Search
Close this search box.
Search

Frequently asked questions for MCC 360

MCC 360For physiciansFrequently asked questions for MCC 360

Requesting feedback

The focus of the assessment is on the CanMEDS and CanMEDS-Family Medicine roles of communication, collaboration, and professionalism. This relates to your ability to communicate with patients, colleagues, and co-workers as well as behave professionally with honesty, integrity, commitment, compassion, respect, and altruism.

The multidimensional perspective offered by many patients, colleagues, and co-workers provides a more reliable view of your practice and statistical reliability. At a minimum, we need to receive your self-assessment and completed surveys from 25 patients, eight colleagues, and eight co-workers. Sending surveys to a larger number of people may increase the richness of the feedback you receive.

Yes, you can provide a tablet or computer to facilitate the completion of the online patient survey in your office. If using a shared device, we do recommend that you clear your browser’s cache and cookies on a regular basis. We also recommend that you turn off autofill to prevent duplicated narrative responses.

Yes, the patient surveys are designed so that any patient that you have interacted with in a clinical setting, even a single encounter, will be able to provide feedback. This is also applicable to videoconference or telephone consultations. Should a question not be relevant for their particular visit, the patient may answer “Unable to Assess.”

The MCC only reports aggregate results after receiving the required minimum number of survey responses. A minimum number of responses is needed for a valid assessment. Presenting ratings at an aggregate level helps to protect respondent confidentiality. Ensuring respondent confidentiality helps to ensure the quality of feedback you receive is free from bias.

We request that your respondent selections represent patients, colleagues, and co-workers that you have interacted with in the last calendar year. If you are unable to provide the minimum number of respondents, contact us at [email protected] or call toll-free at 1-833-521-6024.

Results and next steps

Results are not “good” or “bad.” The feedback is designed to help you develop personalized continuing professional development plans focused on opportunities to improve patient care.

In most cases, when your MCC 360 and coaching session(s) are complete, you will be able to download a Certificate of Completion from your MCC 360 account. Use this certificate to apply for credits directly with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada or College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Physicians who were selected to complete MCC 360 as a part of an organization assessment program may need to contact their organization directly about claiming CPD credits.

Understanding MCC 360

Most physicians tend to receive a good result. Highlighting those physicians that are in the bottom 10% is likely meaningless and could cause some unintended consequences such as emotional distress or focusing on issues that really are not problematic but fall below the “norm.”1,2,3

To avoid this pitfall, MCC 360 lays out the data for the physician to look at their strengths and opportunities of improvement relative to themselves by rater group. In this way, we are hoping to emphasize the intended purpose of MCC 360: quality improvement.

  1. Hill, J. J., Asprey, A., Richards, S. H., & Campbell J. L. (2012). Multisource feedback questionnaires in appraisal and for revalidation: a qualitative study in UK general practice. British Journal of General Practice, 62(598), 314–321.
  2. DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129–139.
  3. Sargeant, J., Mann, K., Sinclair, D., van der Vleuten, C., & Metsemakers, J. (2007). Challenges in multisource feedback: intended and unintended outcomes. Medical Education, 41(6), 583–591. 

Physicians do not often directly observe each other’s performance in the medical expert role, so feedback about these behaviours may not be perceived as credible and is not subsequently used to inform practice improvement.1

Medical expert is more reliably assessed and accepted using other tools (e.g., chart review, stimulated chart recall, prescribing patterns, outcome metrics, etc.). MCC 360 is addressing a pan-Canadian request to develop a multi-source feedback tool to focus on the roles of collaborator, communicator, and professional.

Although MCC 360 (and multi-source feedback in general) is not suitable to be used in isolation for summative assessment or quality assurance purposes, combining MCC 360 data about communicator, collaborator, and professional roles with data assessing the medical expert role measured by other tools is appropriate and could provide a more holistic assessment of a physician’s performance.

  1. Sargeant, J., Mann, K., Sinclair, D., van der Vleuten, C., & Metsemakers, J. (2007). Challenges in multisource feedback: intended and unintended outcomes. Medical Education, 41(6), 583–591.
  • A rigorous multipronged evidence-informed approach was used to develop and evaluate MCC 360.
  • A pan-Canadian expert panel developed the surveys and report. The panel included representation from physicians, medical education researchers, medical regulatory authorities, and hospitals.
  • The existing evidence on multi-source feedback and lessons learned from previous multi-source feedback tools were heavily consulted and used.
  • Focus groups with physicians, nonphysician co-workers, and patients were held to gather feedback on the surveys and report.
  • An extensive pilot was conducted that included the collection and evaluation of
    • MCC 360 data
    • post-MCC 360 evaluation surveys
    • focus groups with physicians and facilitators
    • facilitator reports of their discussion with physicians
    • physician action plans for quality improvement
    • six-month follow-up survey with physicians regarding implementation of their plans
  • Results of our pilot indicate the following:
    • Most ratings and comments are quite positive.
    • Most comments elaborate and specify aspects of behaviours targeted by the rated items.
    • Each physician receives several narrative comments from colleagues, co-workers, and patients.
    • Physicians place great value on narrative comments and facilitation.
    • Physicians are using their MCC 360 data to create and enact plans for improvement.
    • Both physicians and facilitators make use of both quantitative and qualitative data in creating physician action plans.

Quantitative feedback alone is often interpreted as lacking meaning and specificity. The addition of narrative comments can play an important role in providing context to numerical ratings through the description of specific examples and contextual factors related to a behaviour. In addition, feedback recipients report being more satisfied with feedback that includes narrative and report greater tendency to use such feedback to make future improvements.1,2,3

  1. Brutus, S. (2009). Words versus numbers: A theoretical exploration of giving and receiving narrative comments in performance appraisal. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 144–157.
  2. Overeem, K., Lombarts, M. J., Arah, O. A., Klazinga, N. S., Grol, R. P., Wollersheim, H. C. (2010). Three methods of multi-source feedback compared: A plea for narrative comments and coworkers’ perspectives. Medical Teacher, 32(2), 141–147.
  3. Vivekananda-Schmidt, P., MacKillop, L., Crossley, J., & Wade, W. (2013). Do assessor comments on a multi-source feedback instrument provide learner-centred feedback? Medical Education, 47(11), 1080–1088.