Behavioural Indicators
Examples of Behavioural Indicators for the Target Competencies used in
selection
1. EMPATHY & SENSITIVITY
Capacity and motivation to take in patient/colleague perspective, and sense
associated feelings. Generates safe/understanding atmosphere. The search for
shared understanding.
|
Positive
Indicators |
Negative Indicators |
|
responded to needs/concerns with
interest/understanding |
showed very little visible
interest/understanding |
|
acted in open, non-judgmental manner |
was quick to judge, make assumptions |
|
was co-operative/inclusive in approach |
appeared isolated or authoritarian |
|
spoke and behaved with warmth and
encouragement |
lacked warmth in voice/manner; failed to
encourage |
|
generated safe / trusting atmosphere |
created uncomfortable atmosphere |
2. COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Capacity to adjust behaviour & language (written/spoken) as appropriate to
needs of differing situations. Actively and clearly engages patient (and
colleague) in equal/open dialogue,
|
Positive
Indicators |
Negative Indicators |
|
where possible used open, patient-centred
questions |
restricted dialogue by overuse of closed
questions |
|
adjusted style of questioning/response as
appropriate |
was unable to adapt language behaviour as
needed |
|
was able to express ideas clearly
(written/spoken) |
was often unclear when contributing ideas/
questions |
|
used effective non-verbal behaviour (voice,
posture etc) |
failed to engage patient/colleague at
non-verbal level |
|
used inventive language (humour/analogy etc) |
use of language too
functional/narrow/inflexible |
3. PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS
Capacity to think/see beyond the obvious, with analytical but flexible mind.
Maximises information and time efficiently and creatively.
|
Positive
Indicators |
Negative Indicators |
|
attempted to think ‘around’ issue |
made immediate assumption about problem |
|
was open to new ideas/possibilities |
dealt with issue narrowly or dogmatically |
|
generated, functional solution |
was unable to suggest ‘workable' outcome |
|
prioritised information/time well |
was disorganised/unsystematic |
|
was able to identify key points |
focused on non-important/peripheral issues |
4. PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
Capacity and motivation to take responsibility for own actions (and thus
mistakes). Respects/ defends contribution & views, of all. [Respect for
"position, patients & protocol"].
|
Positive
Indicators |
Negative Indicators |
|
demonstrated respect for patient(s)/colleague(s) |
Lacked sufficient respect for others |
|
was positive/enthusiastic when dealing with
problems |
Treated issues as problems rather than
challenges |
|
was able to admit mistakes/learn from them |
Avoided taking responsibility for poor
decisions/ideas |
|
was committed to equality of care for all |
showed more concern for some than others |
|
backed own judgment appropriately |
was tentative when explaining
decisions/actions |
5. COPING with PRESSURE
Capacity to put difficulties into perspective, retaining control over
events. Aware of own strengths/limitations and able to "share the load".
|
Positive
Indicators |
Negative Indicators |
|
remained calm/under control |
became tense or agitated |
|
rarely lost sight of wider needs of
situation |
shifted focus largely to immediate
worries/needs |
|
recognised own limitations and compromised |
became defensive or uncompromising |
|
was able to seek help when necessary |
tried unsuccessfully to deal with situation
alone |
|
used strategies to deal with pressure/stress |
could not find a way to resolve problem |
6. CLINICAL EXPERTISE
Capacity to apply sound clinical knowledge & awareness to full investigation
of problems. Makes clear, sound and proactive decisions, reflecting good
clinical judgement.
|
Positive
Indicators* |
Negative Indicators* |
|
elicited necessary detail from
patient/colleague |
failed to explore information/signals |
|
identified key issues involved |
overlooked important issues |
|
was aware of appropriate options |
suggested too narrow range of options |
|
showed sound/systematic judgment in making
decisions |
was too quick/unsystematic in making
decisions |
|
was able to anticipate possible issues |
needed the "full picture" before
understanding problem |
[*
= clinical context]
Further information
 | Fiona Patterson, Pat Lane, Eamonn Ferguson, and Tim Norfolk
Competency based selection system for general practitioner registrars
BMJ
Career Focus, Sep 2001; 323: S2-7311 - 27311. |
| A competency model for general practice: implications for selection,
training, and development.
Patterson, Ferguson, Lane et al
BJGP
2000. 50. 188-193
|
|
