Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Colleague and patient appraisal of consultant psychiatrists and the effects of patient detention on appraisal scores

  • Miranda Heneghan (a1) and Robert Chaplin (a1)
Abstract
Aims and method

This paper aims to review colleague and patient feedback from the 10-year period of the operation of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' 360-degree appraisal system, specifically: (1) examine the overall distribution of ratings; (2) examine the effect of working primarily with detained patients on patient feedback, represented by forensic psychiatrists; and (3) look for a relationship between colleague and patient ratings.

Results

Data were analysed for 977 participating psychiatrists. Both colleagues and patients rated psychiatrists overall with high scores. Less than 1% were identified as low scorers, although there was no relationship between those identified by colleagues or patients. Colleague and patient feedback scores varied little between subspecialties including forensic consultants.

Clinical implications

Psychiatrists in all subspecialties obtained high scores from colleagues and staff. Working with detained patients appeared to have little effect on patient ratings.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Colleague and patient appraisal of consultant psychiatrists and the effects of patient detention on appraisal scores
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Colleague and patient appraisal of consultant psychiatrists and the effects of patient detention on appraisal scores
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Colleague and patient appraisal of consultant psychiatrists and the effects of patient detention on appraisal scores
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an open-access article published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Robert Chaplin (rob.chaplin@rcpsych.ac.uk)
Footnotes
Hide All

Declaration of interest

M.H. and R.C. work at the Royal College of Psychiatrists which manages ACP 360.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1 General Medical Council. How revalidation works. GMC, 2014. Available at http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/revalidation/9612.asp (accessed 14 September 2015).
2 General Medical Council. Colleague and patient questionnaires. GMC, 2014. Available at http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/revalidation/colleague_patient_feedback_resources.asp (accessed 14 September 2015).
3 Lelliott, P, Williams, R, Mears, A, Andiappan, M, Owen, H, Reading, P, et al. Questionnaires for a 360-degree assessment of consultant psychiatrists: development and psychometric properties. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 193: 156–60.
4 Wright, C, Richards, SH, Hill, JJ, Roberts, MJ, Norman, GR, Greco, M, et al. Multisource feedback in evaluating the performance of doctors: the example of the UK General Medical Council Patient and Colleague Questionnaires. Acad Med 2012; 87: 1668–78.
5 Violato, C, Lockyer, J, Fidler, H. Multisource feedback: a method of assessing surgical practice. BMJ 2003; 326: 546–8.
6 Ramsey, PG, Wenrich, MD, Carline, JD, Inui, TS, Larson, EB, LoGerfo, JP. Use of peer ratings to evaluate physician performance. JAMA 1993; 269: 1655–60.
7 Baker, J. Be nice to patients and they will get better? Therapeutic alliance and service user satisfaction. The Mental Elf, 2014; 16 September.
8 Sheehan, KA, Burns, T. Perceived coercion and the therapeutic relationship: a neglected association? Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62: 471–6.
9 Roche, E, Madigan, K, Lyne, JP, Feeney, L, O'Donoghue, B. The therapeutic relationship after psychiatric admission. J Nerv Ment Dis 2014; 202: 186–92.
10 Donnelly, V, Lynch, A, Devlin, C, Naughton, L, Gibbons, O, Mohan, DJ, et al. Therapeutic alliance in forensic mental health: coercion, consent and recovery. Ir J Psychol Med 2011; 28: 21–8.
11 Campbell, J, Wright, C. GMC Multi-Source Feedback Questionnaires: Interpreting and Handling Multi-Source Feedback Results: Guidance for Appraisers. General Medical Council, 2012.
12 Campbell, J, Richards, S, Dickens, A, Greco, M, Narayanan, A, Brearly, S. Assessing the professional performance of UK doctors: an evaluation of the utility of the General medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires. Qual Saf Health Care 2008; 17: 187–93.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 2056-4694
  • EISSN: 2056-4708
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 22 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 47 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 23rd July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Colleague and patient appraisal of consultant psychiatrists and the effects of patient detention on appraisal scores

  • Miranda Heneghan (a1) and Robert Chaplin (a1)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *