Narayanan, Ajit
Greco, Michael
Janamian, Tina
Fraser, Tamieka
Archer, Julian
Article History
Received: 17 September 2021
Accepted: 10 June 2022
First Online: 2 July 2022
Declarations
:
: No ethics approval was sought for this study since feedback is an evaluative survey exercise for the benefit of a surgeon’s professional development (similar to evaluation cycles of university staff taking into account student evaluations of teaching).All experimental methods for the survey were approved by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), which is given accreditation by the Medical Board of Australia and the Medical Council of New Zealand to conduct training and education of surgeons in each of the nine surgical specialties for the purpose of licensure and maintenance of standards.All surgeons gave their written and informed consent to participate by having colleague data collected for the purpose of CPD. Colleagues were asked to record their observations with no invasive or interactive intervention. No interviews were conducted and no private information was sought. All colleague data were anonymised at the point of collection and do not contain personal information such as gender or age to associate their data with named individuals. Only colleague rater type (surgeon, health practitioner, other colleague type) was requested. Surgeons do not know which of their nominated raters submit feedback and are given aggregated scores from their raters, not individual scores.All participants (colleagues and surgeons) gave their written and informed consent for their de-identified individual and aggregated data to be used for analysis.The data gathered and analysed in this study are data gathered by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and contain no personally identifiable, biometric, biomedical or clinical data. The College agreed for de-identified data from all participants to be used for this study.The design and content of this study, together with data analysis, reporting, presentation and interpretation, were conducted in accordance with the CHAMP (Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers), ExternalRef removed. All methods were carried out in accordance with these guidelines and procedures.
: All participants were informed of the following as part of the written and informed consent process: “The data in your report will be held in accordance with relevant data protection requirements. Your anonymised data will be aggregated with data from all other participating doctors, and may be used in the generation of national performance benchmarks and contribute to scientific literature.”Since no identifiable information of participants is revealed, such as names, images or other personally identifiable information, consent to publication is not applicable.
: Not applicable. All author declare that they have no competing interests.