Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in a peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal

BMC Medical Education

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Curnock, Esther ^a   Bowie, Paul ^a   Pope, Lindsey ^a   McKay, John ^a  

^a NHS EDUCATION FOR SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; PEER GROUP; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; PEER GROUP; SCOTLAND;

EID: 84858740363     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726920     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-15     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Scottish Executive, NHS Education for Scotland, RCGP (Scotland) &BMA (Scotland), GP appraisal scheme: a brief guide Edinburgh: Scottish Executive 2003
2. General Medical Council, A licence to practise and revalidation London: GMC 2003
3. Secretary of State for Health, Trust, assurance and safety - the regulation of health professionals in the 21st century. White Paper presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Health by Command of Her Majesty London: The Stationery Office 2007
4. What do doctors really think about the relevance and impact of GP appraisal 3 years on? A survey of Scottish GPs. Coltart I, Cameron N, McKinstry B, Blaney D, Br J Gen Pract 2008 58 547 82 87 10.3399/bjgp08X264036 18307850 (Pubitemid 351222892)
5. Department of Health, 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 by the Chief Medical Officer London: Department of Health 2006
6. Verifying appraisal evidence using feedback from trained peers: views and experiences of Scottish GP appraisers. Bowie P, Cameron N, Staples I, McMillan R, McKay J, Lough M, Br J Gen Pract 2009 59 484 489 10.3399/bjgp09X453521 19566997
7. The peer review pilot project: a potential system to support GP appraisal in NHS Scotland. Murie J, McCrae J, Bowie P, Educ Prim Care 2009 20 34 40 19618650
8. Towards increasing competence of thought in public policy formation. Hammond KR, Judgement and decision in public policy formation Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Hammond KR, 1978 11 32
9. A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and educational peer review. Bowie P, McKay J, Dalgetty E, Lough M, Qual Saf Health Care 2005 14 185 189 10.1136/qshc.2004. 010983 15933315 (Pubitemid 40834919)
10. External feedback in general practice: A focus group study of trained peer reviewers of significant event analyses. McKay J, Pope L, Bowie P, Lough M, J Eval Clin Pract 2009 15 142 147 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00969.x 19239594
11. Acceptability and educational impact of a peer feedback model for significant event analysis. McKay J, Shepherd A, Bowie P, Lough M, Med Educ 2008 42 1210 1217 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03235.x 19120952
12. Enhancing communication skills by peer review of consultation videos. Cameron N, McMillan R, Educ Prim Care 2006 17 1 40 48 (Pubitemid 43268519)
13. Factors influencing the submission of videotaped consultations by general practitioners for peer review and educational feedback. McMillan R, Cameron N, Qual Prim Care 2006 14 2 85 89 (Pubitemid 44400201)
14. The assessment of criterion audit cycles by external peer review-when is an audit not an audit? Bowie P, Cooke S, Lo P, McKay J, Lough M, J Eval Clin Pract 2007 13 3 352 357 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00704.x 17518798 (Pubitemid 46789634)
15. Development and testing of an assessment instrument for the formative peer review of significant event analyses. McKay J, Murphy D, Bowie P, Schmidt M, Lough M, Eva K, Qual Saf Health Care 2007 16 150 153 10.1136/qshc.2006.020750 17403765 (Pubitemid 46596456)
16. Variations in the ability of general medical practitioners in applying two methods of clinical audit: a five-year study of assessment by peer review. McKay J, Bowie P, Lough M, J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 6 622 629 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00630.x 17100861 (Pubitemid 44715471)
17. Training the trainer in general practice: the perceived value of independent peer feedback for learning activities. Shepherd A, McKay J, Bowie P, Educ Prim Care 2010 21 8 368 375 21144175
18. Identifying the best research design to fit the question. Part 2: qualitative designs. Ploeg J, Evid Based Nurs 1999 2 36 37 10.1136/ebn.2.2.36
19. Patton MQ, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 1990
20. Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. Speck M, ERS Spectrum 1996 33 41
21. What are the most effective strategies for improving quality and safety of health care? Scott SI, Intern Med J 2009 39 389 4000 10.1111/j.1445-5994. 2008.01798.x 19580618
22. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? Davis D, O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A, J Am Med Assoc 1999 282 867 874 10.1001/jama.282.9.867 (Pubitemid 29408939)
23. A review of the current evidence base for significant event analysis. Bowie P, Pope L, Lough M, J Eval Clin Pract 2008 14 4 520 536 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00908.x 18462290
24. NHS Modernisation Agency, Defining the evidence for revalidation - supporting the Royal College of General Practitioners. Collation of views from the NHS Clinical Governance Support Team Expert Group. NHS 2004
25. General Medical Council, Good Medical Practice London: GMC 2006
26. Peer review of health care professionals: a systematic review of the literautre. Prepared for the Australian Commission on the Safety & Quality in Health Care (June 2009). http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/ publishing.nsf/Content/com-pubs-cred-con/$File/25738-LitReview.pdf [accessed 6th October 2011]
27. Quality and Outcomes Framework guidance for GMS contract 2011/12 (April 2011). http://www.nhsemployers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/ QOFguidanceGMScontract-2011-12-FL%2013042011.pdf [accessed 6th October 2011]
28. Festinger L, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 1957
29. Levels of agreement on the grading, analysis and reporting of significant events by general practitioners: a cross sectional study. McKay J, Bowie P, Murray L, Lough M, Qual Saf Health Care 2008 17 339 345 10.1136/qshc.2007.024323 18842972
30. Does appraisal enhance learning, improve practice and encourage continuing professional development? A survey of general practitioners' experiences of appraisal. Finlay K, McLaren S, Qual Prim Care 2009 17 6 387 395 20051189
31. th October 2011)