Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 126–128 | Cite as

Evaluation of Professional Role Competency During Psychiatry Residency

  • Nikola N. GrujichEmail author
  • Ajmal Razmy
  • Ari Zaretsky
  • Rima G. Styra
  • Sanjeev Sockalingam
Brief Report



The authors sought to determine psychiatry residents’ perceptions on the current method of evaluating professional role competency and the use of multi-source feedback (MSF) as an assessment tool.


Authors disseminated a structured, anonymous survey to 128 University of Toronto psychiatry residents, evaluating the current mode of assessment of the professional role and the use of MSF.


The overall response rate was 86%. Fewer than half (44%) of residents felt that their professional role is adequately evaluated, and 84% were in favor of incorporating MSF for the evaluation of this competency. Respondents believed their primary supervisor should have the largest proportional impact on the evaluation (50%), followed by allied heath staff (19%), patients (16%), co-residents (12%), self(11%), and administrative staff(9%).


On the basis of this needs assessment and the Royal College recommendations, MSF may be considered a potential assessment tool for evaluating psychiatry residents in their professional role.


Academic Psychiatry Professional Role Psychiatry Resident Psychiatry Residency CanMEDs Role 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Papadakis MA, Teherani A, Banach MA, et al: Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. New Engl J Med 2005; 353:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frank JR, Jabbour M: Report of the CanMEDs Phase IV Working Groups. Ottawa,Canada: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. March, 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stern DT, Frohna AZ, Gruppen LD: The prediction of professional behavior. Med Educ 2005; 39:75–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein RM, Hundert EM: Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002; 287:226–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bandiera G, Sherbino J, Frank J: The CanMEDS Assessment Tools Handbook. Ottawa, Canada, The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, et al: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, CD000259Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Violato C, Lockyer JM, Fidler H: Assessment of psychiatrists in practice through multisource feedback. Can J Psychiatry 2008; 53:525–533PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis JD: Comparison of faculty, peer, self-, and nurse assessment of obstetrics and gynecology residents, Obstet Gyn 2002; 99:647–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wood J, Collins J, Burnside E, et al: Patient, faculty, and self-assessment of radiology resident performance: a 360-degree method of measuring professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:931–939PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wood L, Hassel A, Whitehouse A, et al: A literature review of multi-source feedback systems within and without health services leading to 10 tips for their successful design. Med Teacher 2006; 28:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikola N. Grujich
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ajmal Razmy
    • 2
  • Ari Zaretsky
    • 3
  • Rima G. Styra
    • 1
  • Sanjeev Sockalingam
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of PsychiatryUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Dept. of PsychiatrySunnybrook HospitalTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Dept. of PsychiatryCenter for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations