title: Multisource feedback questionnaires in appraisal and for revalidation: a qualitative study in UK general practice.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  UK revalidation plans for doctors include obtaining multisource feedback from patient and colleague questionnaires as part of the supporting information for appraisal and revalidation.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To investigate GPs' and appraisers' views of using multisource feedback data in appraisal, and of the emerging links between multisource feedback, appraisal, and revalidation.
  
  
  METHODS
  A qualitative study in UK general practice.
  
  
  METHODS
  In total, 12 GPs who had recently completed the General Medical Council multisource feedback questionnaires and 12 appraisers undertook a semi-structured, telephone interview. A thematic analysis was performed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Participants supported multisource feedback for formative development, although most expressed concerns about some elements of its methodology (for example, 'self' selection of colleagues, or whether patients and colleagues can provide objective feedback). Some participants reported difficulties in understanding benchmark data and some were upset by their scores. Most accepted the links between appraisal and revalidation, and that multisource feedback could make a positive contribution. However, tensions between the formative processes of appraisal and the summative function of revalidation were identified.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Participants valued multisource feedback as part of formative assessment and saw a role for it in appraisal. However, concerns about some elements of multisource feedback methodology may undermine its credibility as a tool for identifying poor performance. Proposals linking multisource feedback, appraisal, and revalidation may limit the use of multisource feedback and appraisal for learning and development by some doctors. Careful consideration is required with respect to promoting the accuracy and credibility of such feedback processes so that their use for learning and development, and for revalidation, is maximised.
authors.affiliation: Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Exeter, UK.
authors.forename: Jacqueline J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Hill
authors.forename: Anthea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Asprey
authors.forename: Suzanne H
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Richards
authors.forename: John L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Campbell
mesh_terms: D000068:Accreditation / Q000379:methods*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards*; D004650:Employee Performance Appraisal / Q000379:methods*; D005246:Feedback; D005260:Female; D058006:General Practice / Q000592:standards*; D058005:General Practitioners / Q000523:psychology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D006113:United Kingdom