BMJ  2004;328:1240 (22 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7450.1240

Learning in practice

Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians

¹ Primary Care Group, Swansea Clinical School, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea SA2 8PP

Abstract

Objectives To identify existing instruments for rating peers (professional colleagues) in medical practice and to evaluate them in terms of how they have been developed, their validity and reliability, and their appropriateness for use in clinical settings, including primary care.

Design Systematic literature review.

Data sources Electronic search techniques, snowball sampling, and correspondence with specialists.

Study selection The peer assessment instruments identified were evaluated in terms of how they were developed and to what extent, if relevant, their psychometric properties had been determined.

Results A search of six electronic databases identified 4566 possible articles. After appraisal of the abstracts and in depth assessment of 42 articles, three rating scales fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were fully appraised. The three instruments did not meet established standards of instrument development, as no reference was made to a theoretical framework and the published psychometric data omitted essential work on construct and criterion validity. Rater training was absent, and guidance consisted of short written instructions. Two instruments were developed for a hospital setting in the United States and one for a primary care setting in Canada.

Conclusions The instruments developed to date for physicians to evaluate characteristics of colleagues need further assessment of validity before their widespread use is merited.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training

Julian C Archer, John Norcini, and Helena A Davies
BMJ 2005 330: 1251-1253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Can poorly performing doctors blame their assessment tools?

Richard Baker
BMJ 2005 330: 1254. [Full Text] [PDF]

Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians: Clinics with peers keep you on the straight and narrow...

Charles Essex
BMJ 2004 329: 171. [Extract] [Full Text]

Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians: ... and our impact on one another is important

Irwin M Rubin and Sarah W Fraser
BMJ 2004 329: 171. [Extract] [Full Text]

Doctors are not equipped to judge their peers
BMJ 2004 328: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Lelliott, P., Williams, R., Mears, A., Andiappan, M., Owen, H., Reading, P., Coyle, N., Hunter, S. (2008). Questionnaires for 360-degree assessment of consultant psychiatrists: development and psychometric properties. Br. J. Psychiatry 193: 156-160 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Campbell, J L, Richards, S H, Dickens, A, Greco, M, Narayanan, A, Brearley, S (2008). Assessing the professional performance of UK doctors: an evaluation of the utility of the General Medical Council patient and colleague questionnaires. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 187-193 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Naeem, A., Kent, A., Vijayakrishnan, A. (2007). Foundation programme assessment tools in psychiatry. Psychiatr. Bull. 31: 427-430 [Full text]  
• McKay, J, Murphy, D J, Bowie, P, Schmuck, M-L, Lough, M, Eva, K W (2007). Development and testing of an assessment instrument for the formative peer review of significant event analyses. Qual Saf Health Care 16: 150-153 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Evans, R. G, Edwards, A., Evans, S., Elwyn, B., Elwyn, G. (2007). Assessing the practising physician using patient surveys: a systematic review of instruments and feedback methods. Fam Pract 24: 117-127 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Stockwell, D. C., Slonim, A. D. (2006). Quality and Safety in the Intensive Care Unit. J Intensive Care Med 21: 199-210 [Abstract]  
• Brown, N., Doshi, M. (2006). Assessing professional and clinical competence: the way forward. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 12: 81-89 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Violato, C., Lockyer, J. M., Fidler, H. (2006). Assessment of Pediatricians by a Regulatory Authority. Pediatrics 117: 796-802 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Evans Cuellar, A., Kelleher, K. J., Rolls, J. A., Pajer, K. (2005). Medicaid Insurance Policy for Youths Involved in the Criminal Justice System. AJPH 95: 1707-1711 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Dauphinee, W D. (2005). Self regulation must be made to work. BMJ 330: 1385-1387 [Full text]  
• Bowie, P, McKay, J, Dalgetty, E, Lough, M (2005). A qualitative study of why general practitioners may participate in significant event analysis and educational peer assessment. Qual Saf Health Care 14: 185-189 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Baker, R. (2005). Can poorly performing doctors blame their assessment tools?. BMJ 330: 1254-1254 [Full text]  
• Archer, J. C, Norcini, J., Davies, H. A (2005). Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. BMJ 330: 1251-1253 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Essex, C. (2004). Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians: Clinics with peers keep you on the straight and narrow.... BMJ 329: 171-171 [Full text]  
• Rubin, I. M, Fraser, S. W (2004). Review of instruments for peer assessment of physicians: ... and our impact on one another is important. BMJ 329: 171-171 [Full text]  
• Lough, M. (2004). "Soft" assessment--an oxymoron?. BMJ 328: 1243-1243 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

The invalidity of revalidation

Andrew A Al-Adwani
bmj.com, 21 May 2004 [Full text]

Face-to-face validity

Irwin M Rubin, et al.
bmj.com, 24 May 2004 [Full text]

Clinics with peers keep you on the stright and narrow.

Charles Essex
bmj.com, 25 May 2004 [Full text]

Peer assessment and good medical practice

Roger N Chitty
bmj.com, 31 May 2004 [Full text]

Peer assessment in general practice has a 15 year history

John D Holden
bmj.com, 9 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Peer assessment has potential

Helena A Davies, et al.
bmj.com, 23 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>