Table 3.
GP Appraisers' attitudes towards the feasibility, acceptability, and educational gain of peer-reviewed significant event analyses (n = 44).
| Level of agreement, rating scale 1–7a | ||
|---|---|---|
| Attitudinal statement | Median | Number of rating scores ≥4 |
| Feasibility | ||
| Undertaking a SEA using the method outlined is feasible as part of normal general practice | 7 | 44 |
| Submitting at least one SEA report for external peer feedback should be feasible for most GPs over a 5-year period | 7 | 44 |
| Acceptability | ||
| I was happy to have my SEA reviewed by trained colleagues | 7 | 44 |
| The feedback I received on my completed SEA was fair | 6 | 42 |
| I understood the process by which my SEA was peer reviewed | 6 | 42 |
| Submitting at least one SEA report for external peer feedback over a 5-year period would be acceptable to most GPs | 6 | 42 |
| Educational impact | ||
| The feedback helped me understand more about the process of completing a SEA | 4 | 33 |
| The feedback gave me specific advice on how to improve my significant event analyses | 5 | 36 |
| I have made (or will make) changes that have improved my ability to conduct significant event analyses in the practice | 4 | 32 |
| Assessment of SEA by peer feedback is a useful educational tool | 6 | 41 |
| Submitting at least one SEA report for external peer feedback over a 5-year period would have an educational impact for most GPs | 6 | 41 |
a
1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. SEA = significant event analysis.