ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001
Underperforming doctors in general practice: a survey of referrals to UK Deaneries.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing a training programme for primary care dental practitioners in endodontics of moderate complexity: Pilot data on skills enhancement and treatment outcomes.British dental journal · 2018Article
- Presentation and outcome of clinical poor performance in one health district over a 5-year period: 2002-2007.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
- Referrals to psychiatric service in United arab emirates: an analysis of the content of referral letters.International journal of health sciences · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational 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.
aimTo 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.
settingDeaneries in the United Kingdom, which are geographically-based organisational units for the management of general practice education.
methodsThree 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.
resultsTwenty-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.
conclusionThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11761202PMC1314145What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.