Objective: To determine which attributes of clinical practice guidelines influence the use of guidelines in decision making in clinical practice. Design: Observational study relating the use of 47 different recommendations from 10 national clinical guidelines to 12 different attributes of clinical guidelines-for example, evidence based, controversial, concrete. Setting: General practice in the Netherlands. Subjects: 61 general practitioners who made 12 880 decisions in their contacts with patients. Main outcome measures: Compliance of decisions with clinical guidelines according to the attribute of the guideline. Results: Recommendations were followed in, on average, 61% (7915/12 880) of the decisions. Controversial recommendations were followed in 35% (886/2497) of decisions and non-controversial recommendations in 68% (7029/10 383) of decisions. Vague and non-specific recommendations were followed in 36% (826/2280) of decisions and clear recommendations in 67% (7089/10 600) of decisions. Recommendations that demanded a change in existing practice routines were followed in 44% (1278/2912) of decisions and those that did not in 67% (6637/9968) of decisions. Evidence based recommendations were used more than recommendations for practice that were not based on research evidence (71% (2745/3841) v 57% (5170/9039)). Conclusions: People and organisations setting evidence based clinical practice guidelines should take into account some of the other important attributes of effective recommendations for clinical practice.

The emotional reactions of 57 general practitioners to three aspects of work was assessed by means of questionnaires. The quality of patient care was assessed by means of observations of general practice consultations, assessment of audiotaped consulting hour contacts and an analysis of the referral and prescription figures. A distinction was made between the degree of positive and the degree of negative feelings general practitioners have about their work. Many positive feelings (satisfaction, feeling at ease) correlated with more openness to patients, more attention to psychosocial aspects of the complaints but also with a higher rate of referral to medical specialists. On the other hand, many negative feelings (frustration, tension, lack of time) correlated with a high prescription rate and with giving little explanation to patients. To some extent the way that work is experienced by general practitioners correlated with the quality of care for the patients, but what constitutes cause and effect requires further study. A reflection of a doctor's own feelings about work should become part of training, continuing education and medical audit programmes.

In line with the literature, our results emphasise the importance of the content of feedback and the way it is provided, as well as the importance of its incorporation in trainees' learning. Moreover, we highlight the step before the actual feedback itself. The way arrangements for feedback are made appears to be important to feedback in formative WBA. Finally, we outline several factors that influence the success or failure of feedback but precede the process of observation and feedback.

We reviewed the literature on instruments for work-based assessment in single clinical encounters, such as the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX), and examined differences between these instruments in characteristics and feasibility, reliability, validity and educational effect. A PubMed search of the literature published before 8 January 2009 yielded 39 articles dealing with 18 different assessment instruments. One researcher extracted data on the characteristics of the instruments and two researchers extracted data on feasibility, reliability, validity and educational effect. Instruments are predominantly formative. Feasibility is generally deemed good and assessor training occurs sparsely but is considered crucial for successful implementation. Acceptable reliability can be achieved with 10 encounters. The validity of many instruments is not investigated, but the validity of the mini-CEX and the ‘clinical evaluation exercise’ is supported by strong and significant correlations with other valid assessment instruments. The evidence from the few studies on educational effects is not very convincing. The reports on clinical assessment instruments for single work-based encounters are generally positive, but supporting evidence is sparse. Feasibility of instruments seems to be good and reliability requires a minimum of 10 encounters, but no clear conclusions emerge on other aspects. Studies on assessor and learner training and studies examining effects beyond ‘happiness data’ are badly needed.

The NCQ shows to be a comprehensive, reliable, and valid instrument. Further testing of reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness is needed before the NCQ can be more widely implemented.