{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021076401957094468, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.661654135338346, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Appraisal of family doctors: an evaluation study.

BACKGROUND
Appraisal has evolved to become a key component of workforce management. However, it is not clear from existing proposals for appraisal of doctors whether employers, health authorities or primary care organisations should take responsibility for appraisal processes.


AIMS
To evaluate the introduction of a pilot peer appraisal system in general practice and to gain insight into the reactions of appraisers and doctors.


DESIGN OF STUDY
Semi-structured telephone interviews combined with participant surveys and documentary analysis.


SETTING
Five health authorities in Wales.


PARTICIPANTS
General practitioners (GPs) appointed as appraisers and volunteer practitioners (doctors).


METHOD
Twenty-six appraisers were appointed and given training in the appraisal process, each appraising an average of eight individuals. Appraisers and appraised doctors participated in semi-structured telephone interviews and completed separate participant questionnaires.


RESULTS
GPs willingly undertook peer appraisal in a volunteer-based pilot study where participation was recompensed. The majority of participating clinicians were positive, with appraisers reporting the most gain. Appraisers were enthusiastic, provided the process remained non-judgemental and did not threaten or burden their colleagues. Appraised doctors were less enthusiastic but the most significant perceived benefit was the opportunity to reflect on individual performance with a supportive colleague. There were, however, repeated concerns about time, confusion with revalidation and personal development plans, worries about including health and probity queries, and an opinion that the process would be entirely different if conducted with non-volunteers or by representatives of 'management'.


CONCLUSION
This study illustrated three fundamental problems for appraisal systems in general practice. First, there is as yet no organisational hierarchy in general practice. Perhaps the aggregation of practices into primary care organisations will generate a hierarchy. Second, the question of who conducts appraisals then becomes pertinent; this study illustrates a professionally-led peer appraisal model. Third, the spectre of summative assessment causes problems in appraisal schemes. Typically, only mutually agreed summaries are kept for future use in appraisal systems (for example, for promotion or discipline). So the proposal to use GP annual appraisal documentation as the basis of a summative 'revalidation' exercise is at odds with orthodox personnel practice, which regards appraisal as a formative process.