Literature DB >> 18307850

What do doctors really think about the relevance and impact of GP appraisal 3 years on? A survey of Scottish GPs.

Iain Colthart1, Niall Cameron, Brian McKinstry, David Blaney.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of appraisal is to provide an opportunity for individuals to reflect on their work to facilitate learning and development. Appraisal for GPs has been a contractual requirement since 2004 in Scotland, and is seen as an integral part of revalidation. AIM: To investigate the outcomes of GP appraisal in terms of whether it has prompted change in medical practice, education and learning, career development, attitudes to health and probity, how GPs organise their work, and their perception of the overall value of the process. DESIGN OF STUDY: A cross-sectional postal questionnaire.
SETTING: GP performers in Scotland who had undertaken appraisal.
METHOD: The questionnaire was based on the seven principles outlined in Good Medical Practice, a literature review, and previous local research. The survey was conducted on a strictly anonymous basis with a random, representative sample of GPs.
RESULTS: Fifty-three per cent (671/1278) responded. Forty-seven per cent (308/661) thought that appraisal had altered their educational activity, 33% (217/660) reported undertaking further education or training as a result of appraisal, and 13% (89/660) felt that appraisal had influenced their career development. Opinion was evenly split on the overall value of appraisal.
CONCLUSION: Appraisal can have a significant impact on all aspects of a GP's professional life, and those who value the process report continuing benefit in how they manage their education and professional development. However, many perceive limited or no benefit. The renewed emphasis on appraisal requires examination of these findings and discussion of how appraisal can become more relevant.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18307850      PMCID: PMC2233956          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X264036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  9 in total

Review 1.  Does continuing medical education in general practice make a difference?

Authors:  P Cantillon; R Jones
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-05-08

2.  Not another questionnaire! Maximizing the response rate, predicting non-response and assessing non-response bias in postal questionnaire studies of GPs.

Authors:  Stephen Barclay; Chris Todd; Ilora Finlay; Gunn Grande; Penny Wyatt
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.267

3.  GP job satisfaction in 1987, 1990 and 1998: lessons for the future?

Authors:  B Sibbald; I Enzer; C Cooper; U Rout; V Sutherland
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 4.  Self-assessment in the health professions: a reformulation and research agenda.

Authors:  Kevin W Eva; Glenn Regehr
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  GP experiences of partner and external peer appraisal: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Brian McKinstry; Heather Peacock; Johnstone Shaw
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies.

Authors:  D A Davis; M A Thomson; A D Oxman; R B Haynes
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-09-06       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Appraisal of family doctors: an evaluation study.

Authors:  Malcolm Lewis; Glyn Elwyn; Fiona Wood
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  Evidence for the effectiveness of CME. A review of 50 randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  D A Davis; M A Thomson; A D Oxman; R B Haynes
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-09-02       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The feminization of the medical work force, implications for Scottish primary care: a survey of Scottish general practitioners.

Authors:  Brian McKinstry; Iain Colthart; Katy Elliott; Colin Hunter
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-05-10       Impact factor: 2.655

  9 in total
  8 in total

1.  Appraisals.

Authors:  J Maxwell Inwood
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Regulation: appraisal alone is not enough.

Authors:  Maurice Conlon
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 5.386

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

Authors:  Paul Bowie; Niall Cameron; Ian Staples; Rhona McMillan; John McKay; Murray Lough
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Appraisals.

Authors:  John Temple
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in a peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal.

Authors:  Esther Curnock; Paul Bowie; Lindsey Pope; John McKay
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Using clinical supervision to improve the quality and safety of patient care: a response to Berwick and Francis.

Authors:  Jonathon Tomlinson
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  The general practitioner workforce crisis in England: a qualitative study of how appraisal and revalidation are contributing to intentions to leave practice.

Authors:  Jeremy Dale; Rachel Potter; Katherine Owen; Jonathan Leach
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  A new comprehensive model for Continuous Professional Development.

Authors:  Niels Kristian Kjaer; Marianne Vedsted; James Høpner
Journal:  Eur J Gen Pract       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 1.904

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.