On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 10:11 +0100, Saul Galloway wrote:
> I once worked as a lead physician assessing a team of 35 doctors. The
> appraisal included
>
> 1/2 day sitting in with clinic and feedback
> Examining a sample or 20 notes and standardized scoring and feedback
> Complaints/compliments review
> "360" feedback (I think the term is misleading because the best you
> can get is multisource feedback, peers, reception, admin etc I don't
> think you ever get honest feedback upwards.)
> PDP review (last years and agreeing the PDP ahead)
>
> It was a minimum of 2 days work per doctor (not done all at one
> sitting thank God!) and if there was any coaching/persuading/improving
> required considerably more than that. I don't think I could have put
> my name to a document saying they were up to a standard with less
> covered.
>
> But then does the mooted NHS appraisal actually involve the appraiser
> stating in his opinion the appraised is up to standard, or is there
> the usual weasel words around such things?
>
> "The above Dr has satisfactorily completed NHS appraisal. Satisfactory
> completion of NHS appraisal does not imply that the NHS warrants the
> Dr is fit to practice and acceptably good at his job"
Appraisal has been supposed and stated to be about developing the
doctor, explicitly not about determining if they are fit to practice or
up to scratch.
Appraisers who offer assistance and feedback on such self-direction
might be useful and indeed there might be a business in providing it,
the profitability of which would indicate how effective its customers
regarded it as.
BUt it has now been contaminated by people who in their deep
self-knowledge wish to ensure others are as perfect as they, and in the
same way - not in new and different ones.
--
A
|