The feedback requirements have increased. Previously doctors had to complete formal patient and colleague feedback once in every 5 year cycle. This requirement remains:
Annual Patient Feedback
There is a new RCGP requirement to include patient feedback, and a doctor’s reflection upon it, in every annual appraisal. This feedback could be from a range of sources and could include:
- Annual practice surveys
- Locally conducted or service specific patient questionnaires (so for example surveys from minor surgery or family planning clinics)
- Compliments received from patients
- NHS choices responses
- PPG feedback
Five Yearly Patient and Colleague Feedback
At least once in every 5 year revalidation cycle doctors are required to collect both patient (PSQ) and colleague (MSF) feedback.
The most frequently used RCGP acceptable methods are:
Additional RCGP acceptable tools are:
Sheffield Peer Review Assessment Tool Version 2 (GP-SPRAT)
General Medical Council Colleague Questionnaire
For each of these tools there is a set requirement for the number of completed returns. It is also a requirement that the scores are benchmarked so a doctor can reflect on their feedback compared to other doctors. For the GMC feedback tools benchmark scores are published, the commercial providers of feedback tools will also carry out benchmarking.
Click here to access benchmarking resources:
Benchmarking patient and colleague feedback
Although you could choose to use a different toolkit:
- it MUST be based on the specific domains addressed in current GMC guidance
- It MUST include benchmarked scores against a national cohort of GPs
- It MUST be specific to an individual doctor, not a practice (this specifically means that the GPAQ survey is not suitable)
A key part of the process is the doctor’s reflections on feedback.
Low scores are not a specific bar to revalidation; clearly some doctors must be scored below average. However, if feedback scores are low, I would expect to see evidence that the doctor had reflected upon this, and usually adapted their PDP accordingly. It may also be appropriate in such cases for doctors to consider repeating the feedback within the next year.
For the avoidance of doubt, a set of consistently low feedback scores, without evidence of reflection and understanding, will lead to a recommendation for deferral. On the other hand, a low feedback score, with evidence of reflection, and a plan to address any areas of concern is likely to lead to a positive recommendation.
The RCGP now strongly recommend that the feedback tools are completed in the first 3 years of the revalidation cycle. This is because if significant changes are required as a consequence of feedback, then the survey is likely to need repeating prior to revalidation.