EVALUATING
STAFF PERFORMANCE

• ( In Clinical Setting )
• AUTHORS
• Hamidah Hassan., Ho Siew Eng. Santhna
  Letchimi., Samsiah Mat., Ruth Packiavathy
• Department Of Nursing University Kebangsaan
  Malaysia (UKM )
• Medical Centre

2
(No Transcript)
3
OUR FIRST MALAYSIAN ASTRONAUT
4
BACKGROUND OF STUDY

• Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HUKM)
  is a teaching hospital for training doctors,
  nurses and paramedical staff.
• Commenced operation in 1997
• It is 800 beded hospital
• Organizations structure HUKM and Faculty of
  Medicine.

5
NURSING ORGANIZATIONIN UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN
MALAYSIA

• The Department of Nursing Faculty of Medicine
  UKM 15 Nursing Lecturers
• The Department of Nursing Service of HUKM 850
  Nursing Staff

6
INTRODUCTION

• Evaluation of staff performance continues to be
  the source of difficult process to measure due to
  its lack of uniformity and control. There is no
  single procedure that is adequate for assessing
  the staff performance.
• The main assessment technique used mostly by
  direct observation or through verbal
  communication.
• Hence, the validity and reliability of assessing
  the staff performance remains an issue.
  ( Novak, S.1998 )

7

• Kimball, ( 1971), Evaluation of staff can have
  meaning if the objectives are clearly stated and
  what is expected to achieve.
• Hensen, (2005), the traditional way of evaluating
  staff performance is only concerned about the
  past performance rather than looking forward
  through the goals.
• Smith, (2005), developing an evaluation format is
  not difficult, but the process of evaluation
  itself is the main issue
• Sevier (2005), it is important to evaluate work
  product than work style.. Evaluation must be
  REGULAR

8
AIM

• To determine the level of performance of
• the registered nurses or staff nurse of
• Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
• ( HUKM) TWO years after graduation..

9
METHODOLOGY

• CROSS SECTIONAL AND DESCRIPTIVE METHOD
• SAMPLING
• 113 staff nurses who qualified 2 years after
  graduation.
• They were the First Batch from the Department of
  Nursing FMUKM
• 30 head nurses.
• 7 nurse managers

10
INSTRUMENT

• Informal Assessment Educational Evaluation Tool
  ( NCBE) and New England Consortium Performance
  Evaluation 2000
• RANKING SYSTEM
• 22 18 EXCELLENT
• 7 13 GOOD
• 12 - 8 SATISFACTORY
• 7 - 3 PASS
• 1- BELOW FAIL

11
THE RELEVANCE OF STAFF PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION IN CLINICAL SETTING
FIRST EVALUATOR
SECOND EVALUATOR
12
DATA COLLECTIONS

• 1. STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRES 33 ITEMS
• 30 head nurses evaluated 113 staff nurses
• 2. INTERVIEWS 3 OPEN ENDED QESTIONS
• 7 nurse managers evaluated 113 staff nurses

13
DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE
14
RESULTS

• Thirty head nurses (30) had evaluated the
• staff nurses performance as following
• 87 ( 76 ) - Excellent
• 20 ( 17.69 ) - Good
• 3 (2.64 ) - Satisfactory
• 4 ( 3.52 ) - Fair

15
Question 1 The first group of nurses from
Diploma of Nursing UKM had qualified 2 years
ago. They have been in all the wards in
HUKM. How do you find their performance in
the ward as staff nurses or charge nurses ?
16
Table 2 Statement made by Nurse Managers
Regarding the Staff Nurses
17
PERFORMANCE SCORE HEAD NURSE VS. NURSE
MANAGER IN OBSTETRIC GYNAECOLOGY WARDS
18
PERFORMANCE SCORE HEAD NURSE VS. NURSE
MANAGER IN SURGICAL WARD
19
PERFORMANCE SCORE HEAD NURSE VS. NURSE
MANAGER IN MEDICAL WARD
20
PERFORMANCE SCORE HEAD NURSE VS. NURSE
MANAGER IN CRITICAL CARE UNITS
21
Table 1 THE STAFF NURSES PERFORMANCE
SCORE, 2 YEARS AFTER GRADUATION THE SCORE
DONE BY 30 HEAD NURSES
22
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE OF THE REGISTERED NURSES
OR STAFF NURSE OF HOSPITAL UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN
MALAYSIA TWO YEARS AFTER GRADUATION..
23
DISCUSSION

• The 7 nurse managers as the second
• evaluators who had evaluated the staff nurses
  
• were seldom in contact with the nurses in the
• ward.
• The competency that had been judged
• could be under prearranged occasions.
• Therefore there was an inconsistency in rating
• made by the nurse managers as the second
• evaluators

24
DISCUSSION

• Sometimes in our enthusiasm to measure such
  qualities, we failed to see the differences
  between a person who is proficient in term of
  practical skills and one who is a skillfully
  competent, empathic and compassionate nurse.

25
CONCLUSION

• The conclusion to this study, it highlighted
• that an inconsistency in evaluating the staff
• performance in the clinical setting need to
• express the directions or intent of the
• outcomes to be measured. There is merit in
• adopting the principle, a bad appraisal is
• better than none

26
(No Transcript)
27
THANK YOU

• WELCOME TO OUR
• FIRST ASIAN- PACIFIC NURSING STUDENTS CONFERENCE
  IN MALAYSIA
• IN FEBRUARY 2009

28
Reference

• New England Consortium Physical Therapy
  Students. Performance Evaluation.
  'http//www.necacce.org./library/perf-eval.htm .
  24th Jun. 2000
• Novak, S. (1998). An Effective clinical
  evaluation tool. Journal of Nursing Education.
  Vol. 27(2), pp 83 - 84