ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2005
GP experiences of partner and external peer appraisal: a qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying and managing concerns about GPs in England: an interview study and case-series analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- The general practitioner workforce crisis in England: a qualitative study of how appraisal and revalidation are contributing to intentions to leave practice.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Isolation and insight: practical pillars of revalidation?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
- What do doctors really think about the relevance and impact of GP appraisal 3 years on? A survey of Scottish GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppraisal 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.
aimTo 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.
settingLothian, Scotland.
methodSixty-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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionThere 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16004740PMC1472795What 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.