Commentary: Can poorly performing doctors blame their assessment tools?

British Medical Journal

Volumn 330, Issue 7502, 2005, Pages 1254-

  Baker, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; EVALUATION; HEALTH SERVICE; JOB PERFORMANCE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NOTE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PEDIATRICIAN; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RELIABILITY; UNITED KINGDOM; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; MEDICAL STAFF; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 20344370744     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38469.406597.0B     Document Type: Note

References (5)

1. Archer JC, Norcini J, Davies HA. Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. BMJ 2005;330:1251-3.
2. Schuwirth LWT, Southgate L, Page GG, Paget NS, Lescop JMJ, Lew SR, et al. When enough is enough: a conceptual basis for fair and defensible practice performance assessment. Med Educ 2002;36:925-30.
3. Van der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ 1996;1:41-67.
4. Evans R, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians. BMJ 2004;328:1240-3.
5. Sargeant JM, Mann KV, Ferrier SN, Langille DB, Muirhead PD, Hayes VM, et al. Responses of rural family physicians and their colleague and coworker raters to a multi-source feedback process: a pilot study. Acad Med 2003;78:s42-4.