Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in a peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The UK general practitioner (GP) appraisal system is deemed to be an inadequate source of performance evidence to inform a future medical revalidation process. A long-running voluntary model of external peer review in the west of Scotland provides feedback by trained peers on the standard of GP colleagues' core appraisal activities and may 'add value' in strengthening the robustness of the current system in support of revalidation. A significant minority of GPs has participated in the peer feedback model, but a clear majority has yet to engage with it. We aimed to explore the views of non-participants to identify barriers to engagement and attitudes to external peer review as a means to inform the current appraisal system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of west of Scotland GPs who had yet to participate in the peer review model. A thematic analysis of the interview transcriptions was conducted using a constant comparative approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>13 GPs were interviewed of whom nine were males. Four core themes were identified in relation to the perceived and experienced 'value' placed on the topics discussed and their relevance to routine clinical practice and professional appraisal: 1. Value of the appraisal improvement activity. 2. Value of external peer review. 3. Value of the external peer review model and host organisation and 4. Attitudes to external peer review.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>GPs in this study questioned the 'value' of participation in the external peer review model and the national appraisal system over the standard of internal feedback received from immediate work colleagues. There was a limited understanding of the concept, context and purpose of external peer review and some distrust of the host educational provider. Future engagement with the model by these GPs is likely to be influenced by policy to improve the standard of appraisal and contractual related activities, rather than a self-directed recognition of learning needs.</p

A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Significant event analysis (SEA) is promoted as a team-based approach to enhancing patient safety through reflective learning. Evidence of SEA participation is required for appraisal and contractual purposes in UK general practice. A voluntary educational model in the west of Scotland enables general practitioners (GPs) and doctors-in-training to submit SEA reports for feedback from trained peers. We reviewed reports to identify the range of safety issues analysed, learning needs raised and actions taken by GP teams.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Content analysis of SEA reports submitted in an 18 month period between 2005 and 2007.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>191 SEA reports were reviewed. 48 described patient harm (25.1%). A further 109 reports (57.1%) outlined circumstances that had the potential to cause patient harm. Individual 'error' was cited as the most common reason for event occurrence (32.5%). Learning opportunities were identified in 182 reports (95.3%) but were often non-specific professional issues not shared with the wider practice team. 154 SEA reports (80.1%) described actions taken to improve practice systems or professional behaviour. However, non-medical staff were less likely to be involved in the changes resulting from event analyses describing patient harm (p < 0.05)</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study provides some evidence of the potential of SEA to improve healthcare quality and safety. If applied rigorously, GP teams and doctors in training can use the technique to investigate and learn from a wide variety of quality issues including those resulting in patient harm. This leads to reported change but it is unclear if such improvement is sustained.</p

Differences in the quality of primary medical care for CVD and diabetes across the NHS: evidence from the quality and outcomes framework

Background: Health policy in the UK has rapidly diverged since devolution in 1999. However, there is relatively little comparative data available to examine the impact of this natural experiment in the four UK countries. The Quality and Outcomes Framework of the 2004 General Medical Services Contract provides a new and potentially rich source of comparable clinical quality data through which we compare quality of primary medical care for coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, hypertension and diabetes across the four UK countries. &lt;p/&gt;Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken involving 10,064 general practices in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The main outcome measures were prevalence rates for CHD, stroke, hypertension and diabetes. Achievement on 14 simple process, 3 complex process, 9 intermediate outcome and 5 treatment indicators for the four clinical areas. &lt;p/&gt;Results: Prevalence varies by up to 28% between the four UK countries, which is not reflected in resource distribution between countries, and penalises practices in the high prevalence countries (Wales and Scotland). Differences in simple process measures across countries are small. Larger differences are found for complex process, intermediate outcome and treatment measures, most notably for Wales, which has consistently lower quality of care. Scotland has generally higher quality than England and Northern Ireland is most consistently the highest quality. &lt;p/&gt;Conclusion: Previously identified weaknesses in Wales related to waiting times appear to reflect a more general quality problem within NHS Wales. Identifying explanations for the observed differences is limited by the lack of comparable data on practice resources and organisation. Maximising the value of cross-jurisdictional comparisons of the ongoing natural experiment of health policy divergence within the UK requires more detailed examination of resource and organisational differences

Inequity in cardiovascular care in the English National Health Service (NHS): a scoping review of the literature

There is a general understanding that socioeconomically disadvantaged people are also disadvantaged with respect to their access to NHS care. Insofar as considerable NHS funding has been targeted at deprived areas, it is important to better understand whether and why socioeconomic variations in access and utilisation exist. Exploring this question with reference to cardiovascular care, our aims were to synthesise and evaluate evidence relating to access to and/or use of English NHS services around (i) different points on the care pathway (i.e. presentation, primary management and specialist management) and (ii) different dimensions of inequality (socioeconomic, age- and gender-related, ethnic or geographical). Restricting our search period from 2004 to 2016, we were concerned to examine whether, compared to earlier research, there has been a change in the focus of research examining inequalities in cardiac care and whether the pro-rich bias reported in the late 1990s and early 2000s still applies today. We conducted a scoping study drawing on Arksey &amp; O'Malley's framework. A total of 174 studies were included in the review and appraised for methodological quality. Although, in the past decade, there has been a shift in research focus away from gender and age inequalities in access/use and towards socioeconomic status and ethnicity, evidence that deprived people are less likely to access and use cardiovascular care is very contradictory. Patterns of use appear to vary by ethnicity; South Asian populations enjoying higher access, black populations lower. By contrast, female gender and older age are consistently associated with inequity in cardiovascular care. The degree of geographical variation in access/use is also striking. Finally, evidence of inequality increases with stage on the care pathway, which may indicate that barriers to access arise from the way in which health professionals are adjudicating health needs rather than a failure to seek help in the first place.</p

Judging the quality of clinical audit by general practitioners: a pilot study comparing the assessments of medical peers and NHS audit specialists

Clinical audit informs general practitioner (GP) appraisal and will provide evidence of performance for revalidation in the UK. However, objective evidence is now required. An established peer assessment system may offer an educational solution for making objective judgements on clinical audit quality. National Health Service (NHS) clinical audit specialists could potentially support this system if their audit assessments were comparable with established medical peer assessors. The study aimed to quantify differences between clinical audit specialists and medical peer assessors in their assessments of clinical audit projects. A comparison study of the assessment outcomes of clinical audit reports by two groups using appropriate assessment instruments was conducted. Mean scores were compared and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and limits of agreement calculated. A two-point mean difference would be relevant. Twelve significant event analysis (SEA) reports and 12 criterion audit projects were assessed by 11 experienced GP assessors and 10 NHS audit specialist novice assessors. For SEA, the mean score difference between groups was &lt; 1.0. The 95% CI for bias was -0.1 to 0.5 (P = 0.14). Limits of agreement ranged from -0.7 to 1.2. For criterion audit, a mean score difference of &lt;= 1.0 was calculated for seven projects and scores between 1.1 and 1.9 for four. The 95% CI for bias was 0.8 to 1.5 (P &lt; 0.001). Limits of agreement ranged from -2.5 to -0.0. The study findings suggest that a sample of NHS clinical audit specialists can give numerically accurate feedback scores to GPs on the quality of their clinical audit activity compared with established peer assessors as part of the model outlined

External feedback in general practice: a focus group study of trained peer reviewers of significant event analyses

Background and aims  Peer feedback is well placed to play a key role in satisfying educational and governance standards in general practice. Although the participation of general practitioners (GPs) as reviewers of evidence will be crucial to the process, the professional, practical and emotional issues associated with peer review are largely unknown. This study explored the experiences of GP reviewers who make educational judgements on colleagues' significant event analyses (SEAs) in an established peer feedback system. Methods  Focus groups of trained GP peer reviewers in the west of Scotland. Interviews were taped, transcribed and analysed for content. Results  Consensus on the value of feedback in improving SEA attempts by colleagues was apparent, but there was disagreement and discomfort about making a dichotomous `satisfactory' or `unsatisfactory' judgement. Differing views on how peer feedback should be used to compliment the appraisal process were described. Some concern was expressed about professional and legal obligations to colleagues and to patients seriously harmed as a result of significant events. Regular training of peer reviewers using several different educational methods was thought essential in enhancing or maintaining their skills. Involvement of the participants in the development of the feedback instrument and the peer review system was highly valued and motivating. Conclusions  Acting as a peer reviewer is perceived by this group of GPs to be an important professional duty. However, the difficulties, emotions and tensions they experience when making professional judgements on aspects of colleagues' work need to be considered when developing a feasible and rigorous system of educational feedback. This is especially important if peer review is to facilitate the `external verification' of evidence for appraisal and governance