From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Bromley
Sent: 26 April 2010 13:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 2 assertions on appraisal and (re)validation

similarly pt satisfaction surveys are not good. often the doctor who never says no will get great reports; decline a referral or antibiotics and guess the result.
 
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:11:57 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: 2 assertions on appraisal and (re)validation
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> 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"
>
> It strikes me that faced with such a lame assed system one might
> reasonably expect our esteemed professional bodies to step up to the
> mark with something akin to a kite mark or ISO ( I mean for the
> doctors clinical appraisal, not the practice), with compliance
> actually demonstrating high standards and acting as a tick for the NHS
> wide process.
>
> On 26 April 2010 07:42, Paul Caldwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > for me the major critiscm is that Appraisal now and proposed doesnt look
> > directly at what one does with ones pts, surely what maintaining standards
> > is what its all about. i suspect that this is because doing so is
> > difficult logistically and expensive, whereas time on CPD,  counting numbers
> > of complaints, and a piss-poor audit are easy and cheap.
> >
> >> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:25:26 +0100
> >> From: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: 2 assertions on appraisal and (re)validation
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 12:07 +0100, Trefor Roscoe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > The CPD you do will be determined by yourself in discussion with your
> >> > appraiser at your annual appraisals. NOTHING will be COMPULSORY.
> >>
> >> It is possible that some of your appraiser colleagues have a more
> >> definite view on this, one suggested to me that I should do some very
> >> particular things in a precise manner, recording them on a computer
> >> system that would, he wrote, make it easy for him to keep track of my
> >> efforts, and that this was what was required by legislation about
> >> revalidation.
> >>
> >> I disabused him.
> >>
> >> He went quiet, and soem time later claimed to have sent an email telling
> >> me and others that he was no longer available to do my appraisal.
> >>
> >> Someone relatively sensible and effective then was appointed, and we
> >> exchanged views on a number of things.
> >>
> >> Appraisal remains unappraised by those who claim it is useful and that
> >> science informs their actions.
> >>
> >> I remain unsurprised.
> >>
> >> And unimpressed.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> A
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.

---

Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.