OBJECTIVE: To determine the views of general practitioners about professional reaccreditation. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. SUBJECTS: All 278 general practitioner principals working in Cleveland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: General practitioner characteristics; attitudes to reaccreditation; and views on the development, conduct, content, and format of reaccreditation. RESULTS: 210 out of 278 (76%) general practitioners responded to the questionnaire. 128 (61%) agreed that general practitioners should undergo reaccreditation. 149 (72%) thought the General Medical Services Committee and local medical committees were appropriate bodies to lead its development. 120 respondents suggested that reaccreditation should be carried out by assessors appointed by the doctor's own local medical committee. The most favoured interval between reaccreditation episodes was 10 or more years. 152 doctors thought that doctors who failed reaccreditation should be advised on education and reassessed soon afterwards. Clinical knowledge (82%), clinical skill (82%), prescribing practices (67%), standards of medical record keeping (60%), and consultation behaviour (58%) were the most popular subjects for scrutiny. 138 (67%) respondents felt that reaccreditation should be part of continuing medical education. CONCLUSION: Most general practitioners support professional reaccreditation. They believe the process should be led by the profession, be educational, and take account of a range of professional activities.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the views of general practitioners about professional reaccreditation. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. SUBJECTS: All 278 general practitioner principals working in Cleveland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: General practitioner characteristics; attitudes to reaccreditation; and views on the development, conduct, content, and format of reaccreditation. RESULTS: 210 out of 278 (76%) general practitioners responded to the questionnaire. 128 (61%) agreed that general practitioners should undergo reaccreditation. 149 (72%) thought the General Medical Services Committee and local medical committees were appropriate bodies to lead its development. 120 respondents suggested that reaccreditation should be carried out by assessors appointed by the doctor's own local medical committee. The most favoured interval between reaccreditation episodes was 10 or more years. 152 doctors thought that doctors who failed reaccreditation should be advised on education and reassessed soon afterwards. Clinical knowledge (82%), clinical skill (82%), prescribing practices (67%), standards of medical record keeping (60%), and consultation behaviour (58%) were the most popular subjects for scrutiny. 138 (67%) respondents felt that reaccreditation should be part of continuing medical education. CONCLUSION: Most general practitioners support professional reaccreditation. They believe the process should be led by the profession, be educational, and take account of a range of professional activities.