Good to Great: Using 360-Degree Feedback to Improve Physician Emotional Intelligence
Abstract
The past decade has seen intense interest and dramatic change in how hospitals and physician organizations review physician behaviors. The characteristics of successful physicians extend past their technical and cognitive skills. Two of the six core clinical competencies (professionalism and interpersonal/communication skills) endorsed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the American Board of Medical Specialties, and The Joint Commission require physicians to succeed in measures associated with emotional intelligence (EI). Using 360-degree anonymous feedback surveys to screen for improvement opportunities in these two core competencies enables organizations to selectively offer education to further develop physician EI. Incorporating routine use of these tools and interventions into ongoing professional practice evaluation and focused professional practice evaluation processes may be a cost-effective strategy for preventing disruptive behaviors and increasing the likelihood of success when transitioning to an employed practice model. On the basis of a literature review, we determined that physician EI plays a key role in leadership; teamwork; and clinical, financial, and organizational outcomes. This finding has significant implications for healthcare executives seeking to enhance physician alignment and transition to a team-based delivery model.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
EI is an important competency in physician and nurse leadership.
“EI is an important competency in physician [26, 27] and nurse [28] leadership.”
From Improving vascular access outcomes: attributes of arteriovenous fistula cannulation success (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
Cites
Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty
Jena, A. B., Seabury, S., Lakdawalla, D., & Chandra, A. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1012370 · Cited by 1,180 · see citing works
Sargeant, J., Mann, K., & Ferrier, S. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02124.x · Cited by 174 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Ensure that the reviewer selection process is credible and transparent to the physicians (Sargeant et al., 2005).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Improving vascular access outcomes: attributes of arteriovenous fistula cannulation success
Harwood, L. E., Wilson, B. M., & Oudshoorn, A. (2016) · Clinical Kidney Journal · doi:10.1093/ckj/sfv158 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hammerly, M. E., Harmon, L., & Schwaitzberg, S. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Healthcare Management
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 354-366
- ISSN
- 1096-9012 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1598559218
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Healthcare Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotional Intelligence and Performance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
- Keywords
- emotional intelligence, 360-degree feedback, physician performance evaluation, professionalism, interpersonal communication skills, physician leadership, teamwork, physician training
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Humans, Medical Staff, Hospital, Staff Development, Feedback, Psychological, Emotional Intelligence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review