Skip to main content
. 2016 Mar 11;66(645):e277–e284. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X684373

Table 3.

Appraisers’ modal evaluations of feedback reports A to H with reports grouped by the pattern of doctor’s feedback scores

Report Pattern of doctor’s feedback scores Evaluative item, n/N (% participants)

Overall assessment of report Level of concern about doctor’s performance Acceptability of doctor’s performance
A Fell within ‘normal distribution’ of scores on PQ and on CQ Very good (64/100; 64) Not at all (58/100; 58) Clearly acceptable (73/100; 73)

E Very good (54/88; 61) Not at all (76/88; 86) Clearly acceptable (86/88; 98)

H Very good (48/87; 55) Not at all (64/87; 74) Clearly acceptable (80/87; 92)

F Satisfactory (58/89; 65) Minor only (62/89; 70) Probably acceptable (47/89; 53)

B Outliera on PQ only Satisfactory (42/95; 44) Minor only (44/95; 46) Probably acceptable (58/95; 61)

C Outliera on CQ only Satisfactory (45/93; 48) Significant (48/93; 52) Probably acceptable (63/93; 68)

G Outliera on CQ only Satisfactory (58/87; 67) Minor only (55/87; 63) Probably acceptable (63/87; 72)

D Outliera on PQ and on CQ Borderline (44/91; 48) Significant (62/91; 68) Probably acceptable (57/91; 63)
a

Outlying Patient Questionnaire (PQ) or Colleague Questionnaire (CQ) overall scores were >1.96 standard deviations below the mean PQ or CQ overall score (standardised Z score ≤1.96) calculated for all doctors who participated in GMC questionnaire pilot work.3