The assessment of poorly performing doctors: the development of the assessment programmes for the General Medical Council’s Performance Procedures.
Saved in:
| Title: | The assessment of poorly performing doctors: the development of the assessment programmes for the General Medical Council’s Performance Procedures. |
|---|---|
| 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, p2-8. 7p. |
| Subjects: | Rating of physicians, Professional peer review |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom |
| Abstract: | BackgroundModernization of medical regulation has included the introduction of the Professional Performance Procedures by the UK General Medical Council in 1995. The Council now has the power to assess any registered practitioner whose performance may be seriously deficient, thus calling registration (licensure) into question. Problems arising from ill health or conduct are dealt with under separate programmes. MethodsThis paper describes the development of the assessment programmes within the overall policy framework determined by the Council. Peer review of performance in the workplace (Phase 1) is followed by tests of competence (Phase 2) to reflect the relationship between clinical competence and performance. The theoretical and research basis for the approach are presented, and the relationship between the qualitative methods in Phase 1 and the quantitative methods in Phase 2 explored. ConclusionsThe approach is feasible, has been implemented and has stood legal challenge. The assessors judge and report all the evidence they collect and may not select from it. All their judgements are included and the voice of the lay assessor is preserved. Taken together, the output from both phases forms an important basis for remediation and training should it be required. [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: | BackgroundModernization of medical regulation has included the introduction of the Professional Performance Procedures by the UK General Medical Council in 1995. The Council now has the power to assess any registered practitioner whose performance may be seriously deficient, thus calling registration (licensure) into question. Problems arising from ill health or conduct are dealt with under separate programmes. MethodsThis paper describes the development of the assessment programmes within the overall policy framework determined by the Council. Peer review of performance in the workplace (Phase 1) is followed by tests of competence (Phase 2) to reflect the relationship between clinical competence and performance. The theoretical and research basis for the approach are presented, and the relationship between the qualitative methods in Phase 1 and the quantitative methods in Phase 2 explored. ConclusionsThe approach is feasible, has been implemented and has stood legal challenge. The assessors judge and report all the evidence they collect and may not select from it. All their judgements are included and the voice of the lay assessor is preserved. Taken together, the output from both phases forms an important basis for remediation and training should it be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03080110 |
| DOI: | 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00001.x |
