Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26392086›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2015

Quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation: the perceptions of London's responsible officers and their appraisers.

Ann Griffin, Daniel S Furmedge, Deborah Gill, Catherine O'Keeffe, Anju Verma, Laura-Jane Smith, Lorraine Noble, Ray Field, Celia Ingham Clark

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ann GriffinUniversity College London Medical School, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6 AU, UK. a.griffin@ucl.ac.uk.
Daniel S FurmedgeUniversity College London Medical School, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6 AU, UK. d.furmedge@ucl.ac.uk.
Deborah GillUniversity College London Medical School, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6 AU, UK. deborah.gill@ucl.ac.uk.
Catherine O'KeeffeHealth Education North West London, London, UK. Catherine.O'Keeffe@nwl.hee.nhs.uk.
Anju VermaUniversity College London Medical School, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6 AU, UK. a.verma@ucl.ac.uk.
Laura-Jane SmithUniversity College London Medical School, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6 AU, UK. laura-jane.smith@ucl.ac.uk.
Lorraine NobleUniversity College London Medical School, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6 AU, UK. lorraine.noble@ucl.ac.uk.
Ray FieldNHS England, London, UK. ray.field@nhs.net.
Celia Ingham ClarkNHS England, London, UK. celia.inghamclark@nhs.net.
University College London · GBNHS EnglandHealth Education North West · GB

Funding

Department of Health IPF 11-12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate NHS England London region's approach to the revalidation appraisal of responsible officers in London, exploring perceptions of the quality and impact of the appraisal process. Revalidation is the process which aims to ensure doctors in the UK are up-to-date and fit to practice medicine thus improving the quality of patient care. Revalidation recommendations are largely premised on the documentation included in annual appraisals, which includes the professional development a doctor has undertaken and supporting information about their practice.

methodsA pan-London qualitative study exploring the views of responsible officers and their appraisers about the revalidation appraisal process. The study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of the participants. Responsible officers were purposefully sampled to represent the broadest range of designated bodies. Data analysis generated themes pertaining to quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation with the potential to feed into and shape the evolving system under investigation.

resultsThe central importance of highly skilled appraisers was highlighted. Both groups reported educational opportunities embedded within the appraisal process. Independent appraisers, not matched by clinical speciality or place of work, were considered to take a more objective view of a responsible officer's practice by providing an 'outsider perspective'. However, covering the breadth of roles, in sufficient depth, was challenging. Participants reported a bias favouring the appraisal of the responsible officer role above others including clinical work. Appraisal and revalidation was perceived to have the potential to improve the healthcare standards and support both personal development and institutional quality improvement.

conclusionsResponsible officers play a central role in the revalidation process. Getting responsible officer appraisal right is central to supporting those individuals to in turn support doctors and healthcare organisations in continuous quality improvement. The complexity and importance of the role of responsible officer may make achieving an appraisal of all roles of such individuals problematic. This evaluation suggests responsible officer appraisal was perceived as educational and effective.

Indexed as

Clinical GovernanceCredentialingClinical CompetenceHumansInterviews as TopicLondonPhysiciansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26392086
PMCPMC4578248
OpenAlexW1903352386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.