Peer evaluations

[pulljosh]

Right now I'm precepting in the ICU and all the nurses are angry because of what was said in their peer evaluations and I couldn't help but think that peer evaluations don't seem very effective. I feel like a unit like the ICU needs to be able to trust those they work with and if you got an evaluation that poor from someone on your team and it was anonymous wouldn't that create more distrust and not be as effective? I've never been a manager or even a leader for that matter so I'm just curious what you guys think.

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

Peer evals are a popularity contest in my opinion. They're supposedly required by Magnet, which is another reason to dislike Magnet.

[Neats, BSN]

I think they are demoralizing and unfair. Your peers should voice concerns to their manager. If they have to have peer review involvement then it should be about your skills only and the questions should be yes or no answers. This promotes a hostile work environment if you do not presnert this in a favorable fashion. I have been part of Magnet facilities and seem to see a trend where the star ratings are the only important thing (yes I understand it is all about the star ratings and reimbursement from government) however this is all mostly based on emotion (subjective). I have a hard time wrapping my thought process around what my evaluation would be based on emotion and not competence.

[NICU Guy, BSN, RN]

We have annual peer reviews. You pick two co-workers to do a peer review on you and management picks 2 people. They tend to pick people that you consistently work with that will give you a fair unbiased evaluation, no people in your "clique" or super lenient/ super picky.

[Wuzzie]

Peer evals are the devil. Even worse if they're anonymous or your manager is a snake in the grass. I'd much rather use a mentor system where two people are matched to not only evaluate but also support the growth of the other. Not a friendship but a professional relationship where strengths and weaknesses are discussed without fear of being humiliated and realistic goals are set. Instead of only yearly evaluations have them monthly or quarterly so progress can really be monitored and reasonable adjustments made so that set goals can be achieved. This can be recorded and then once a year presented to the manager. I think I would find this method empowering instead of morale busting.

[dec2007]

Where I work peer evals are either a popularity contest or a weapon. Neither of those promote learning or unit cohesiveness. If you need to say something negative to a co-worker you should at least have the professionalism to say it to their face. If it needs to be said to the manager, then go talk to the manager. The covert nature of peer evals promotes discord and high school-like cliques.