BACKGROUND: As general practice nurses (GPNs) now perform many activities formerly undertaken by general practitioners (GPs), the paperwork and process of the Scottish GP appraisal scheme may be usefully replicated for GPN appraisal. METHOD: Eight GPNs adapted paperwork. Ten GP appraisers in NHS Lanarkshire were invited to interview their GPN(s) using the adapted paperwork. Both groups evaluated the project from 'descriptive' (participation and process) and 'reflective' or qualitative perspectives. RESULTS: Eight GPs appraised 11 GPNs using a ten-page document. GPNs reported that the documentation was helpful in preparing for and participating in the interview, as well as the planning of future objectives and development. GPs reported that the appraisal interview incorporated GPNs' views, the content was relevant, and their approach nonjudgemental and developmental. Some expressed concern that their participation had not helped them identify ways of addressing GPN learning needs. There was clear indication from GPNs that trained colleagues rather than GP employers are preferred appraisers. Improvements in the paperwork would be required. DISCUSSION: There is potential to replicate the paperwork and processes used in GP appraisal to GPNs, subject to refinement of the paperwork and engagement of trained nurse colleagues in the process. This may reduce the effect of collusion, inhibition or conflict of interest. However, GPN personal development still must be reconciled with practice priorities and development. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot indicate a positive response in terms of participation and process. Further research should examine GPN appraisal using an external nurse appraiser, training issues and resource implications.
BACKGROUND: As general practice nurses (GPNs) now perform many activities formerly undertaken by general practitioners (GPs), the paperwork and process of the Scottish GP appraisal scheme may be usefully replicated for GPN appraisal. METHOD: Eight GPNs adapted paperwork. Ten GP appraisers in NHS Lanarkshire were invited to interview their GPN(s) using the adapted paperwork. Both groups evaluated the project from 'descriptive' (participation and process) and 'reflective' or qualitative perspectives. RESULTS: Eight GPs appraised 11 GPNs using a ten-page document. GPNs reported that the documentation was helpful in preparing for and participating in the interview, as well as the planning of future objectives and development. GPs reported that the appraisal interview incorporated GPNs' views, the content was relevant, and their approach nonjudgemental and developmental. Some expressed concern that their participation had not helped them identify ways of addressing GPN learning needs. There was clear indication from GPNs that trained colleagues rather than GP employers are preferred appraisers. Improvements in the paperwork would be required. DISCUSSION: There is potential to replicate the paperwork and processes used in GP appraisal to GPNs, subject to refinement of the paperwork and engagement of trained nurse colleagues in the process. This may reduce the effect of collusion, inhibition or conflict of interest. However, GPN personal development still must be reconciled with practice priorities and development. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot indicate a positive response in terms of participation and process. Further research should examine GPN appraisal using an external nurse appraiser, training issues and resource implications.
Authors: Kathryn Hoffmann; Silvia Wojczewski; Diederik Aarendonk; Manfred Maier; Thomas Ernst Dorner; Jan de Maeseneer Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 1.704