Assessing the professional performance of UK doctors: an evaluation of the utility of the General Medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires

Campbell, John; Richards, Suzanne H; Dickens, Andy; Greco, Michael; Narayanan, Ajit; Brearley, Stephen

doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.024679

Cited by 79 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the range of EP 2 approached 0.70 with eight co-workers, our D studies produced lower reliability coefficients across all specialty groupings suggesting that six of nine PAR specialties require a minimum of 11 co-workers for stable data, a finding similar to a UK study. 10 These findings suggest that while current co-worker data is reliable for providing formative professional development information, our generalizability coefficients do not support using coworker feedback alone for high stakes practice decisions, a finding supported by UK research. 10 G studies have informed MSF research and influenced data collection procedures concerning the necessary numbers of raters required to provide reliable data or the numbers of items needed on MSF questionnaires.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…10 These findings suggest that while current co-worker data is reliable for providing formative professional development information, our generalizability coefficients do not support using coworker feedback alone for high stakes practice decisions, a finding supported by UK research. 10 G studies have informed MSF research and influenced data collection procedures concerning the necessary numbers of raters required to provide reliable data or the numbers of items needed on MSF questionnaires. However, G studies have not considered how the data collection process itself may influence the feedback provided to individual physicians.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…In some cases, the co-worker and medical colleague data are combined. 10 In other practice settings, two different questionnaires with different items for medical colleagues and non-physician co-workers are used to provide data. 11 When one questionnaire is used to assess both physician and non physician behaviors, and the feedback report is an aggregate of these data, the unique perspective provided by non-physician co-workers is lost.…”

Section: Co-worker Familiarity and Physician Multisource Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Co-Worker Assessment and Physician Multisource Feedback

2016

ARC Journal of Nursing and Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Background: Multisource feedback (MSF) is increasingly being used as one of the components in revalidation and recertification processes to guide physicians' continuing professional development. Data provided by coworkers (e.g., nurses, pharmacists, technicians) are recognized as integral for assessing a physician's communication, teamwork and interprofessional abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine both the reliability of co-worker scores and the association between co-worker familiarity and physician ratings as both affect perceptions of the quality of feedback and the likelihood that recipients will take their feedback seriously.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Co-worker Familiarity and Physician Multisource Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-Worker Assessment and Physician Multisource Feedback

2016

ARC Journal of Nursing and Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the UK, MSF is increasingly used as evidence in the portfolios of doctors in training and several studies have validated MSFs for this purpose (Thomas et al 1999;Whitehouse et al 2002Whitehouse et al , 2005Davies & Archer 2003;Archer et al 2005;Hesketh et al 2005;Wilkinson & Wade 2005;Davies et al 2008;Wilkinson et al 2008). Small studies have also described using MSF for consultants (Mason et al 2003;Bennett et al 2004) and general practitioners (GP; Griffin et al 2000;Elwyn et al 2005;Murphy et al 2008) and two studies validating a previously developed questionnaire on consultants , and consultants and GPs (Campell et al 2008) have been published. More recently, specialty-specific MSFs have been developed in some specialties, for trainees , and for career-grade doctors (The Royal College of Radiologists 2004; Lelliot et al 2008), suggesting a possible need for more specialised questions or processes for some specialties.…”

Section: Practice Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A single generic multi-source feedback tool for revalidation of all UK career-grade doctors: Does one size fit all?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual question response rates and participants' comments about questions indicate that some questions are less appropriate for some specialities. There was a significant difference in the mean score between specialities. Despite guidance, there were significant differences in the mix of assessors across specialties. More favourable scores were given by progressively more junior doctors. Nurses gave the most reliable scores. Conclusions: It is feasible to electronically administer a generic questionnaire to a large population of doctors. Generic content is appropriate for most but not all specialties. The differences in mean scores and the reliability of the MSF between specialties may be in part due to the specialty differences in assessor mix. Therefore the number and assessor mix should be standardised at specialty level and scores should not be compared across specialties.

show abstract

“…1 In addition, in the UK, patient feedback on individual doctor performance is proposed as a central component in the future processes being developed to regulate doctors. [2][3][4] Although guidance has been developed to encourage practitioners to respond positively to such data, 2,5,6 the resulting information and its potential utility in informing change in doctors' professional practice has not been established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges to the credibility of patient feedback in primary healthcare settings: a qualitative study

Asprey

Campbell²,

Newbould³

et al. 2013

Br J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe UK government has encouraged NHS services to obtain patient feedback to support the further development of patient-centred care. In 2009, the English GP Patient Survey included a sample of 5.5 million, but little is known about its potential utility in informing developments aimed at improving the quality of patients' experiences of primary care. AimTo investigate primary care providers' response to feedback on patient experience from a national survey. Design and settingQualitative interview study in 10 general practices from four primary care trusts in England. MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs, practice nurses, and practice managers (n = 37). Transcripts were analysed thematically. ResultsAlthough some participants reported making changes to their practice in response to the survey data, many expressed doubts about the credibility of the results. Key issues included: concerns about practical aspects of the survey, such as the response rate and representativeness of the sample; the view that it gave insufficient detail to facilitate change and failed to address some salient issues; and unease about the influence of political influences underpinning its introduction and use. ConclusionAlthough, in general, primary care professionals have positive attitudes towards patient feedback, this study suggests a mismatch between the conventional demonstration of the objectivity of a questionnaire survey and the attitudes and experiences of those receiving the data. This is likely to prevent doctors from engaging constructively with the survey. These concerns may well militate against the potential of the survey to act as a simple means of capturing, and effectively using, feedback from patients. Keywordsprimary healthcare; qualitative research; reliability and validity; surveys.

show abstract

Assessing the professional performance of UK doctors: an evaluation of the utility of the General Medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires

Cited by 79 publications

References 30 publications

Co-Worker Assessment and Physician Multisource Feedback

Co-Worker Assessment and Physician Multisource Feedback

A single generic multi-source feedback tool for revalidation of all UK career-grade doctors: Does one size fit all?

Challenges to the credibility of patient feedback in primary healthcare settings: a qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About