Literature DB >> 11895258

The General Medical Council's Performance Procedures: peer review of performance in the workplace.

L Southgate1, J Cox, T David, D Hatch, A Howes, N Johnson, B Jolly, E Macdonald, P McAvoy, P McCrorie, J Turner.   

Abstract

The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor's practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills. Peer reviews are conducted by three trained assessors, two from the same speciality as the doctor being assessed, with one lay assessor. The doctor completes a portfolio to describe his/her training, experience, the circumstances of practice and self rate his/her competence and familiarity in dealing with the common problems of his/her own discipline. The assessment includes a review of the doctor's medical records; discussion of cases selected from these records; observation of consultations for clinicians, or of relevant activities in non-clinicians; a tour of the doctor's workplace; interviews with at least 12 third parties (five nominated by the doctor); and structured interviews with the doctor. The content and structure of the peer review are designed to assess the doctor against the standards defined in Good Medical Practice, as applied to the doctor's speciality. The assessment methods are based on validated instruments and gather 700-1000 judgements on each doctor. Early experience of the peer review visits has confirmed their feasibility and effectiveness.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11895258     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.0350s1009.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  9 in total

1.  Corridor consultations and the medical microbiological record: is patient safety at risk?

Authors:  S R Heard; C Roberts; S J Furrows; M Kelsey; L Southgate
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 2.  Assessing competencies in rheumatology.

Authors:  J Dacre; I Haq
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-09-30       Impact factor: 19.103

3.  What is being assessed in the MRCGP oral examination? A qualitative study.

Authors:  Robin G Simpson; Karen D Ballard
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Workplace assessment for licensing in general practice.

Authors:  Tim Swanwick; Nav Chana
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  The Foundation Programme assessment tools: an opportunity to enhance feedback to trainees?

Authors:  S Carr
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 6.  A critical analysis of mini peer assessment tool (mini-PAT).

Authors:  Aza Abdulla
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 7.  The problem surgical colleague.

Authors:  John G Mosley
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.

Authors:  Julia Hippisley-Cox; Mike Pringle; Ruth Cater; Alison Wynn; Vicky Hammersley; Carol Coupland; Rhydian Hapgood; Peter Horsfield; Sheila Teasdale; Christine Johnson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-06-28

9.  Doctors who pilot the GMC's Tests of Competence: who volunteers and why?

Authors:  Leila Mehdizadeh; Alison Sturrock; Gil Myers; Yasmin Khatib; Jane Dacre
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 2.401

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.