A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and educational peer assessment

Verifying appraisal evidence using feedback from trained peers: views and experiences of Scottish GP appraisers

“…Given this background, there is a strong perception from appraisers that other GP colleagues would benefit from developmental feedback by trained peers on SEA and audit attempts, which reflects previous research evidence. [17][18][19][20]22 A comparatively small number of appraisers submitted consultation videos for peer review. Although there was strong agreement that other GPs would benefit from this method of receiving feedback on their consultations skills, there was less agreement on whether this would be acceptable to most GPs.…”

“…[11][12][13][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] However, further evidence from a range of GP groups as to its overall utility is necessary to inform future development. 24,25 GP appraisers are a key group with important professional insights into the strengths and weakness of the appraisal system and how it may be enhanced.…”

“…However, it is unclear how this overcomes the perceived inadequacy of the present approach, which is that the appraisal system lacks a robust method to verify the quality of evidence that is already known to be variable. [17][18][19][20]22 Implications for future research…”

Levels of agreement on the grading, analysis and reporting of significant events by general practitioners: a cross-sectional study

“…These events were then given a severity grading by two of the authors (JM, PB) using the NPSA grading categorisation (table 1). Most event scenarios chosen impacted “negatively” on care because GPs may favour analysing these over “positive” events such as early diagnoses of curable cancers or successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a cardiac arrest 24 25…”

Development and testing of an assessment instrument for the formative peer review of significant event analyses

“…5-8 13 This involves a submitted written report being sent to two trained GP assessors, chosen from a group of 20, who independently review it using a structured assessment instrument and provide educational feedback. 13 Given the perceived importance of the SEA technique to the patient safety agenda, 4 14 the development of a valid and reliable assessment instrument with which to facilitate the educational peer review of SEA would be highly desirable. In this way, a professional judgement could be made on the quality of the event analysis in question, and a formative feedback provided for consideration.…”