Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Consultant appraisal of consultant appraisal

  • Rekha Hegde and A.V. Mark Hughson (a1)
Abstract
Aims and Method

A postal survey was conducted to gauge opinion of consultant psychiatrists in the west of Scotland with regard to consultant appraisal.

Results

We received 158 responses to our survey (a response rate of 77%). The results showed mixed feelings about appraisal – for example, its purpose was felt to be about the development of consultants (72%) rather than the protection of patients (53%). Practical problems were highlighted, like the provision of accurate data and the amount of time spent on the preparation for appraisal.

Participation in 360-degree appraisal was scant, and no consensus on the use of outcome measures was reached.

Implications

More work needs to be done on the appraisal process for it to gain the full confidence of the profession.

  • 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.

      Consultant appraisal of consultant appraisal
      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.

      Consultant appraisal of consultant appraisal
      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.

      Consultant appraisal of consultant appraisal
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
Bristol Royal Infirmary (2001) Learning from Bristol: the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry.
Brown, N., Parry, E. & Oyebode, F. (2003) Appraisal for consultant medical staff. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9, 152158.
Croft, G. (2006) Engaging Clinicians in Improving Data Quality in the NHS. (http://hiu.rcplondon.ac.uk/documents/EngagingCliniciansDataQualityNHS.pdf).
Department of Health (1991) The health of the nation: a strategy for England. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Department of Health (1998) Modernising Mental Health Services: Safe, Sound and Supportive (http://www.nepho.org.uk/index.php?c=1961).
Department of Health (1999) Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients. A Consultation Paper on Preventing, Recognising and Dealing with Poor Clinical Performance of Doctors in the NHS in England (http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4042802.pdf).
Department of Health (1999) National Service Framework for Mental Health: Modern Standards and Service Models (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4009598).
Department of Health (2006) Good Doctors, Safer Patients: Proposals to Strengthen the System to Assure and Improve the Performance of Doctors and to Protect the Safety of Patients (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4137232).
Department of Health (2007) Trust, Assurance and Safety: The Regulation of Health Professionals (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_065946).
General Medical Council (2007) Revalidation from graduate to experienced practitioner. GMC Today, 13, 89.
Gilbody, S. M., House, A. & Sheldon, T. A. (2002) Psychiatrists in the UK do not use outcomes measures: National survey. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 101103.
Keogh, B., Spiegelhalter, D., Bailey, A., et al (2004) The legacy of Bristol: public disclosure of individual surgeons' results. British Medical Journal, 329, 450454.
Kohn, L.T., Corrigan, J. M. & Donaldson, M. S. (2000) To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academy Press.
Roy, D. (2004) Appraisal and revalidation of consultant psychiatrists in the NHS: A report from the Special Committee on Clinical Governance. Psychiatric Bulletin, 28, 387390.
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2005) ACP 360, 360 Degree Assessment for Consultant Psychiatrists (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/crtu/centreforqualityimprovement/acp360.aspx).
Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (2007) The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry. Department of Health.
Trauer, T. (2003) Routine outcome measurement by mental health-care providers. The Lancet, 361, 1137.
The Shipman Inquiry (2004) Fifth Report – Safeguarding Patients: Lessons from the Past – Proposals for the Future. The Shipman Inquiry.
Wing, J. K., Beevor, A. S., Curtis, R. H., et al (1998) Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS): research and development. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 1118.
Recommend this journal

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

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 0955-6036
  • EISSN: 1472-1473
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Hegde and Hughson supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 Unknown (483 bytes)
483 bytes
PDF
Supplementary materials

Hegde and Hughson supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (25 KB)
25 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 4 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 15 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 18th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Consultant appraisal of consultant appraisal

  • Rekha Hegde and A.V. Mark Hughson (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? *