title: A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and educational peer assessment.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To explore the influences and perceived benefits behind general practitioners' willingness to participate in significant event analysis (SEA) and educational peer assessment.
  
  
  METHODS
  Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts.
  
  
  METHODS
  Greater Glasgow Primary Care Trust.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two focus group sessions involving 21 principals in general practice (GPs).
  
  
  METHODS
  GPs' perceptions of the reasons for and benefits of participating in SEA and associated educational peer assessment.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Pressure from accreditation bodies and regulatory authorities makes SEA compulsory for most participants who believe more in-depth event analyses are undertaken as a result. Some believed SEA was not an onerous activity while others argued that this depended on the complexity of the event. SEA that is linked to a complaint investigation may provide credible evidence to patients that their complaint is taken seriously. Writing up an event analysis is viewed as an educational process and may act as a form of personal catharsis for some. Event analyses are submitted for peer assessment for educational reward but are highly selective because of concerns about confidentiality, litigation, or professional embarrassment. Most participants disregard the opportunities to learn from "positive" significant events in favour of problem ones. Peer assessment is valued because there is a perception that it enhances knowledge of the SEA technique and the validity of event analyses, which participants find reassuring.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This small study reports mainly positive feedback from a select group of GPs on the merits of SEA and peer assessment.
authors.affiliation: Department of Postgraduate Medical Education, University of Glasgow, UK. paul.bowie@nes.scot.nhs.uk
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Bowie
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: McKay
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Dalgetty
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lough
mesh_terms: D000068:Accreditation; D000328:Adult; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D004502:Education, Medical, Continuing; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008485:Medical Audit; D008875:Middle Aged; D009042:Motivation; D018024:Peer Review, Health Care; D010821:Physicians, Family / Q000193:education / Q000523:psychology*; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D017009:Professional Autonomy; D012308:Risk Management; D012606:Scotland; D018571:Sentinel Surveillance