MiniPAT

From Codegwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The JPB mini PAT

Mini-PAT provides feedback from a range of co-workers across each of the modules completed as part of this programme. Feedback received, will be entirely developmental, with the trainee and the practice tutor agreeing strengths and key areas from collated feedback.

The Mini-PAT is a multi-source feedback tool that is derived from the Sheffield Peer Review Tool (SPRAT). Mini-PAT consists of 15 questions mapped to the three main competency clusters on the general level framework (v2). The rating scale is a 6 point rating scale with an « unable to comment » option for raters to use where they have not observed a given aspect of professional practice. For details of assessment see Assessment Notes

Basic Structure

The database has a table of students and table of tutors. Students and tutors can be added individually or imported directly to the database. Students are attached to tutors. Students and tutors can access their data and update it by login with user name and password. Other tables such as peers are built during the process.

Process

  • Students are grouped into a batch that has a time period for activity. The students are informed that the process is open.
  • Students login using their JPB number and a password to the nomination page and nominate between 5 and 10 peer assessors by specifying name and email.
  • The student must agree the list of assessors with their tutor before submitting to mini-PAT
  • Nominated peers are informed by email that also contains a unique URL link to an assessment form. The tutor is also informed by email that nomination has taken place and can see who the assessors are.
  • The student completes a self-assessment.
  • The nominated peers complete the assessment by following the link in the email. The assessments are stored in the database.
  • During the process appropriate reminders are sent to both students and peers to ensure assessments are completed by the deadline.
  • Emails that are rejected can be dealt with by an administrator.
  • At the end of the batch period the results are accumulated and an individualised report released to the tutor.
  • The tutor must review the mini-PAT report before releasing it to the student. A meeting between tutor and student should be arranged to discuss the contents of the report and agree an action plan.

Feedback

The academic team will collate the results from each assessor and work out a mean score per question and the global rating compared to the individual pharmacist’s self-rating. The collated results will be fed back to the pharmacist’s practice tutor, who should then arrange to meet with their tutee to discuss the results, in a timely manner.

Comparison of the raters' perceptions with their own is a very useful part of the process for trainees. Where there are significant differences between the two merits discussion. Any comments are anonymised prior to feedback to the pharmacist but they are produced verbatim. It is essential that raters take into consideration verbatim reporting of free text comments and take care to word this as constructively as possible. Discussion should facilitate personal development for the pharmacist by focusing on areas of strength to enable the pharmacist to build on these. It should also clearly identify areas for development by formulating objectives for them to take forward.

A copy of the feedback should be retained by the pharmacist in their portfolio of evidence, along with any action plan devised as a result of the process.

Sites

Personal tools