Search

Background: GPs collect multisource feedback (MSF) about their professional practice and discuss it at appraisal. Appraisers use such information to identify concerns about a doctor's performance, and to guide the doctor's professional development plan (PDP).Aim: To investigate whether GP appraisers detect variation in doctors' MSF results, and the degree of consensus in appraisers' interpretations of this information.Design and Setting: Online study of GP appraisers in north-east England.Method: GP appraisers were invited to review eight anonymised doctors' MSF reports, which represented different patterns of scores on the UK General Medical Council's Patient and Colleague Questionnaires. Participants provided a structured assessment of each doctor's report, and recommended actions for their PDP. Appraiser ratings of each report were summarised descriptively. An 'agreement score' was calculated for each appraiser to determine whether their assessments were more lenient than those of other participants.Results: At least one report was assessed by 101/146 appraisers (69%). The pattern of appraisers' ratings suggested that they could detect variation in GPs' MSF results, and recommend reasonable actions for the doctors' PDP. Increasing appraiser age was associated with more favourable interpretations of MSF results.Conclusion: Although preliminary, the finding of broad consensus among GP appraisers in their assessment of MSF reports should be reassuring for GPs, appraisers, and employing organisations. However, if older appraisers are more lenient than younger appraisers in their interpretation of MSF and in the actions they suggest to their appraisees as a result, organisations need to consider what steps could be taken to address such differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Simulated patient, or so-called 'mystery-shopper', studies are a controversial, but potentially useful, approach to take when conducting health services research., Aim: To investigate the construct validity of survey questions relating to access to primary care included in the English GP Patient Survey., Design and Setting: Observational study in 41 general practices in rural, urban, and inner-city settings in the UK., Method: Between May 2010 and March 2011, researchers telephoned practices at monthly intervals, simulating patients requesting routine, but prompt, appointments. Seven measures of access and appointment availability, measured from the mystery-shopper contacts, were related to seven measures of practice performance from the GP Patient Survey., Results: Practices with lower access scores in the GP Patient Survey had poorer access and appointment availability for five out of seven items measured directly, when compared with practices that had higher scores. Scores on items from the national survey that related to appointment availability were significantly associated with direct measures of appointment availability. Patient-satisfaction levels and the likelihood that patients would recommend their practice were related to the availability of appointments. Patients' reports of ease of telephone access in the national survey were unrelated to three out of four measures of practice call handling, but were related to the time taken to resolve an appointment request, suggesting responders' possible confusion in answering this question., Conclusion: Items relating to the accessibility of care in a the English GP patient survey have construct validity. Patients' satisfaction with their practice is not related to practice call handling, but is related to appointment availability.