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

BACKGROUND: Appraisal is being adopted both in the UK and internationally as a means of aiding personal development for family doctors. However, it is not clear by whom they should be appraised. AIM: To explore attitudes of GPs towards being appraised by externally appointed GP colleagues and by their own partners. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured interviews of GPs who had experienced both forms of appraisal. SETTING: Lothian, Scotland. METHOD: Sixty-six GPs agreed to take part in a study of partner (n = 46) and external (n = 20) peer-based appraisal. Six months later this group was followed up by questionnaire to determine views of the process, in order to obtain a purposeful sample of 13 GPs who were interviewed in depth. RESULTS: We uncovered concern and a need for clarity about the linkage of appraisal to revalidation. Interviewees felt that the potentially charged nature of appraisal could lead to collusion between appraiser and appraisee, which may lead to a superficial engagement. Similarly, lack of local knowledge of an appraisee potentially enabled a strategy of avoidance. GPs opting for partner appraisal were less likely to undergo appraisal due to lack of protected time. CONCLUSION: There are reported advantages and disadvantages to having an external peer or partner appraisal. The relationship between revalidation and appraisal needs to be clarified as this leads to collusion and avoidance strategies by both appraisers and appraisees. Good training is required to both recognise and address these strategies. Protected time is essential for effective appraisal.     

Using a ‘peer assessment questionnaire’ in primary medical care

BACKGROUND: Periodic assessment of clinician performance or 'revalidation' is being actively considered to reassure the public that doctors are 'up to date and fit to practice'. There is, therefore, increasing interest in how to assess individual clinician performance in a valid and reliable way. The use of peer assessment questionnaires is one of the methods being considered and investigated by the General Medical Council in the UK. AIM: To test the feasibility of using a peer assessment questionnaire in a primary care setting, and consider the related issues of validity and reliability and compare the results to previous studies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey in a volunteer sample. SETTING: General practice in the UK. METHOD: GPs who volunteered to take part in an evaluation of a pilot appraisal implementation scheme were recruited by appraisers. These volunteers (GP subjects) chose 15 colleagues to complete a 'peer assessment' questionnaire that asked peers to make judgements about their clinical skills and other characteristics, such as 'compassion', 'integrity' and 'responsibility'. RESULTS: Of the 207 practitioners that agreed to be appraised, 113 completed the optional task of implementing the peer questionnaire. Of the 1271 raters, 1189 provided data about their roles and 33.6% of these were GPs. The data revealed significant levels of items where peers were 'unable to evaluate' the issues posed in the questionnaire (ranging from 13.7-1.8%). These rates differed from those obtained in studies based in the US where mean scores were slightly higher. Although the overall results are broadly similar to those previously obtained, there are sufficient differences to suggest that there are contextual issues influencing the interpretation of the items and therefore the scoring process. CONCLUSION: The volunteer sample in this study found no major obstacles to the implementation of the peer assessment questionnaire. While it is not possible to generalise from this selected volunteer sample, the use of peer assessment questionnaires appears feasible and may be acceptable to clinical practitioners. However, concern remains about the validity of such instruments and that their development did not fully consider issues of procedural justice or whether the overall purpose of the tools was to be formative, summative, or both.     

Multisource feedback questionnaires in appraisal and for revalidation: a qualitative study in UK general practice

Background

UK revalidation plans for doctors include obtaining multisource feedback from patient and colleague questionnaires as part of the supporting information for appraisal and revalidation.

Aim

To investigate GPs'' and appraisers'' views of using multisource feedback data in appraisal, and of the emerging links between multisource feedback, appraisal, and revalidation.

Design and setting

A qualitative study in UK general practice.

Method

In total, 12 GPs who had recently completed the General Medical Council multisource feedback questionnaires and 12 appraisers undertook a semi-structured, telephone interview. A thematic analysis was performed.

Results

Participants supported multisource feedback for formative development, although most expressed concerns about some elements of its methodology (for example, ‘self’ selection of colleagues, or whether patients and colleagues can provide objective feedback). Some participants reported difficulties in understanding benchmark data and some were upset by their scores. Most accepted the links between appraisal and revalidation, and that multisource feedback could make a positive contribution. However, tensions between the formative processes of appraisal and the summative function of revalidation were identified.

Conclusion

Participants valued multisource feedback as part of formative assessment and saw a role for it in appraisal. However, concerns about some elements of multisource feedback methodology may undermine its credibility as a tool for identifying poor performance. Proposals linking multisource feedback, appraisal, and revalidation may limit the use of multisource feedback and appraisal for learning and development by some doctors. Careful consideration is required with respect to promoting the accuracy and credibility of such feedback processes so that their use for learning and development, and for revalidation, is maximised.     

Underperforming doctors in general practice: a survey of referrals to UK Deaneries.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service Executive guidelines for rehabilitation of general practitioners (GPs) who require professional support state that these GPs should be advised to contact the Director of Postgraduate General Practice Education in their Deanery. There has been concern about how the needs of these GPs can be met without additional resources. AIM: To monitor and describe the process and outcome of these referrals over a two-year period to assess the size of the problem, to share good practice, and to identify any deficiencies in the system. DESIGN OF STUDY: Quarterly postal questionnaires. SETTING: Deaneries in the United Kingdom, which are geographically-based organisational units for the management of general practice education. METHODS: Three postal questionnaires were devised to cover General Medical Council (GMC) referrals to Deaneries, health authority referrals, and referrals made by Deaneries to the GMC Non-responders were contacted by telephone. RESULTS: Twenty-seven GPs were referred by the GMC, 72 were referred by health authorities, and 18 referrals were made by Deaneries to the GMC. The information provided to Deaneries by the GMC was timely in just over half the cases, and was left to be appropriate in two-thirds of cases. Information provided by health authorities was almost always timely, detailed, and appropriate. The action required by the GMC was felt to be inappropriate in five cases, and not feasible in eight cases. No extra resources were available in the majority of cases. Information about outcome for the GP was either unavailable or unclear in over half the cases. CONCLUSION: This monitoring exercise has revealed several deficiencies in the system for dealing with the educational needs of underperforming GPs. There is a needfor a clear national protocol for referral of GPs to Deaneries and for the support that Deaneries can be expected to provide.     

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

Background

GP appraisal is currently considered inadequate because it lacks robustness. Objective assessment of appraisal evidence is needed to enable judgements on professional performance to be made.

Aim

To determine GP appraisers'' views of the acceptability, feasibility, and educational impact of external peer feedback received on three core appraisal activities undertaken as part of this study.

Design of study

Independent peer review and cross-sectional postal questionnaire study.

Setting

NHS Scotland.

Method

One of three core appraisal activities (criterion audit, significant event analysis, or video of consultations) was undertaken by GP appraisers and subjected to peer review by trained colleagues. A follow-up postal questionnaire elicited participants'' views on the potential acceptability, feasibility, and educational impact of this approach.

Results

Of 164 appraisers, 80 agreed to participate; 67/80 (84%) submitted one of three appraisal materials for peer review and returned completed questionnaires. For significant event analyses (n = 44), most responders believed the peer feedback method was feasible (100%) and fair (92.5%) and would add value to appraisal (95.5%). Peer feedback on criterion audits (n = 15) was believed to be acceptable and fair (93.3%) and it was thought it would be a useful educational tool (100%). Completing a consultation video (n = 8) was perceived to be feasible as part of normal general practice (n = 5). It was unanimously agreed that assessment of videos by peers has educational impact and would help improve appraisal.

Conclusion

This group of GP appraisers strongly supported the role of external and independent feedback by trained peers as one approach to strengthening the existing appraisal process.     

General practitioner turnover and migration in England 1990-94.

BACKGROUND: In tandem with fears about a GP workforce crisis, increasing attention is being focused on the supply and distribution of primary care services: on general practitioners in particular. Differential turnover and migration across health authority boundaries could lead to a maldistribution of GPs, yet comprehensive studies of GP turnover are non-existent. AIM: To quantify general practitioner (GP) turnover and migration in England from 1990 to 1994. METHOD: Yearly data from 1 October 1990 to 1 October 1994 were collected on GPs in England practising full time, including average yearly turnover, rates of entry to and exit from general practice, and net migration among GPs. All were calculated at the family health service authority (now the new health authorities) level. RESULTS: Average yearly GP turnover ranges from 2.9% in Shropshire to 7.8% in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster; turnover is associated with deprivation and high-need areas. Migration of GPs across health authority borders was rare. Entry and exit rates were also positively related to measures of deprivation and need. Relatively underprovided health authorities lost 23 GPs over the study period as a result of migration; relatively overprovided ones gained three. CONCLUSION: Turnover is driven primarily by exits from general practice and is related to deprivation and high need. Retention appears to be the main problem in ensuring an adequate GP supply in relatively deprived and underprovided health authorities.     

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

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.     

The general practitioner as the first contacted health professional by patients with psychosocial problems: a European study.

BACKGROUND: There are considerable differences between and within countries in the involvement of general practitioners (GPs) in psychosocial care. This study aimed to describe the self-perceived role of GPs in 30 European countries as the first contacted professional for patients with psychosocial problems. and to examine the relationship with characteristics of the health care system, practice organization and doctors. METHODS: Data collected in the European Study of GP Task Profiles were analysed in relation to the self-perceived involvement of GPs in psychosocial care. In 30 countries 7233 GPs answered standardized questionnaires in their own languages about seven brief case scenarios. The questions focused on care given as the first health care professional contacted, and were answered in a scored scale (1-4) ranging from 'never' to 'almost always'. Independent variables examined were both on a national level and on an individual level, including: listed practice population, referral system, employment status of GPs, workload, measures of practice organization, contacts with social workers and urbanization of practice area. Data were analysed using multi-level techniques. RESULTS: Self-perceived involvement in psychosocial care was much higher in Western than in Eastern Europe and also in countries with a referral system. Cooperation with social workers, rural practice, keeping medical records, presence of an appointment system and high workload were positively associated with this perceived involvement. CONCLUSIONS: In countries with self-employed doctors and a referral system, GPs are in a better position to provide psychosocial care. GPs should be encouraged to cooperate with social workers and to keep medical records of their patient contacts routinely.     

Service profiles of general practitioners in Europe. European GP Task Profile Study.

BACKGROUND: General practice is the focal point of primary care. There are national differences in the structure and organization of practice, the relationship with secondary care is being redefined, and in some countries major changes are taking place. AIM: To describe and examine differences in the service profiles of general practitioners (GPs) in European countries. METHOD: Standardized questionnaires in the national languages were sent to samples of GPs in 1993. Four areas of service provision were measured: the GP's position in the first contact with selected health problems, the involvement in minor surgery and the application of medical procedures, disease management and preventive care. The importance of the gatekeeping role, remuneration system, and geographical region in Europe was examined by comparing scores in appropriate national groupings. RESULTS: Data were received from 7233 GPs in 30 countries. Most national samples were random and the average response rate was 47%. In countries where GPs have a gatekeeping role, they had a relatively stronger position as doctors of first contact. In those countries where GPs were usually self-employed, they had a stronger role in disease management and screening for blood cholesterol. In the examination of the three structural elements of health care, the most striking differences were evident in the comparison between eastern and western Europe. GPs throughout Europe had a comparatively small role in organized health education. CONCLUSION: The position of GPs is weak in eastern Europe and some Mediterranean countries, where service profiles have a limited range. General practice was more comprehensive where the doctors had a gatekeeping role.     

A RCT of three training and support strategies to encourage implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Providing doctors with new research findings or clinical guidelines is rarely sufficient to promote changes in clinical practice. An implementation strategy is required to provide clinicians with the skills and encouragement needed to alter established routines. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different training and support strategies in promoting implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention (SBI) by general practitioners (GPs). METHOD: Subjects were 128 GPs, one per practice, from the former Northern and Yorkshire Regional Health Authority, who agreed to use the 'Drink-Less' SBI programme in an earlier dissemination trial. GPs were stratified by previous marketing conditions and randomly allocated to three intensities of training and support: controls (n = 43) received the programme with written guidelines only, trained GPs (n = 43) received the programme plus practice-based training in programme usage, trained and supported GPs (n = 42) received the programme plus practice-based training and a support telephone call every two weeks. GPs were requested to use the programme for three months. Outcome measures included proportions of GPs implementing the programme and numbers of patients screened and intervened with. RESULTS: Seventy-three (57%) GPs implemented the programme and screened 11,007 patients for risk drinking. Trained and supported GPs were significantly more likely to implement the programme (71%) than controls (44%) or trained GPs (56%); they also screened, and intervened with, significantly more patients. Costs per patient screened were: trained and supported GPs, 1.05 Pounds; trained GPs, 1.08 Pounds; and controls, 1.47 Pounds. Costs per patient intervened with were: trained and supported GPs, 5.43 Pounds; trained GPs, 6.02 Pounds; and controls, 8.19 Pounds. CONCLUSION: Practice-based training plus support telephone calls was the most effective and cost-effective strategy to encourage implementation of SBI by GPs.     

Health at work in the general practice.

BACKGROUND: Poor mental health and high stress levels have been reported in staff working in general practice. Little is known about how practices are tackling these and other issues of health at work in the absence of an established occupational healthcare service. AIM: To establish the extent of knowledge and good practice of health at work policies for staff working in general practice. METHOD: Practice managers in 450 randomly selected general practices in England were interviewed by telephone, and the general practitioner (GP) with lead responsibility for workplace health in the same practice was surveyed by postal questionnaire. We surveyed the existence and implementation of practice policies, causes and effects of stress on practice staff, and agreement between practice managers and GPs on these issues. RESULTS: Seventy-one per cent of GPs and 76% of practice managers responded, with at least one reply from 408 (91%) practices and responses from both the practice manager and GPs from 252 (56%) practices. Seventy-nine per cent of practices had a policy on monitoring risks and hazards. The proportion of practices with other workplace health policies ranged from 21% (policy to minimize stress) to 91% (policy on staff smoking). There was a tendency for practices to have policies but not to implement them. The three causes of stress for practice staff most commonly cites by both GP and practice manager responders were 'patient demands', 'too much work', and 'patient abuse/aggression'. Sixty-five per cent of GPs felt that stress had caused mistakes in their practices. Although there was general agreement between the two groups, there was a considerable lack of agreement between responders working in the same practices. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed substantial neglect of workplace health issues with many practices falling foul of health and safety legislation. This report should help general practices identify issues to tackle to improve their workplace health, and the Health at Work in the NHS project to focus on areas where their targeted help will be most worthwhile.     

The maldistribution of general practitioners in England and Wales: 1974-2003.

BACKGROUND: The geographical distribution of general practitioners (GPs) is a persistent policy concern within the National Health Service. Maldistribution across family health service authorities in England and Wales fell between 1974 and the mid-1980s but then remained, at best, constant until the mid-1990s. AIM: To estimate levels of maldistribution over the period 1994-2003 and to examine the long-term trend in maldistribution from 1974-2003. DESIGN: Annual snapshots from the GP census. SETTING: One hundred 2001 'frozen' health authorities in England and Wales for 1994-2003 and 98 family health service authorities for 1974-1995. METHOD: Ratios of GPs to raw and need-adjusted populations were calculated for each health authority for each year using four methods of need adjustment: age-related capitation payments, national age- and sex-specific consultation rates, national age- and sex-specific limiting long-term illness rates, and health authority-specific mortality. Three summary measures of maldistribution across health authorities in the GP to population ratio--the decile ratio, the Gini coefficient, and the Atkinson index--were calculated for each year. RESULTS: Maldistribution of GPs as measured by the Gini coefficient and Atkinson index increased from the mid-1980s to 2003, but the decile ratio showed little change over the entire 1974-2003 period. Unrestricted GP principals and equivalents were more equitably distributed than other types of GP. CONCLUSION: The 20% increase in the number of unrestricted GPs between 1985 and 2003 did not lead to a more equal distribution.     

Questioning in general practice--a tool for change.

In general practice, as in all branches of medicine, doctors are encouraged to ensure their decisions reflect research findings, and are 'evidence-based'. This depends upon general practitioners (GPs) questioning their practice, finding 'evidence-based' answers, and changing their practice where necessary. Questioning behaviour is therefore fundamental to this process. Research into the questioning behaviour and information needs of GPs is difficult and it is unknown whether better access to information necessarily results in behavioural change or better health outcomes. This paper summarises research on doctors' questioning behaviour, factors influencing their likelihood of finding answers, and discusses some of the obstacles they face in implementing change. Finally, we introduce the concept of a 'clinical informaticist', whose role is to provide evidence-based answers to specific questions raised by GPs. This service may facilitate learning and increase uptake of research findings.