>From: "gordon.challand" <[log in to unmask]> >To: "Mohammad Al-Jubouri" <[log in to unmask]>,<[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Public protest against NEQAS Iinterpretative comments scoring >Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:18:35 +0100 > >Dear Colleagues >The majority of members of this discussion group are not participants in the NEQAS interpretative comments scheme. May I respectfully suggest that if a participant has an individual gripe about the scoring of an individual comment on a Case, then the appropriate way to bring this to attention is to contact the scheme organisers via the InterpCom address (which enables us to keep a central log of such responses), rather than by using this discussion group as a first line of complaint. > >MAY I STATE YET AGAIN THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS SCHEME IS EDUCATIONAL - THANKS TO THOSE PARTICIPANTS WHO HAVE RAFFIRMED ITS VALUE FOR THIS. > >I would like to make the following general points about the marking system. >1. Peer review assessment of comments was introduced more than 5 years ago, as a guide to the organiser on which comments might be viewed as more or less appropriate. >2. Few would dispute that in almost every case the peer review assessment provides an appropriate ranking between 'low scoring', 'median', and 'high scoring' comments on each case. The opinions of our users confirm this. The only exceptions occur when there is profound disagreement between us; for example in the interpretation of TFTs in a patient receiving amiodarone. I think this is our fault, not the fault of a peer review system. >3. There is clear evidence that the standard of commenting has improved over the last two years, so that now very few comments are judged as 'inappropriate' by the assessors >4. Consequently, almost all participants are now making appropriate comments. Often, relatively minor differences in phraseology, or mentioning one thing but not another, separate comments scoring high marks from low marks. >5. By definition, a quarter of all participants on every Case will fall at or below the 25th percentile of marks. Unlike much of conventional analytical EQAS, there is no way to apply an outside criterion to determine an absolute level of performance with regard to opinion, and it is inevitable that on every Case half will full below the median score, and half above it. Those falling below the median, or even below the 25th percentile, can rest assured that they are in good company. >6. For an individual participant, the important thing is to obtain a positive score, indicating added value. The magnitude of this positive score is relatively unimportant. >7. I am always happy to be contacted (via InterpCom) about individual marks for a particular comment, and will do my best to suggest reasons why it might have scored the way it did. However, general discussion of marking of individual comments is in my opinion unlikely to prove of significant educational value. >With best wishes >Gordon Challand >Scheme Organiser > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mohammad Al-Jubouri > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:47 PM > Subject: Public protest against NEQAS Iinterpretative comments scoring > > > I scored less than the 25th centile in case 145, my comment was: > > "The patient has renal impairment that has led to sulphonylurea accumulation causing hypoglycaemia." > > The high scoring comment was: > > Reduced elimination of long acting oral hypoglycaemic agents due to deteriorating renal function is likely. Review medication - further investigations only needed if hypoglycaemia persists'. > > It will help me to come to term with that if other people scored that low despite what looks ike a median scoring comment at least. Don't you agree? > > regards > > Dr. M Al-Jubouri, Consultant Chemical Pathologist >