Discovery - University of Dundee - Online Publications

Library & Learning Centre

Insightful practice

Standard

Insightful practice : a reliable measure for medical revalidation. / Murphy, Douglas J.; Guthrie, Bruce; Sullivan, Frank M.; Mercer, Stewart W.; Russell, Andrew; Bruce, David A.

In: BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 21, No. 8, 2012, p. 649-656.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Murphy, DJ, Guthrie, B, Sullivan, FM, Mercer, SW, Russell, A & Bruce, DA 2012, 'Insightful practice: a reliable measure for medical revalidation' BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 21, no. 8, pp. 649-656., 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000429

APA

Murphy, D. J., Guthrie, B., Sullivan, F. M., Mercer, S. W., Russell, A., & Bruce, D. A. (2012). Insightful practice: a reliable measure for medical revalidation. BMJ Quality & Safety, 21(8), 649-656. 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000429

Vancouver

Murphy DJ, Guthrie B, Sullivan FM, Mercer SW, Russell A, Bruce DA. Insightful practice: a reliable measure for medical revalidation. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2012;21(8):649-656. Available from: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000429

Author

Murphy, Douglas J.; Guthrie, Bruce; Sullivan, Frank M.; Mercer, Stewart W.; Russell, Andrew; Bruce, David A. / Insightful practice : a reliable measure for medical revalidation.

In: BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 21, No. 8, 2012, p. 649-656.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bibtex - Download

@article{afc03231828b4b9b9a2e298fe25cd645,
title = "Insightful practice: a reliable measure for medical revalidation",
author = "Murphy, {Douglas J.} and Bruce Guthrie and Sullivan, {Frank M.} and Mercer, {Stewart W.} and Andrew Russell and Bruce, {David A.}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000429",
volume = "21",
number = "8",
pages = "649--656",
journal = "BMJ Quality & Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Insightful practice

T2 - a reliable measure for medical revalidation

A1 - Murphy,Douglas J.

A1 - Guthrie,Bruce

A1 - Sullivan,Frank M.

A1 - Mercer,Stewart W.

A1 - Russell,Andrew

A1 - Bruce,David A.

AU - Murphy,Douglas J.

AU - Guthrie,Bruce

AU - Sullivan,Frank M.

AU - Mercer,Stewart W.

AU - Russell,Andrew

AU - Bruce,David A.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Background: Medical revalidation decisions need to be reliable if they are to reassure on the quality and safety of professional practice. This study tested an innovative method in which general practitioners (GPs) were assessed on their reflection and response to a set of externally specified feedback. Setting and participants: 60 GPs and 12 GP appraisers in the Tayside region of Scotland, UK. Methods: A feedback dataset was specified as (1) GP-specific data collected by GPs themselves (patient and colleague opinion; open book self-evaluated knowledge test; complaints) and (2) Externally collected practice-level data provided to GPs (clinical quality and prescribing safety). GPs' perceptions of whether the feedback covered UK General Medical Council specified attributes of a 'good doctor' were examined using a mapping exercise. GPs' professionalism was examined in terms of appraiser assessment of GPs' level of insightful practice , defined as: engagement with, insight into and appropriate action on feedback data. The reliability of assessment of insightful practice and subsequent recommendations on GPs' revalidation by face-to-face and anonymous assessors were investigated using Generalisability G-theory. Main outcome measures: Coverage of General Medical Council attributes by specified feedback and reliability of assessor recommendations on doctors' suitability for revalidation. Results: Face-to-face assessment proved unreliable. Anonymous global assessment by three appraisers of insightful practice was highly reliable (G=0.85), as were revalidation decisions using four anonymous assessors (G=0.83). Conclusions: Unlike face-to-face appraisal, anonymous assessment of insightful practice offers a valid and reliable method to decide GP revalidation. Further validity studies are needed.

AB - Background: Medical revalidation decisions need to be reliable if they are to reassure on the quality and safety of professional practice. This study tested an innovative method in which general practitioners (GPs) were assessed on their reflection and response to a set of externally specified feedback. Setting and participants: 60 GPs and 12 GP appraisers in the Tayside region of Scotland, UK. Methods: A feedback dataset was specified as (1) GP-specific data collected by GPs themselves (patient and colleague opinion; open book self-evaluated knowledge test; complaints) and (2) Externally collected practice-level data provided to GPs (clinical quality and prescribing safety). GPs' perceptions of whether the feedback covered UK General Medical Council specified attributes of a 'good doctor' were examined using a mapping exercise. GPs' professionalism was examined in terms of appraiser assessment of GPs' level of insightful practice , defined as: engagement with, insight into and appropriate action on feedback data. The reliability of assessment of insightful practice and subsequent recommendations on GPs' revalidation by face-to-face and anonymous assessors were investigated using Generalisability G-theory. Main outcome measures: Coverage of General Medical Council attributes by specified feedback and reliability of assessor recommendations on doctors' suitability for revalidation. Results: Face-to-face assessment proved unreliable. Anonymous global assessment by three appraisers of insightful practice was highly reliable (G=0.85), as were revalidation decisions using four anonymous assessors (G=0.83). Conclusions: Unlike face-to-face appraisal, anonymous assessment of insightful practice offers a valid and reliable method to decide GP revalidation. Further validity studies are needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864543684&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000429

DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000429

M1 - Article

JO - BMJ Quality & Safety

JF - BMJ Quality & Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - 8

VL - 21

SP - 649

EP - 656

ER -

Documents

Library & Learning Centre

Contact | Accessibility | Policy