About MSF360 | MSF360

Multi-source feedback for physicians made simple

MSF360 is a professional development tool for health professionals, combining a self-assessment and multi-source feedback to provide participants with a 360° perspective on their practice.

Participants complete a self-assessment, and gather survey responses from colleagues and patients. Participants then review their feedback, identify opportunities for improvement and create a personal, constructive action plan.

Participants can volunteer for MSF360 as part of their professional development, or may be required to participate by their regulators, employers or educational institutions.

Formerly known as MCC 360, this program was previously managed by the Medical Council of Canada (MCC). The re-named MSF360 is now administered by the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) but still offers the same opportunities to healthcare professionals, for practice improvements inspired by meaningful feedback. MSF360 is open to any health professional who is interested in improving their professional skills through a multi-source feedback review.

Frequently Asked Questions

Learn more about MSF360 and our team at CPSA.

Full list of FAQs here.

Results are not “good” or “bad.” The feedback is designed to help you develop a personalized action plan, focused on opportunities to improve your practice and the patient care you provide.
Quantitative feedback alone is often interpreted as lacking meaning and specificity. The addition of narrative comments to MSF360 can play an important role in providing context to numerical ratings through the description of specific examples and contextual factors related to healthcare provider’s performance. 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.
The diverse perspectives offered by many patients and colleagues provides a more reliable, informed view of your practice and increases the richness of the feedback you receive. To ensure statistical reliability, we need your self-assessment and completed surveys from 25 patients and 16 colleagues at minimum.
Most MSF360 participants will receive a good result, and highlighting those who don’t do as well 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, MSF360 lays out the data for participants so they can review their strengths and opportunities of improvement, relative to themselves by rater group. By doing this, we hope to emphasize the intended purpose of MSF360, which is 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.