Sessional GPs: support needed to provide the evidence required for appraisal and revalidation.
BACKGROUND
This study set out to evaluate evidence submitted by GPs for appraisal, and to explore how a model of appraisal can be developed which meets the needs of revalidation while remaining developmental and formative. This paper focuses on comparing evidence submitted by principal and sessional GPs, following previous work demonstrating problems facing the latter group.


METHODS
A checklist devised by one author was used by appraisers in one PCT to record evidence submitted for appraisal. This enabled a comparison between 76 principal and 47 sessional GPs of evidence submitted in one appraisal year from April 2008 to March 2009. The evidence was classified as personal or practice based, and the presence of reflection was noted. This quantitative evidence was supplemented by qualitative data from five focus groups with 22 GPs and one appraisal manager, and by interviews with seven GP appraisal leads in PCTs.


RESULTS
While some differences were noted between principal and sessional GPs, there were no differences found between the proportion of principal and sessional GPs who submitted personal evidence concerning data collection/audit, significant events, multi-source feedback and complaints. Focus groups indicated reasons and strategies which reflected these findings.


CONCLUSIONS
Sessional GPs have already begun to use innovative approaches to ensure they meet the evidence requirements of appraisal and revalidation. However, they are more likely to succeed if they are well supported by educational and practice networks.
Wharton
Richard
R
School of Primary Care, Severn Deanery, Bristol, UK.
Pollard
Katherine
K
D000328:Adult; D057189:Checklist; D003406:Credentialing; D005260:Female; D058006:General Practice / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018024:Peer Review, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D013222:State Medicine / Q000592:standards; D006113:United Kingdom