The ARCP functions as a high-stakes assessment, likely to have a significant impact on patient care. To ensure it is fit for purpose the ARCP should be subject to the same rigorous evaluation as other high-stakes assessments; there should be consistency in ARCP procedures across locations, specialties and grades; and all trainees should receive high-quality feedback.

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to explore what components of the General Medical Council’s (GMC) Quality Assurance Framework work, for whom, in what circumstances and how?SettingUK undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and training.ParticipantsWe conducted interviews with a stratified sample of 36 individuals. This included those who had direct experiences, as well as those with external insights, representing local, national and international organisations within and outside medicine.InterventionThe GMC quality assure education to protect patient and public safety utilising complex intervention components including meeting standards, institutional visits and monitoring performance. However, the context in which these are implemented matters. We undertook an innovative realist evaluation to test an initial programme theory. Data were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsAcross components of the intervention, we identified key mechanisms, including transparent reporting to promote quality improvement; dialogical feedback; partnership working facilitating interactions between regulators and providers, and role clarity in conducting proportionate interventions appropriate to risk. The GMC’s framework was commended for being comprehensive and enabling a broad understanding of an organisation’s performance. Unintended consequences included confusion over roles and boundaries in different contexts which often undermined effectiveness.ConclusionsThis realist evaluation substantiates the literature and reveals deeper understandings about quality assuring medical education. While standardised approaches are implemented, interventions need to be contextually proportionate. Routine communication is beneficial to verify data, share concerns and check risk; however, ongoing partnership working can foster assurance. The study provides a modified programme theory to explicate how education providers and regulators can work more effectively together to uphold education quality, and ultimately protect public safety. The findings have influenced the GMC’s approach to quality assurance which impacts on all medical students and doctors in training.

BackgroundSpecialty and associate specialist (SAS) doctors comprise a significant proportion of the UK medical workforce.Appraisal has the potential to support professional development, as well as being vital for revalidating a doctor's licence to practise.Early research indicated that SAS doctors experienced difficulties engaging with appraisal. It is not clear if the situation has improved over recent years, and SAS doctors' voices are largely absent from the literature. Research questionWhat are SAS doctors' understanding and experiences of appraisal and how do they make sense of them? FindingsOur qualitative, phenomenological case study identified four interrelated themes: development, compliance, recognition and wellbeing. The lived experiences of SAS doctors included compliance with organisational processes (including redundant processes) and structures that diminish agency (including unhelpful hierarchies). Positive experiences included support for development and recognition of unacknowledged work. Implication for practiceOur research reveals the importance of enhancing the professional status and agency of SAS doctors. There should be structured support and career guidance for new SAS doctors or those changing specialty and an expectation of support for professional exams. SAS doctors may benefit from explicit discussions around wellbeing. Some of these needs may be better addressed by having SAS doctors as appraisers, but this is likely to be insufficient in itself.

Background: Across the world, local standards provide doctors with a backbone of professional attitudes that must be embodied across their practice. However, educational approaches to develop attitudes are undermined by the lack of a theoretical framework. Our research explored the ways in which the General Medical Council's (GMC) programme of preventative educational workshops (the Duties of a Doctor programme) attempted to influence doctors' professional attitudes and examined how persuasive communication theory can advance understandings of professionalism education. Methods: This qualitative study comprised 15 ethnographic observations of the GMC's programme of preventative educational workshops at seven locations across England, as well as qualitative interviews with 55 postgraduate doctors ranging in experience from junior trainees to senior consultants. The sample was purposefully chosen to include various geographic locations, different programme facilitators and doctors, who varied by seniority. Data collection occurred between March to December 2017. Thematic analysis was undertaken inductively, with meaning flowing from the data, and deductively, guided by persuasive communication theory. Results: The source (educator); the message (content); and the audience (participants) were revealed as key influences on the persuasiveness of the intervention. Educators established a high degree of credibility amongst doctors and worked to build rapport. Their message was persuasive, in that it drew on rational and emotional communicative techniques and made use of both statistical and narrative evidence. Importantly, the workshops were interactive, which allowed doctors to engage with the message and thus increased its persuasiveness. Conclusions: This study extends the literature by providing a theoretically-informed understanding of an educational intervention aimed at promoting professionalism, examining it through the lens of persuasive communication. Within the context of interactive programmes that allow doctors to discuss real life examples of professional dilemmas, educators can impact on doctors' professional attitudes by drawing on persuasive communication techniques to enhance their credibility to demonstrate expertise, by building rapport and by making use of rational and emotional appeals.

Formative assessment is widely accepted in Education circles as being crucial to promoting student learning and, since 2010, the UK General Medical Council (2010) has mandated its use in workplace-based clinical training for all new doctors. As a result, the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) instituted a range of formative workplace-based assessments including the Radiology Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (Rad-DOPS), in which supervisors appraise trainees' performance in carrying out clinical procedures. This paper reports on the quality of the written feedback in 2,500 Rad-DOPS online feedback forms in addressing the aims of the new assessment approach. Random samples of 500 were selected from the first three years of the new assessment implementation: 2010-13, and from 2016-17. Using an appropriate coding frame, the feedback was analysed across the samples against key trainee attributes including stage of training and level of adjudged competence. Criteria for identifying high quality feedback were derived from the literature and a simplified form of QualitativeComparative Analysis (QCA) was used to identify the conditions associated with high quality feedback. An average of 97% of the assessments contained written feedback but the number of instances of high quality feedback was found to be exceedingly small at around 5%. The paper offers suggestions for making the feedback process more purposeful in achieving the aims of formative assessment.