The General Medical Council’s Performance Procedures: peer review of performance in the workplace.
Saved in:
| Title: | The General Medical Council’s Performance Procedures: peer review of performance in the workplace. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Southgate, Lesley (AUTHOR), Cox, Jim (AUTHOR), David, Timothy (AUTHOR), Hatch, David (AUTHOR), Howes, Alan (AUTHOR), Johnson, Neil (AUTHOR), Jolly, Brian (AUTHOR), Macdonald, Ewan (AUTHOR), McAvoy, Pauline (AUTHOR), McCrorie, Peter (AUTHOR), Turner, Joanne (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Medical Education. Dec2001 Supplement 1, Vol. 35, p9-19. 11p. |
| Subjects: | Rating of physicians, Professional peer review |
| Abstract: | The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor’s practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills. Peer reviews are conducted by three trained assessors, two from the same speciality as the doctor being assessed, with one lay assessor. The doctor completes a portfolio to describe his/her training, experience, the circumstances of practice and self rate his/her competence and familiarity in dealing with the common problems of his/her own discipline. The assessment includes a review of the doctor’s medical records; discussion of cases selected from these records; observation of consultations for clinicians, or of relevant activities in non-clinicians; a tour of the doctor’s workplace; interviews with at least 12 third parties (five nominated by the doctor); and structured interviews with the doctor. The content and structure of the peer review are designed to assess the doctor against the standards defined in Good Medical Practice, as applied to the doctor’s speciality. The assessment methods are based on validated instruments and gather 700–1000 judgements on each doctor. Early experience of the peer review visits has confirmed their feasibility and effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor’s practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills. Peer reviews are conducted by three trained assessors, two from the same speciality as the doctor being assessed, with one lay assessor. The doctor completes a portfolio to describe his/her training, experience, the circumstances of practice and self rate his/her competence and familiarity in dealing with the common problems of his/her own discipline. The assessment includes a review of the doctor’s medical records; discussion of cases selected from these records; observation of consultations for clinicians, or of relevant activities in non-clinicians; a tour of the doctor’s workplace; interviews with at least 12 third parties (five nominated by the doctor); and structured interviews with the doctor. The content and structure of the peer review are designed to assess the doctor against the standards defined in Good Medical Practice, as applied to the doctor’s speciality. The assessment methods are based on validated instruments and gather 700–1000 judgements on each doctor. Early experience of the peer review visits has confirmed their feasibility and effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03080110 |
| DOI: | 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00002.x |
