A multi-method analysis of free-text comments from the UK general medical council colleague questionnaires

Medical Education

Volumn 43, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 757-766

  Richards, Suzanne H ^a,c   Campbell, John L ^a   Walshaw, Emily ^a   Dickens, Andy ^a   Greco, Michael ^b  

^a PENINSULA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^c PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY PENINSULA SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTENT ANALYSIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL COLLEAGUE QUESTIONNAIRE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL STAFF; ONLINE ANALYSIS; PHYSICIAN; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROFESSIONALISM; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INTERNET; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; STATE MEDICINE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 70350302331     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03416.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Donaldson L. Good Doctors, Safer Patients: Proposals to Strengthen the System to Assure and Improve the Performance of Doctors and to Protect the Safety of Patients: a Report. London: Department of Health 2006.
2. General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice. London: GMC 2006.
3. Schuwirth L, Southgate L, Page G, Paget N, Lescop J, Lew S, Wade W, Baron-Maldonado M. When enough is enough: a conceptual basis for fair and defensible practice performance assessment. Med Educ 2002;36 (10):925-930.
4. Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C. A plea for new psychometric models in educational assessment. Med Educ 2006;40 (4):296-300.
5. Stern D. A framework for measuring professionalism. In: Stern D, ed. Measuring Medical Professionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006;3-14.
6. Stern D. What is medical professionalism? In: Stern D, ed. Measuring Medical Professionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006;15-37.
7. Lockyer J, Clyman S. Multi-source feedback (360- degree evaluation). In: Holmboe E, Hawkins R, eds. Practical Guide to the Evaluation of Clinical Competence, 1st edn. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier 2008;75-85.
8. Wood L, Hassell A, Whitehouse A, Bullock A, Wall D. A literature review of multi-source feedback systems within and without health services, leading to 10 tips for their successful design. Med Teach 2006;28 (7):185-191.
9. Evans R, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians. BMJ 2004;328 (7450):1240-1243.
10. Campbell J, Richards S, Dickens A, Greco M, Narayanan A, Brearley S. Assessing the professional performance of UK doctors: an evaluation of the utility of the General Medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:187-193.
11. Whitehouse A, Hassell A, Wood L, Wall D, Walzman M, Campbell I. Development and reliability testing of TAB, a form for 360 degrees assessment of senior house officers' professional behaviour, as specified by the General Medical Council. Med Teach 2005;27 (3):252-258.
12. Archer J, Norcini J, Southgate L, Heard S, Davies H. Mini-PAT (peer assessment tool): a valid component of a national assessment programme in the UK? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2006;13:181-192.
13. Healthcare Assessment and Training. SPRAT and eSPRAT Assessments. http://www.hcatnhsuk/assessments/sprat-and-esprat. [Accessed 3 February 2009.]
14. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, UK. Multi-source Assessments for Psychiatrists: Self- or Colleague Questionnaire. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/ Sample%20self%20or%20colleague%20questionnaire.pdf.2009. [Accessed 3 February 2009.]
15. Thomas P, Gebo K, Hellmann D. A pilot study of peer review in residency training. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14 (9):551-554.
16. Arnold L, Stern D. Content and context of peer assessment. In: Stern D, ed. Measuring Medical Professionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006;175-194.
17. Frohna A, Stern D. The nature of qualitative comments in evaluating professionalism. Med Educ 2005;39 (8):763-768.
18. Donaldson L. Medical Revalidation - Principles and Next Steps. Leeds: Department of Health 2008.
19. Holsti O. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing 1969.
20. Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. Qualitative Research Methods in Health Technology Assessment: a Review of the Literature. Southampton: NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme 1998;1-276.
21. Stemler S. An overview of content analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 2001;7 (17):1-10.
22. Altman D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall 1991.
23. Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. Challenges in multisource feedback: intended and unintended outcomes. Med Educ 2007;41 (6):583-591.